Beginning with luther?

[Bookcat]

Well Paul definitely does not change his view on excommunication from Judaism. To abstain from eating with someone and not associating with people are what Jews did to those who were unrighteous before God.

Paul is applying this to a gentile church.

Answered above. Prudential judgment…etc

 

[Bookcat]

“Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us.

This “custody” of others is in contrast to a mentality that, by reducing life exclusively to its earthly dimension, fails to see it in an eschatological perspective and accepts any moral choice in the name of personal freedom. A society like ours can become blind to physical sufferings and to the spiritual and moral demands of life. This must not be the case in the Christian community! The Apostle Paul encourages us to seek “the ways which lead to peace and the ways in which we can support one another” (Rom 14:19) for our neighbour’s good, “so that we support one another” (15:2), seeking not personal gain but rather “the advantage of everybody else, so that they may be saved” (1 Cor 10:33). This mutual correction and encouragement in a spirit of humility and charity must be part of the life of the Christian community.

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111103_lent-2012_en.html

 

[choliks]

Well Paul definitely does not change his view on excommunication from Judaism. To abstain from eating with someone and not associating with people are what Jews did to those who were unrighteous before God.

Paul is applying this to a gentile church.

Whoa Nelly! Then what did Christ do when he entered Zacchaeus home? What did Christ do when he ate with sinners?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Christ came to save sinners! He came to call them to repentance!

If Zacheaus rejected Jesus, he would have put all the woes on him as Bethsaida, Capernaum, and jerusalem

 

[choliks]

Christ came to save sinners! He came to call them to repentance!

If Zacheaus rejected Jesus, he would have put all the woes on him as Bethsaida, Capernaum, and jerusalem

But wasn’t Zacchaeus unrighteous before God because he was a sinner, yet Christ entered his home?

Even Peter, who intimately knows Jesus, denied Him. Yet he was not disowned.

The Church also shares in Christ’s mission to save sinners.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I am sorry. The rule of faith does not change. When someone gets saved, they are freed from sin and must be slaves to righteousness. If a rapper living in the bronx comes to Jesus and goes through RCIA and is baptized into the church, and still wants to get drunk and sleep around, he has to be excommunicated until he repents.

Very good point. But what you have to realize is that the power to bind and loosen is the authority of the church.

What this means is NOT that the church can make something immoral in to something moral or vice-versa. What it means is that the church has the authority to decide punishment and laws to best guide the faithful.

In the early church, some methods could be stricter or lax compared to today. It doesn’t mean that the church has strayed. It just means that the church has decided the best laws for today are different.

So today, the church might make head covering for women an optional thing. It does not mean that the church has strayed. It just means that the church has decided/felt that natural order of man over woman can be maintained without it. Now if the church denied the natural order of man over woman (a truth of faith), then the Church would have indeed strayed but it does not teach that.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes a great thicket. But the same thicket exists within the catholic apologists modern day. One says onething, another says another.

If we are stripped of our rational ability to read historical documents with the same objective materials at hand to best understand it, then it is just a power plant to overcome all resistance.

Hands down the protestant doctrine was there in the fathers.

It really depends on how you interpret the fathers as well.

This is why, unless you try to answer the question “WHO do I give assent to”, instead of “WHAT do I give assent to”, you will always be in doubt. You might even see what you want to see when you read the fathers/Scripture and any other thing written outside of the era you live in.

So what is important is that you listen and give assent to the Apostles and their Apostolic Successors. You listen to the teachings of Church fathers because they tell you to. You listen to the teachings of Ecumenical Councils because they tell you to. You even accept the Bible as the word of God because they tell you to.

Therefore, unless you accept and give full assent to the Apostolic Successors, you are really left with nothing. The biggest sustained illusion of the Protestant faith is that you can reject Apostolic Authority and still hold on to the Bible. It unfortunately (or fortunately) is not true.

In this sense, most of your work on this forum is a bit off the mark. Your real question should be in verifying that Apostles passed on their authority to those they laid their hands on. You can answer this question by simply using the Church Father writings and the New Testament writings as a mere HISTORICAL text. So don’t try to extrapolate teaching from it. Just look at it to see how the early Church operated.

Once you answer that simple question, you can finally give full assent to the Apostolic Successors today. Then you will read the Bible, Tradition, and other sources in light of Church teaching. What you are trying to do now is read Bible, Tradition and other sources without anyone. So you will most likely end up reading your own beliefs in to it or construct one of many possible interpretations you can construct.

If you are interested more about this line of thinking, I would be more than happy to discuss via PM as well

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I understand what you are saying. However, let’s look at Tertullian for example. He is one of the early testimonies that the scripture is not to be, by itself, a strong arguer for orthodox truth. Rather those apostolic churches in whom the apostolic foundations were deposited are to be the way one sees orthodoxy. He even exalts Rome as the highest and most pure of these apostolic sees.

But then look at what he does later in life, he realizes that there is a reason to break away from the Catholic Church. Therefore, if he knew it was absolutely binding for all to submit to Rome, why would he have made such a move? He believed he was going in the direction Christ would have had him go. If he believed there was this invisible power in the office of Rome, upon which the will of Christ is settled for matters of faith and morals, then why the freedom to make the move to montanism?

Out of his own mouth he finds a standard for orthodoxy and then yet later understands that this is not free from corruption.

 

[choliks]

I understand what you are saying. However, let’s look at Tertullian for example. He is one of the early testimonies that the scripture is not to be, by itself, a strong arguer for orthodox truth. Rather those apostolic churches in whom the apostolic foundations were deposited are to be the way one sees orthodoxy. He even exalts Rome as the highest and most pure of these apostolic sees.

But then look at what he does later in life, he realizes that there is a reason to break away from the Catholic Church. Therefore, if he knew it was absolutely binding for all to submit to Rome, why would he have made such a move? He believed he was going in the direction Christ would have had him go. If he believed there was this invisible power in the office of Rome, upon which the will of Christ is settled for matters of faith and morals, then why the freedom to make the move to montanism?

Because he has the freedom to do so? Just as everyone has the freedom to choose to be apart from God.

Out of his own mouth he finds a standard for orthodoxy and then yet later understands that this is not free from corruption.

I don’t think anybody will find a perfect church. Good luck finding one.

The people that make up the Catholic Church may be imperfect, but her teachings remain constant. She never claimed to be pure nor perfect. She remains holy despite her imperfections because Christ is her head.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I understand what you are saying. However, let’s look at Tertullian for example. He is one of the early testimonies that the scripture is not to be, by itself, a strong arguer for orthodox truth. Rather those apostolic churches in whom the apostolic foundations were deposited are to be the way one sees orthodoxy. He even exalts Rome as the highest and most pure of these apostolic sees.

But then look at what he does later in life, he realizes that there is a reason to break away from the Catholic Church. Therefore, if he knew it was absolutely binding for all to submit to Rome, why would he have made such a move? He believed he was going in the direction Christ would have had him go. If he believed there was this invisible power in the office of Rome, upon which the will of Christ is settled for matters of faith and morals, then why the freedom to make the move to montanism?

Out of his own mouth he finds a standard for orthodoxy and then yet later understands that this is not free from corruption.

Well, you are perhaps taking the wrong things from Tertullian. What I means is that Tertullian and his story should be treated historically. Not theologically.

In other words, the only reason you should be looking in to any of the church fathers before being Catholic/Protestant/or other form of Christianity is to first verify the historicity of Apostolic Succession.

In this sense, with Tertullian, you hit a gold mine. You see that even Tertullian, admits that such a hierarchy exists. Now later he did decide to break with this hierarchy. All of which point to the proof of its historical existence. After all, you cannot breakaway from that which does not exist.

So as someone who is starting from scratch after perhaps seeing the risen Christ or having an experience of him, this means the following.

*1) I saw/experienced/discovered historicity of risen Christ
2) His death and resurrection gives me reason to believe in his authority of the transcendent
3) I would like to know what he taught regarding the transcendent and about himself
*
Now this is where the usual error happens for most. They adopt

4a) I will read the Bible*

This is problematic because if you had been an early Christian, that option was never available to you. Also, speaking from the point of everyday reason, that does not make sense; because it does not seem intuitive to go from Christ to immediately reading the Bible. The only answer I can think of is that “Bible mentions Christ”. But this too is problematic because there can be many texts that mention Christ i.e. even the Quran.

So given one knows that Jesus was a teacher figure, the course of action that is most compatible with everyday reason is to turn to the ones who taught i.e. Apostles. In case you feel it is counter-intuitive, you only have to consider the example of academic structures back in the day (not much different from today actually). If you wanted to learn the thoughts/teachings/knowledge of a certain renowned teacher, you would usually turn to his student in historical times (just as we do even today with Professors and their Phd students). So you have

*4) I turn to the Apostles
5) I can historically discover through historical (not theological) reading of Church Father Writings/ Writings by Pagan Experience of the Church/Using NT texts as mere historical documents (2 Tim 2:2 for an example) that Apostles taught and practiced Apostolic Succession *

So it is step (5) that you first hit the Church fathers. So here is where you will come across the likes of Tertullian. At this point what is important is not the fact that Tertullian defected or his theological positions for it. What is important is the historical hierarchy he describes. Note at none of the preceding steps do we try to understand/learn what Christ taught (i.e. Theology). All the analysis is purely historical/every day reason based.

So after step (5), it follows logically that

6) I must therefore assent to the Apostolic Successors today regarding learning about Jesus
7) I must therefore assent to all the teachings of the Church (where Canon of Bible, the claim that the Bible is the word of God, importance of Tradition are also part of the teaching)
8) Hence I must read/interpret Scripture and Tradition in light of all Church teaching
9) If my interpretation is contrary to the Church, I am wrong
10) If church interpretation seems hard to reconcile with something I read, I have to work and pray asking God for the light to understand how to reconcile

To say a word about (10) by giving an example, there was a period in time where it felt difficult to reconcile the issue of Divine Providence and Free-will. The solutions, which were discovered sometime after to reconcile, were also somewhat complex and probably not comprehensible to the average lay person. At meeting this difficulty, the one with an incorrect foundation of faith will assume that the Church is wrong and discard one of the positions i.e. either free-will or divine providence. The one with the correct foundation, will persevere.

So really, all it comes down to discovering the true faith is the above steps. All of which are accessible through everyday reason and publicly available writing i.e. Church Fathers, Scripture, Council Proceedings of early Church etc. The issues start to happen if you skip this sequence. Then you will have certain incomplete truths and distrust toward the very premises (built through your interpretation of these incomplete set of truths) that would have otherwise been the most intuitive and foundational on your way to grasping the truth.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand what you are saying. However, let’s look at Tertullian for example. He is one of the early testimonies that the scripture is not to be, by itself, a strong arguer for orthodox truth. Rather those apostolic churches in whom the apostolic foundations were deposited are to be the way one sees orthodoxy. He even exalts Rome as the highest and most pure of these apostolic sees.

But then look at what he does later in life, he realizes that there is a reason to break away from the Catholic Church. Therefore, if he knew it was absolutely binding for all to submit to Rome, why would he have made such a move? He believed he was going in the direction Christ would have had him go. If he believed there was this invisible power in the office of Rome, upon which the will of Christ is settled for matters of faith and morals, then why the freedom to make the move to montanism?

Out of his own mouth he finds a standard for orthodoxy and then yet later understands that this is not free from corruption.

Ah…. Tertullian…

Yes …good people can go off the rails…

Tis a reality that can happen.

(a lessen for all…)

Thus the importance to look to the office of Peter …and not go off on ones own.

Tertullian unfortunately went off the rails in the later period of his life.

I say this as a one who loves reading Tertullian…

(I will post a great audience from Pope Benedict XVI on him below – the Pope puts things better than me…as always. Multiple readings may be needful to see all the various keen insights he relates regarding him)

 

[Bookcat]

BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE

St Peter’s Square
Wednesday, 30 May 2007

Tertullian

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

With today’s Catechesis we return to the catechetical series we interrupted due to the Journey to Brazil and continue to speak of the ancient Church’s great personalities. They are teachers of the faith also for us today and witnesses of the perennial timeliness of the Christian faith.

Today, we speak of an African, Tertullian, who from the end of the second and beginning of the third century inaugurated Christian literature in the Latin language. He started the use of theology in Latin. His work brought decisive benefits which it would be unforgivable to underestimate. His influence covered different areas: linguistically, from the use of language and the recovery of classical culture, to singling out a common “Christian soul” in the world and in the formulation of new proposals of human coexistence.

We do not know the exact dates of his birth and death. Instead, we know that at Carthage, toward the end of the second century, he received a solid education in rhetoric, philosophy, history and law from his pagan parents and tutors. He then converted to Christianity, attracted, so it seems, by the example of the Christian martyrs.

He began to publish his most famous writings in 197. But a too individualistic search for the truth, together with his intransigent character - he was a rigorous man - gradually led him away from communion with the Church to belong to the Montanist sect. The originality of his thought, however, together with an incisive efficacy of language, assured him a high position in ancient Christian literature.

His apologetic writings are above all the most famous. They manifest two key intentions: to refute the grave accusations that pagans directed against the new religion; and, more proactive and missionary, to proclaim the Gospel message in dialogue with the culture of the time.

His most famous work, Apologeticus, denounces the unjust behaviour of political authorities toward the Church; explains and defends the teachings and customs of Christians; spells out differences between the new religion and the main philosophical currents of the time; and manifests the triumph of the Spirit that counters its persecutors with the blood, suffering and patience of the martyrs: “Refined as it is”, the African writes, “your cruelty serves no purpose. On the contrary, for our community, it is an invitation. We multiply every time one of us is mowed down. The blood of Christians is effective seed” (semen est sanguis christianorum!, Apologeticus, 50: 13).

Martyrdom, suffering for the truth, is in the end victorious and more efficient than the cruelty and violence of totalitarian regimes.

–Part II next.

 

[Bookcat]

Continued:

But Tertullian, as every good apologist, at the same time sensed the need to communicate the essence of Christianity positively. This is why he adopted the speculative method to illustrate the rational foundations of Christian dogma. He developed it in a systematic way, beginning with the description of “the God of the Christians”: “He whom we adore”, the Apologist wrote, “is the one, only God”. And he continued, using antitheses and paradoxes characteristic of his language: “He is invisible, even if you see him, difficult to grasp, even if he is present through grace; inconceivable even if the human senses can perceive him, therefore, he is true and great!” (cf. ibid., 17: 1-2).

Furthermore, Tertullian takes an enormous step in the development of Trinitarian dogma. He has given us an appropriate way to express this great mystery in Latin by introducing the terms “one substance” and “three Persons”. In a similar way, he also greatly developed the correct language to express the mystery of Christ, Son of God and true Man.

The Holy Spirit is also considered in the African’s writings, demonstrating his personal and divine character: “We believe that, according to his promise, Jesus Christ sent, by means of his Father, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of all those who believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 2: 1).

Again, there are in Tertullian’s writings numerous texts on the Church, whom he always recognizes as “mother”. Even after his acceptance of Montanism, he did not forget that the Church is the Mother of our faith and Christian life.

He even considers the moral conduct of Christians and the future life. His writings are important as they also show the practical trends in the Christian community regarding Mary Most Holy, the Sacraments of the Eucharist, Matrimony and Reconciliation, Petrine primacy, prayer… In a special way, in those times of persecution when Christians seemed to be a lost minority, the Apologist exhorted them to hope, which in his treatises is not simply a virtue in itself, but something that involves every aspect of Christian existence.

We have the hope that the future is ours because the future is God’s. Therefore, the Lord’s Resurrection is presented as the foundation of our future resurrection and represents the main object of the Christian’s confidence: “And so the flesh shall rise again”, the African categorically affirms, “wholly in every man, in its own identity, in its absolute integrity. Wherever it may be, it is in safe keeping in God’s presence, through that most faithful Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, who shall reconcile both God to man, and man to God” (Concerning the Resurrection of the Flesh, 63: 1).

From the human viewpoint one can undoubtedly speak of Tertullian’s own drama. With the passing of years he became increasingly exigent in regard to the Christians. He demanded heroic behaviour from them in every circumstance, above all under persecution.

Rigid in his positions, he did not withhold blunt criticism and he inevitably ended by finding himself isolated.

Besides, many questions still remain open today, not only on Tertullian’s theological and philosophical thought, but also on his attitude in regard to political institutions and pagan society.

This great moral and intellectual personality, this man who made such a great contribution to Christian thought, makes me think deeply. One sees that in the end he lacked the simplicity, the humility to integrate himself with the Church, to accept his weaknesses, to be forbearing with others and himself.

When one only sees his thought in all its greatness, in the end, it is precisely this greatness that is lost. The essential characteristic of a great theologian is the humility to remain with the Church, to accept his own and others’ weaknesses, because actually only God is all holy. We, instead, always need forgiveness.

Finally, the African remains an interesting witness of the early times of the Church, when Christians found they were the authentic protagonists of a “new culture” in the critical confrontation between the classical heritage and the Gospel message.

In his famous affirmation according to which our soul “is naturally Christian” (Apologeticus 17: 6), Tertullian evokes the perennial continuity between authentic human values and Christian ones. Also in his other reflection borrowed directly from the Gospel, according to which “the Christian cannot hate, not even his enemies” (cf. Apologeticus 37), is found the unavoidable moral resolve, the choice of faith which proposes “non-violence” as the rule of life. Indeed, no one can escape the dramatic aptness of this teaching, also in light of the heated debate on religions.

In summary, the treatises of this African trace many themes that we are still called to face today. They involve us in a fruitful interior examination to which I exhort all the faithful, so that they may know how to express in an always more convincing manner the Rule of faith, which - again, referring to Tertullian - “prescribes the belief that there is only one God and that he is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through his own Word, generated before all things” (cf. Concerning the Prescription of Heretics, 13: 1).

–Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070530_en.html

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But do you not think it is “scary” (to say the least) that the early church fathers were unaware of this unique Petrine foundation?

 

[Bookcat]

But do you not think it is “scary” (to say the least) that the early church fathers were unaware of this unique Petrine foundation?

Such would not be an accurate assessment…

So no I do not find things fitting for halloween …

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Was Israel unaware of the Davidic dynasty?

 

[Bookcat]

The Church was not unaware of the office of Peter.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

If Christ ordained the petrine dynasty it would have been universally known as a dogma from the get-go

 

[Bookcat]

Such would not be an accurate assessment…

So no I do not find things fitting for halloween …

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But wasn’t Zacchaeus unrighteous before God because he was a sinner, yet Christ entered his home?

Even Peter, who intimately knows Jesus, denied Him. Yet he was not disowned.

The Church also shares in Christ’s mission to save sinners.

Yes zacheaus was a sinner, but if he repented and then later went back into sin, he would be under the discipline of the church.