Poverty and the Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter RedDuke50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RedDuke50

Guest
Someone is telling me that the apostles were ordered by Jesus to live in complete poverty and to rely only on the Holy Spirit to give them food. He says that the Catholic Church does not do this.
Is this true? I am trying to tell him the Church is not evil but he is stubborn and it is difficult for me.

Thank you
 
You will have to ask him to what does he refer when he says Jesus ordered the Apostles to rely only on the Holy Spirit for food. I’m not familiar with a Bible passage. Generally, if someone remains stubborn and defiant, I don’t consider them to have the capacity to even be in the conversation, so you might want to not worry about convincing someone who has no intention of being convinced.
 
I would simply point out that God does not say material wealth is a bad thing. The problem is when we choose material wealth over God. In Matthew 19:16-30 you see the story of the rich man who Jesus asked to renounce all his possessions and follow him. The rich man chose wealth over following Jesus. This is the point Jesus is trying to get across. 1 Tim 6:9-10 also gets the point across that wealth in and of itself is not the problem but rather love of money over love of God. In the beatitudes we also see “blessed are the meek, they will inherit the Earth”. God will give much to those on Earth, who see that true wealth is found in God. Only when we realize this are we able to properly use our wealth on Earth.
 
Someone is telling me that the apostles were ordered by Jesus to live in complete poverty and to rely only on the Holy Spirit to give them food. He says that the Catholic Church does not do this.
Is this true? I am trying to tell him the Church is not evil but he is stubborn and it is difficult for me.

Thank you
While its true that Jesus has many followers who has given up their wealth to follow him, He still has disciples who kept material possessions. One is Joseph of Arimathea

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 27:57[/BIBLEDRB]
 
I am trying to see if he is open to the convincing that the Church isn’t evil. I hope he is but I don’t think that he will.😦
 
I am trying to see if he is open to the convincing that the Church isn’t evil. I hope he is but I don’t think that he will.😦
Plant your seeds and move on if it isn’t going anywhere. Pray that he gets the grace that someday gives him the kick in the behind he needs to see the Truth. It may be you don’t get anywhere, but something you say now triggers an event later on that person’s life that does.
 
He might be referring to when Jesus sent out his disciples and asked them not to take material stuff along with them–for the Father would provide. 🤷
 
If we equate Christian poverty with mere absence of material possessions, then, we have a reason to say that the Church is not living up to Christ’s mandate regarding poverty.
If we understand Christian poverty as proper use of material possessions, how can we even think of the Church falling short of living up to Christ’s mandate?
It is not being rich that makes man evil but rather greed.
One who has no material possession may covet his neighbor’s goods and thus be guilty of love of material possessions even if he actually don’t have them.
It may be difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven but Christ did not say it is impossible.
 
RedDuke50
Someone is telling me that the apostles were ordered by Jesus to live in complete poverty and to rely only on the Holy Spirit to give them food. He says that the Catholic Church does not do this.
Take it step by step. Show him what Jesus really taught – use the Sacred Scriptures given to us by His Church.

Mt 19:16-21 refers finally to the rich young man becoming an Apostle “come follow Me”. Nowhere does Christ require mankind to give up all their possessions either to be good followers or to be able to enter heaven. If all were poor, how could anyone be helped?

Christ’s teaching on wealth and property
In his outstanding work Christians For Freedom, Ignatius 1986, p 43-47, (with a new edition, since), Dr Alejandro Chafuen has examined carefully the teaching of Christ and wealth. Citing the case of the rich young man in Luke 18:18-25, Dr Chafuen remarks that many authors think that Jesus was condemning the possession of riches, but “the Late Scholastics indicated that this was not the correct interpretation. Citing Luke 14:26, where Jesus says, ‘If any man come to Me without hating his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, he cannot be My disciple,’ the Scholastics pointed out that this passage does not enjoin Christians to hate their fathers. Such doctrine would contradict the Fourth Commandment. Thomist and Scholastic interpretations of this passage is that the entrance to the kingdom of Heaven is denied to anyone who values things more than God. In Matthew’s Gospel (10:37), the same passage reads: ‘Anyone who prefers father or mother to Me is not worthy of Me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to Me is not worthy of Me.’ It would be a violation of the natural order to value a created thing above its creator, as did the young ruler who pursued riches as his ultimate goal.

“As is indicated in Luke (12:29-31): ‘you must not set your heart on things to eat and things to drink; nor must you worry. It is the pagans of this world who set their hearts on all these things. Your father well knows you need them. No; set your hearts on His kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.’ Dr Chafuen notes that “many people close to Jesus were quite wealthy for their times. Joseph seems to have had his own business and perhaps a donkey; Peter owned a fishing boat, and Matthew was a tax collector. Jesus praised the rich man Zaccheus. It was the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea who kept faith even when the Apostles were beset by doubt (Mt 27:57). Jesus does not condemn the possession of riches but, rather disordered attachment to them.” Notice also that Jesus did not ask His Apostles to renounce their property.

Some misrepresent Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

Now you should be able to tell if he really wants to know truth.
 
Someone is telling me that the apostles were ordered by Jesus to live in complete poverty and to rely only on the Holy Spirit to give them food. He says that the Catholic Church does not do this.
Is this true? I am trying to tell him the Church is not evil but he is stubborn and it is difficult for me.

Thank you
challenge him to prove it from the bible since there is no such counsel
if he has decided the church is evil and has been taught to intepret scripture in a crazy way, no there is not much you can do except pray for him
 
… Some misrepresent Acts 2:44-47, where the faithful lived together and owned everything in common. These so-called “Apostolics” were condemned by St Thomas and the Late Scholastics, who quote St Augustine. Why?
In his Summa, II-II, Q. 66, art. 2, resp., St Thomas quotes St Augustine: “Augustine says: ‘The people styled apostolic are those who arrogantly claimed this title for themselves because they refused to admit married folk or property owners to their fellowship, arguing from the model of the many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church (De Haeresibus 40).’ But such people are heretics because they cut themselves off from the Church by alleging that those who, unlike themselves, marry and own property have no hope of salvation.”

Now you should be able to tell if he really wants to know truth.
Augustine adopted a very odd and anachronistic argument, if your quote is accurate. The ‘apostolics’ in Acts 2:44 ff adopted this communal lifestyle only months after Our Lord died, and considerably (decades, centuries?) before there were ‘many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church’. I’ve read somewhere recently that these people may have been members of, or were influenced by the example of, the communalistic Essenes. (I’ll try and find the reference for this.)
 
St. Paul supported himself and his companions while on his ministrys. He was a tent maker by day and a preacher of the Gospels by night!
 
Melbanglican
Augustine adopted a very odd and anachronistic argument, if your quote is accurate. The ‘apostolics’ in Acts 2:44 ff adopted this communal lifestyle only months after Our Lord died, and considerably (decades, centuries?) before there were ‘many monks and clerics in the Catholic Church’.
From the translation below, it can be seen more clearly that St Augustine is comparing the error of the “Apostolics” with the monastics following, up to his time.

“The argument [of Saint Thomas] (Sed Contra, II-II, quest. 66, art. 2; also Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 3:II, chap. 127, 8) supports this response perfectly. Saint Thomas, in effect, recalls the heresy of the Apostolici mentioned by Saint Augustine (“De Haeresibus,” no. 40, in P. L., vol. 42, col. 32): ‘The Apostolici,’ writes St. Augustine, ‘assumed that name with an extreme arrogance, because they refused from their communion married persons and those who possessed property, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church. But the Apostolici are heretics precisely because, separating themselves from the Church, they consider condemned those who make use of these goods, of which they deprive themselves.’

“‘The heresy of the Apostolici does not lie in taking the vows of chastity and poverty: monks and numerous clerics do the same. But the error lies in wanting to impose the same discipline on all the faithful under pain of condemnation.’ And St. Thomas concludes: ‘It is, therefore, an error to say that it is not permitted for a man to possess property.’

“This response is of use a fortiori for the problem presented by the perfection of evangelical poverty. Religious life, be it in a monastery provided with an income or in a community living from alms, is a life of counsel, not of precept, and it cannot be imposed on everyone. Moreover, even from the point of view of the perfection of the spiritual life, St. Thomas shows that the evangelical counsel of poverty most absolutely does not prevent the rich from sanctifying themselves amidst riches: ‘Great was the virtue of Abraham, who, possessing great riches, nonetheless knew how to keep his heart free from love for his riches. . . .’ ”
tinyurl.com/3uczz5d
 
Thank you for the answers everyone. I have been speaking to this person for a few days and I haven’t known what to say sometimes. It isn’t a formal conversation either. It is through the comments of YouTube. 😛
 
From the translation below, it can be seen more clearly that St Augustine is comparing the error of the “Apostolics” with the monastics following, up to his time.

“The argument [of Saint Thomas] (Sed Contra, II-II, quest. 66, art. 2; also Summa Contra Gentiles, bk. 3:II, chap. 127, 8) supports this response perfectly. Saint Thomas, in effect, recalls the heresy of the Apostolici mentioned by Saint Augustine (“De Haeresibus,” no. 40, in P. L., vol. 42, col. 32): ‘The Apostolici,’ writes St. Augustine, ‘assumed that name with an extreme arrogance, because they refused from their communion married persons and those who possessed property, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church. But the Apostolici are heretics precisely because, separating themselves from the Church, they consider condemned those who make use of these goods, of which they deprive themselves.’

“‘The heresy of the Apostolici does not lie in taking the vows of chastity and poverty: monks and numerous clerics do the same. But the error lies in wanting to impose the same discipline on all the faithful under pain of condemnation.’ And St. Thomas concludes: ‘It is, therefore, an error to say that it is not permitted for a man to possess property.’

“This response is of use a fortiori for the problem presented by the perfection of evangelical poverty. Religious life, be it in a monastery provided with an income or in a community living from alms, is a life of counsel, not of precept, and it cannot be imposed on everyone. Moreover, even from the point of view of the perfection of the spiritual life, St. Thomas shows that the evangelical counsel of poverty most absolutely does not prevent the rich from sanctifying themselves amidst riches: ‘Great was the virtue of Abraham, who, possessing great riches, nonetheless knew how to keep his heart free from love for his riches. . . .’ ”
tinyurl.com/3uczz5d
I wonder why the ‘heretic Apostolici’ were portrayed so positively in Acts? The only people to be condemned in this part of Acts were those who withheld property and died in consequence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top