Given the choice, from which source would you prefere to learn the faith - the Scriptures, or a living apostle?

[simspt]

[Chaunceygardner;7253269]

I think if we could bring one of the Apostles back to our time he would be amazed at what he would see. He would look at the Vatican and all the layers of bureaucracy and be astounded and dismayed at how the churches of believers that he and the others started 2000 years ago had become such an unwieldy monolithic institution.

or be grieved at the disunity of Christendom

He would look at the volumes of rules, rubrics and doctrines and wonder how we could have created a church that was so similar to the established church of his time that Jesus condemned, a church ruled by Pharisees and Scholars of the Law who had little regard for the people confused and cowed by their labyrinth of laws.

or be dismayed at the volumes of denominations with teachings antithetical to each other.

He would be incredulous that the focus is now on “right belief” and following orders and rules, rather than on love for God and neighbor and on following the words and example of Jesus. He would wonder how the Church could have deviated so much from the Gospel of Jesus that he had devoted his life to and likely gave up his life for.

or he might wonder why so many today ignore the “right belief” of the CC that is based on centuries of tradition, a living tradition that has included liturgical and ecclesial practices and a history of authentically and authoritatively interpreting the Bible that fostered doctrines that are integral to the Gospel. A Biblical interpretation rooted deep within the Church beginning with apostolic preaching and the canonical books that embody that teaching. A “right belief” that has been taken for granted by many in relation to the Trinity and Incarnation beliefs we share.

What exists of the true Church, the people of God, can be found in our local parishes and faith communities, spiritually far, far from Rome. This is where the Holy Spirit can still be found, working in and through people who every day strive to love their neighbor and live the Gospel of Jesus.

Mother Teresa and the Missionaries of Charity she founded I doubt would see any contradiction between her affiliation with the Vatican and her desire to “live the Gospel of Jesus” she so abundantly did by helping “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”.

 

[chaunceygardner]

How are they [parishes, local churches, dioceses, national churches] marginalized???

This is what I hear from Catholic parishoners, priests and bishops, and read about in the media (including CAF): Less and less collaboration and inclusion, more and more unilateral decisions and exclusion.

Yes, the Pope and the bishops in union with him who have always had the authority – not the laity! This is still true, but now as to this autonomy, is relative, inasmuch as the bishops and the churches are in union with all the other bishops and churches of the whole world.

Why not the laity? The creation of the hierarchical church and the separation of the ordained from the people is nothing like the churches of the Apostles. Did Jesus distance himself from the people? Did He consider the highly placed church authorities to be the worthiest? Or did He mix with the people, including the unclean, the unchurched and the outcasts? And didn’t He find the lowliest of those to be the closest to God, not the priests or the temple authorities?

Yes, on paper the bishops are in union with each other, but in reality their joint authority too has been marginalized by the concentration of power at the Vatican.

Further, the bishops who are in communion with the Pope do in fact have full authority over their respective dioceses; bishops do not “share” this authority with their fellow bishops outside their particular jurisdiction.

That is true to a point, but many decisions that they used to make on their own are now reserved to Rome. You also seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat, saying in one place that the bishops do not share authority and in another that their autonomy is relative.

Ignatius was not noting the authority of the church at Rome, but the strength of their faith. Irenaeus was trying to combat “heresies”; he was not saying that authority should be concentrated in Rome, but that all the churches should follow their example. The fact that he had to write this shows how much variance there was between the regional churches at the time.

I think St. Paul would recoil in utter shock and disbelief, not at the Vatican, but at the scandalous divisions of Christians

You are likely right about Paul’s dismay over the divisions, but I still think he and the other Apostles would be just as shocked over what had happened to the church they founded.

The Church is in fact a “monolithic institution”! It is a single entity, a unity, a giant “stone,” “monolith”- built up of many “lithos” (Greek for stones), with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Matt. 21:42).

Thanks for admitting this. The connotation for monolith is not a positive one, and implies something that is not adaptable to the needs of the people…something that Jesus would have expected of it. We are told in Scripture that the Lord hears the “cry of the poor”, so shouldn’t the church do the same in responding to its people?

Now clearly Christ founded only ONE Church! And this ONE Church was to grow and spread all over the world, yet ever remaining ONE Church i.e., a “monolithic institution”.

Whether Christ actually founded a church, and what is meant by church, has been argued on many threads on this forum and others.

And indeed this Church has grown from a handful to over a billion members, spread all over the world! Such tremendous growth of an institution absolutely necessitates the need for structure and organization! Or what do you propose? That this Church, which has been growing and developing for 2000 years, should have her 20 centuries of life effaced by some misguided return to a ‘simpler’ “biblical Christianity”??

I am glad you admit the church today is an institution with structure and organization. Kind of like a big corporation or government. Christ did not leave us an organization, he left us a faith, a way to the Kingdom of God. Where do I find that church amongst the labyrinth of doctrines, rubrics and hierarchical authorities? It is almost hidden by what man has built around and over it.

Whatever “Biblical Christianity” there was in first century ended with the death of the last apostle, and a new phase of growth of the Church began!

I give the church more credit than you do for hanging on a little longer beyond the last Apostle. I would say Constantine was the tipping point for the change. Biblical Christianity should and does exist to this day; without the Bible, there would be no church.

There simply is no possibility whatsoever of some wrongheaded returning again to a ‘simpler’ form of “Biblical Christianity”!

You are sadly correct about this, at least as far as most of the churches of today are concerned. But individual people and some congregations can do this.

Next you’ll be telling us that Luther was another Christ, come to condemn these later day pharisees and redeem mankind!! How far do you wish to press this blasphemous analogy??

I have great respect for Luther, as a man who saw a problem and tried to correct it. I liken Luther to some of the prophets of the OT who warned Israel, its leaders and its people about their failures to live according to the Word of God, with basically the same results.

Why do people insist on ever repeating the same old lies and slanders of the Reformers?? And how is it you can hold that, despite the Church being built on the solid, indestructible, and unchangeable Rock of Christ, nevertheless God ultimately destined his Church to fall back into a corrupt Judaism???

Even something built on a very solid foundation can crack, tilt, and crumble. And God did not cause this, it is solely the result of fallible man.

 

[elvisman]

Two things, Christ fails to mention Peter’s successors. After all it doesn’t say that the church will be built on Peter and his successors or trustees. And Christ says that no evil will prevail against it, but it certainly leads to the possibility of infiltration. And if you want to take a literal reading of this, then the only place safe from evil is St. Peter’s Basilica and the rest of the Church or even Vatican City is in danger.

This is an exremely WEAK argument, Mike.
John 21: 25 tells us in no uncertain terms:
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
It NEVER talks about the things he did - does it?

---

We also read in Acts 1:2 -
"… until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."
It NEVER mentions just WHAT he instructed them to do other than staying in Jerusalem to wait for the holy spirit - does it?

**By the way - another thing Christ fails to mention - ANYWHERE in the Gospel - is the fact that there would be a written New Testament, but we HAVE one, don’t we?
That was due to Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

 

[Nicea325]

Two things, Christ fails to mention Peter’s successors. After all it doesn’t say that the church will be built on Peter and his successors or trustees. And Christ says that no evil will prevail against it, but it certainly leads to the possibility of infiltration. And if you want to take a literal reading of this, then the only place safe from evil is St. Peter’s Basilica and the rest of the Church or even Vatican City is in danger.

Well if you want to play the 'failed-to-mention" line,fair enough. Jesus also failed miserably to mention an established canon for scripture? Should we kick it to the curb,because Jesus never says a word about it?

Your arguments are absurd, no offense.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

This is what I hear from Catholic parishoners, priests and bishops, and read about in the media (including CAF): Less and less collaboration and inclusion, more and more unilateral decisions and exclusion.

Examples?

The creation of the hierarchical church and the separation of the ordained from the people is nothing like the churches of the Apostles.

There was hierarchy because Paul was a priest, called “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming (ministering) the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an *offering *acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” Romans 15:16

1. “Priestly duty” is a translation of the Greek Leitourgos (often translated as minister, but better translated as priest). The word liturgy comes from this.
2. The word “proclaiming” (more often translated as "ministering’) is the Greek word Hierourgeo, which means “to minister in the manner of a priest.” It is from the base Hieron, meaning “a sacred place, temple.”
3. Paul uses priestly sacrificial language again when he says “the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God”. The word offering is the Greek “Prosphora”, which means “that which is offered, a gift, a present. In the NT a SACRIFICE, whether bloody or not: offering for sin, expiatory offering.”

The apostle’s language is thoroughly sacrificial and priestly here! See the interlinear here.

Did Jesus distance himself from the people?

No. And he was a priest - and a high priest a that! Thus we see that priesthood,* far* from causing “separation” from the people, is actually an integral part of God’s plan of UNITING mankind with himself!

Nor did he separate himself from the Jewish leaders, even though some were bad. Jesus was not an elitist; he associated and spoke directly to all the people, from the highest to the lowest. He was a friend of sinners.

Did He consider the highly placed church authorities to be the worthiest?

1. Jesus didn’t attack the office of those “highly placed church authorities,” only their behavior. Jesus commanded his hearers not to follow the Jews bad example, but nevertheless to *obey * “all that they tell you,” because they held a legitimate office.

*Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

• Matt. 23:1-3.

Yes, on paper the bishops are in union with each other, but in reality their joint authority too has been marginalized by the concentration of power at the Vatican.

How?

That is true to a point, but many decisions that they used to make on their own are now reserved to Rome.

Such as?

You also seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat, saying in one place that the bishops do not share authority and in another that their autonomy is relative.

Well you have to remember that the bishop’s autonomy is relative because there is only *one * Church. So while each bishop governs his own diocese, his authority (and his autonomy) nevertheless is not absolute; he must also govern in union with the whole church. The bishop is not like a dictator, not like a Calvin, who ruled with an iron hand and ruthlessly persecuted all who dared oppose him (for an intro to this, see my post here).

Ignatius was not noting the authority of the church at Rome, but the strength of their faith.

You’re starting to sound desperate here! Listen again to what Ignatius says of the Roman Church, “you rank first in love, being true to Christ’s law and stamped with the Father’s name.” Further, he writes:

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].”

Another translation of the last sentence is: "remain in force

Ignatius thus recognizes Rome as the* teacher *of the other Christians churches (and what good is a teacher in this sense without authority?). Further, he wishes this teaching (or the Roman Church) to remain.

Irenaeus was trying to combat “heresies”; he was not saying that authority should be concentrated in Rome, but that all the churches should follow their example.

You’'re just obsessed with authority! But look again at what Ignatius says of the Roman Church:

“For it is a matter of NECESSITY that every Church should agree with this Church … inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Against Heresies, III, 3:2.

For Ignatius, it was a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with Rome, whose faith was “spoken of throughout the whole world.” Rom. 1:8

I’ll finish responding later.

Peace.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Whether Christ actually founded a church, and what is meant by church, has been argued on many threads on this forum and others.

Right. But let us know if you ever figure it out!

I am glad you admit the church today is an institution with structure and organization. Kind of like a big corporation or government. Christ did not leave us an organization, he left us a faith, a way to the Kingdom of God.

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments (or administrations), diversities of tongues.” 1 Cor. 12:28

The Greek word for “governments” here is Kubernesis. It is the root of such words as govern and gubernatorial.

So Scripture attests to the fact that Church does indeed have an authoritative governing body. (ah, there’s that dreaded word “authority” again!)

Where do I find that church amongst the labyrinth of doctrines, rubrics and hierarchical authorities? It is almost hidden by what man has built around and over it.

Which doctrines etc specifically are you objecting to here? Any examples?

I give the church more credit than you do for hanging on a little longer beyond the last Apostle. I would say Constantine was the tipping point for the change. Biblical Christianity should and does exist to this day; without the Bible, there would be no church.

But there are no living apostles today as there were in the days of “Biblical Christianity.” That phase of the Church has ended. Biblical Christianity is no longer! You can’t go back, you can’t practice the faith as the early Christians who were under the *authority *of the Apostles and their appointees.

Further, the early Christians had no New Testament. They had the apostles and their oral teaching. Look, for example, at the Roman Church.

Long before it had any of Paul’s letters for example, it was a fully functioning Church! Matter of fact, it was so functional that despite its never having had any of the New Testament writings, it’s faith was nevertheless so pure and complete that it was “being reported all over the world”! Rom. 1:8

And it was honored and saluted by “all the churches of Christ”! Rom. 16:16

And all this long before anyone in Rome had ever heard of or laid eyes on any “epistle to the Romans”!!

How could this have been? Where did this great Bible Church (ironically ) see the necessity of a bible?

I have great respect for Luther, as a man who saw a problem and tried to correct it. I liken Luther to some of the prophets of the OT who warned Israel, its leaders and its people about their failures to live according to the Word of God, with basically the same results.

So you think Luther a prophet? Tell, me, what genuine prophet teaches an admixture of true and false teaching, or whose writings are awash with slanders and the giving of false witness, or who councils immorality (the breaking of God’s word) etc??

Even something built on a very solid foundation can crack, tilt, and crumble. And God did not cause this, it is solely the result of fallible man.

So the true Church in your opinion can “crack, tilt, and crumble”? But you say this happened to the Roman Church. So are you saying it must have been the true Church?!

In any event, the true Church is not built on “fallible man,” but on Christ, the unfailing, un-cracking primary Rock of the foundation, and on another rock - Peter- and on the “the foundation of the apostles and the prophets.” Ephesians 2:20

As for heretics who will come to destroy, they may shake the structure, but they do they not break or destroy the solid foundation!

“Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, "GOD’S SOLID FOUNDATION STANDS FIRM…” 2 Tim. 2:19

Take my word, God knows how to build something that will last. Or have you forgotten the words of Jesus?

"A man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” Luke 6: 48-49

Thus when Christ said HE will build **HIS **Church, I think he may have had some idea as to what it took to insure it could withstand the floods of viscous heretics and the torrents of internal assaults which he foreknew were to come. Why, Christ may have even made his Church so tremendously strong that not even the very “gates of hell” could destroy it! Those who try to crack or break Christ’s Church end up themselves being cracked and broken!

Finally, can you honestly say that your church could withstand the mighty, terrible and *unrelenting *assaults of the “gates of hell”??

Think about it my friend. Peace.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Consider who you’re talking about here. Jesus, the Son of God. If Jesus chooses Peter to be the head of His Church, and promises that He will stand behind it to keep it from error, then the other things just naturally fall into place. If you choose to question that, then you’re questioning the intelligence of the all knowing God. Attacks have come from all directions against Christ’s Church, inside and outside. The devil keeps busy. But this is God’s Church and He has promised to stand behind it. It’s still here, and will be, until the end of time.

I don’t see that Christ has put Peter to be the “head” of the Church. My understanding is that the Church has one head, and Peter is not it. Yes I see Christ as placing Peter as the primary leader in the Church, however the examples in Acts clearly dismiss this leader as being an autocrat.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

This is an exremely WEAK argument, Mike.
John 21: 25 tells us in no uncertain terms:
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."
It NEVER talks about the things he did - does it?

---

We also read in Acts 1:2 -
"… until the day he was taken up, after giving instructions through the holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."
It NEVER mentions just WHAT he instructed them to do other than staying in Jerusalem to wait for the holy spirit - does it?

By the way - another thing Christ fails to mention - ANYWHERE in the Gospel - is the fact that there would be a written New Testament, but we HAVE one, *don’t *we?
That was due to Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

Then we are in the same boat as to Peter’s successors. I don’t see how the argument of “Well, He may have said it, but it just wasn’t written down” is a substantial argument for. And it seems that the ECF also didn’t ascribe to the See of Rome all that it enjoys today. So we can certainly walk down the road of kicking the NT to the curb because Christ didn’t specifically state which books would be in it, but at the same time we can ask ourselves if the early church thought so highly of the Holy Spirit only working through the See of Peter, why convene councils? And again if the early church held the same interpretation of “Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth” was only a promise to the Successor of Peter and the Bishops of Rome then again why convene councils at all? The only opinion that would matter would be the Bishop’s of Rome. And isn’t this one of the things that led to the Great Schism?

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Well if you want to play the 'failed-to-mention" line,fair enough. Jesus also failed miserably to mention an established canon for scripture? Should we kick it to the curb,because Jesus never says a word about it?

Your arguments are absurd, no offense.

I guess we should consider it if you feel that the Canon should only be attested to by Rome and not in a truly Ecumenical Council.

 

[Nicea325]

I guess we should consider it if you feel that the Canon should only be attested to by Rome and not in a truly Ecumenical Council.

Mike I am only applying your own tactics. So where and when did Jesus ever mention a canon?

 

[Waiting]

I don’t see that Christ has put Peter to be the “head” of the Church. My understanding is that the Church has one head, and Peter is not it. Yes I see Christ as placing Peter as the primary leader in the Church, however the examples in Acts clearly dismiss this leader as being an autocrat.

It’s clear, Mike, that you don’t want to see Peter as head of the Church. That doesn’t change the truth from being what it is. Try praying that you can see God’s will in this, not your will. Reread Acts and the early Fathers. It’s all there.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

It’s clear, Mike, that you don’t want to see Peter as head of the Church. That doesn’t change the truth from being what it is. Try praying that you can see God’s will in this, not your will. Reread Acts and the early Fathers. It’s all there.

Yeah I have read, funny thing is I thought Paul was quite clear in Ephesians, that Christ was the head of the Church. Maybe Paul should have prayed and realized that this was an error.

 

[elvisman]

Then we are in the same boat as to Peter’s successors. I don’t see how the argument of “Well, He may have said it, but it just wasn’t written down” is a substantial argument for. And it seems that the ECF also didn’t ascribe to the See of Rome all that it enjoys today. So we can certainly walk down the road of kicking the NT to the curb because Christ didn’t specifically state which books would be in it, but at the same time we can ask ourselves if the early church thought so highly of the Holy Spirit only working through the See of Peter, why convene councils? And again if the early church held the same interpretation of “Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to ALL truth” was only a promise to the Successor of Peter and the Bishops of Rome then again why convene councils at all? The only opinion that would matter would be the Bishop’s of Rome. And isn’t this one of the things that led to the Great Schism?

Wow**.**
For somebody who makes these kinds of acrimonious claims about the Catholic Church – you really don’t seem to have a grasp on how the Church operates.**

---

**You seem to think that the Pope struts around the Vatican like a king, spewing out doctrines and proclamations at will without having consulted anyone. From the very beginning, we see that that this was not the case. **

---

Read Acts 15 and you will see the prototype of how things get done in the Church. They all debated and converse before Peter got up and made his proclamation. James then stood up and concurred with what Peter had said.

---

In the end, they wrote their letter and stated that the decision had been made by the Holy Spirit and them.

---

When the Pope or a council makes a declaration – it is not something that they just invented. It is a revealed truth that they are merely proclaiming - and THAT is the guarantee made by Jesus in John 16:12-15.**

 

[elvisman]

Yeah I have read, funny thing is I thought Paul was quite clear in Ephesians, that Christ was the head of the Church. Maybe Paul should have prayed and realized that this was an error.

Mike -
Do yourself a favor and read the Scriptures in context.
The Kingdom of Heaven is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom. We can see this from the references to Isaiah 22:20-22 when Jesus appointed Peter as the bearer of the “keys to the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18-19).

Isaiah 22:20–22 - In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

**Matt. 16:18-19 - And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

**The Pope is not the head of the Church in the way Christ is. He is the vicar of Christ - his chief agent/representative - the earthly head. Your refusal to understand this doesn’t make it less true.

 

[Waiting]

Yeah I have read, funny thing is I thought Paul was quite clear in Ephesians, that Christ was the head of the Church. Maybe Paul should have prayed and realized that this was an error.

The Pope is the visible head of the Church.

 

[chaunceygardner]

To raumzeitmc2:

I apologize for the delay in responding; I haven’t had much time recently to be on CAF or prepare my response. You must see that our discussion could continue forever without a resolution. So I will make this my last post here by responding directly to a few of your points; then I will comment on the issue overall and leave you with my view of where the church is today.

I am not disputing the existence of ministers or priests in the early church, but there is no question that those who ministered within and to the local church were PART of that church, chosen BY that church, not outsiders appointed by someone else. The “hierarchy” that existed was more horizontal rather than the pyramid-like structure we have today. That is part of what I mean by the growing separation in the church (more on that later).

Jesus was not an elitist; he associated and spoke directly to all the people, from the highest to the lowest. He was a friend of sinners.

Exactly my point, open to all people. An elitist component developed in the hierarchy of the church and exists today.

Jesus didn’t attack the office of those “highly placed church authorities,” only their behavior. Jesus commanded his hearers not to follow the Jews bad example, but nevertheless to obey “all that they tell you,” because they held a legitimate office.

The question was not about obedience, but that’s okay. The point is that ALL could be worthy, even the worst of sinners, the unclean and a condemned criminal on the cross. Status in the church organization should have no bearing. We are in agreement on that.

For Ignatius, it was a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with Rome, whose faith was “spoken of throughout the whole world.” Rom. 1:8

I will grant you that Ignatius believed this; however, was it a matter of necessity for Christ or was He concerned with something far greater and more vital than obedience to a human authority?

You asked for examples of unilateral decisions and less collaboration in the church. Here are three recent ones. The first is taken from the Wis. State Journal about the Bishop of the Madison, WI diocese.

Bishop Morlino invited members of the Society of Jesus Christ the Priest, a religious group based in Spain, to serve some small town parishes in the Madison Diocese. He made a unilateral decision, apparently not consulting anyone or considering the culture of the local parishes. The reaction to the changes these “traditional” priests have made has not been very positive.

“St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Platteville, stung by a plunge in donations [over 50%] following the arrival of three controversial priests, has issued an urgent plea for money to keep its parochial school open.”…

“You get the impression they only want to be a shepherd for the people who agree with them," said Troy Jacobson, who left St. Barnabas Parish in Mazomanie last year over his disappointment with the priests. “It’s almost like they’ve restricted access to God.”…

Carol Schmitt…was among those who took offense. “We sit there and are told that we’re all equal in the eyes of God, and then they do this. I was just insulted.”

Case #2 is about a recent East Asian Catholic conference for the laity that was organized and run by the Vatican, with little (name removed by moderator)ut from Asian laity or even the region’s Bishops. The commentary is by Paul Hwang, an Asian Catholic lay leader:

“On the Vatican’s Web site, Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, writes that “the congress will be directly organized by the council” in collaboration with the local church [but apparently not with other Asian church leaders, whether clerical or laity]. The Vatican…should have consulted the representative body of bishops in the churches of Asia. They as church leaders are not supposed to be isolated from church activities like this event…

Has the Vatican or its Council for the Laity forgotten one of the major teachings of the Second Vatican Council, “collegiality of bishops and laity”? I cannot help but say that the Vatican has made a critical mistake by ignoring such collegiality of the bishops and the faithful."

Case #3 is the revised wording in the liturgy, to make the English more like the Latin wording. In the U.S. this change will occur with Advent 2011. But South Africa “jumped the gun” in introducing the new missal and here are some comments about how the process was handled, as reported in The Southern Cross, a Catholic weekly in that country.

“Years of painstaking work on new liturgical texts by the original International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been set aside in place of implementing what has now been decided by the Vatican and the group with which it consults or works.” – Bishop Kevin Dowling

"…It was a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin in the first place, that many of the changes made no sense, and that some of the formulations were simply bad English.” - Dowling

“How sad it is that we are given texts that only confuse and serve no purpose save that of imposing authority.” - Nun

“A senseless imposition” - Priest

I am not arguing about the changes here, just pointing out how the imposition of them appears to many Catholics in one country. Not handled well at all. All these are good examples of how the institutional church has isolated itself from the people and the pastoral church.

Continued on my next post.

 

[chaunceygardner]

To raumzeitmc2:

In answer to your question about how the joint authority of the bishops has been marginalized by the concentration of power at the Vatican, I would say that it happened over time, and the examples given in my prior post show the results of this. Some may see this concentration of authority as a good thing, but not all.

In an earlier thread I proposed that there existed two parallel Catholic churches. Here is what I mean by that:

One is the institutional church, represented by the Pope, the Curia, Canon Law, and voluminous rules and regulations intended to guide every action and thought. The other is the pastoral and missionary Catholic Church, the Church of people in a communion of faith, interacting with each other at a personal, parish and community ministry level, bringing the “Good News” to the world.

This is not to say that there are no “institutional” Catholics at the diocese and parish levels, or that there are no “pastoral” people among Bishops or Popes. It is a mixture, but the overall tendency is clearly there. These two churches exist in parallel, side by side, and sometimes they work together as one, but way too often are at odds with each other.

Part of the reason for this is the way in which the institutional church views the people in the pews, the laity. Lay Catholics get little respect and have little authority; they are second class Catholics (or even third class, with the parish priest filling the second class spot).

The result that I observe and others have noted is that on the local parish level one sees a pastoral church centered around faith and service. The same is true of the missionary church. These people there are not necessarily united by the exact same view of the Church, but by the Gospel, demonstrated through ministry, service, communal prayer and worship.

You have some of the same on the diocesan level but with a greater emphasis on the institutional aspects of the Church, with more about the rules and doctrines, and following canon law. This trend continues as one moves up the hierarchical ladder. Never is it totally pastoral or totally institutional, but the pastoral nature of the faith fades into the background as we get closer to the top.

To those who say, “No, the Catholic Church is one body, in Christ” I would respond that it is supposed to be that way but in practice it is divided. Here are two quotes that illustrate my point. One is from Pope Pius X, definitely an “organization man” and noted for his emphasis on “right belief” and adherence to doctrines. It is from his encyclical Vehementer Nos. The other is by Catholic theologian Hans Küng. (My emphasis in both)

POPE PIUS X:
“The Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors - a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging. It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of her sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful…the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.”

Here is what Küng says on the same subject in his book Signposts for the Future:

*“The two class theory of the church has operated since the Constantinian era in the entire ecclesiastical area….relying on monarchist state model…or of teachers and pupils, or of masters and servants.” *

Two very strange bedfellows, Pius X and Küng, agree about the two classes of Catholics; of course, one sees it as a positive while the other as a negative. Küng says the following about the possible result of this dichotomy in the previously cited book:

*"We have reason to fear a serious estrangement between the hierarchy on the one hand and the parishes and pastoral clergy on the other…. An authoritarian church provokes opposition from within.” *

I think we see that opposition on many levels in today’s church, from both the “liberal” and “traditional” sides. So, what kind of church should we have? Fr. Küng again:

“The Church, despite all differences of services, is no two-class society of possessor and no possessor, empowered and powerless, adults and children, knowledgeable and ignorant, but a community of love filled and authorized by the Spirit, in which only greater service bestows greater authority.”

A pastoral Bishop, Kevin Dowling said this to a group of South African Catholics: “What we should have, in my view, is a church where the leadership recognizes and empowers decision-making at the appropriate levels in the local church; where local leadership listens to and discerns with the people of God of that area what “the Spirit is saying to the church” and then articulates that as a consensus of the believing, praying, serving community. It needs faith in God and trust in the people of God to take what may seem to some or many as a risk.”

This is the reason why I would want to sit down with that Apostle in your original query and ask him about which church he envisioned, which church he was part of, which church is the one that makes ALL the people of God equal in the eyes of God and each other, which is closest to the Gospel of Jesus. Is it the church of Pius, or the church of Bishop Dowling? I think it is the pastoral church, which does exist within the Catholic Church, but is shrouded and weakened by the power and primacy of the institutional church that has sadly grown around and over it.