Question re Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CThomas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CThomas

Guest
Let’s consider some particular Christian living in the fourth century. Call him “X.” X lives within the jurisdiction of an Arian bishop. Was it sinful for X, relying on his own private judgment, to reject Arianism and espouse (what is now known to be) orthodoxy in contravention of the instructions of his bishop (and priests, etc.)? Do Catholics believe that someone in X’s position would, strangely enough, go to hell for adhering to orthodoxy and go to heaven for holding to the Arian heresy because of due deference to X’s bishop? Or would God want X to adhere to orthodoxy and defy X’s bishop?

CThomas
 
Interesting question. In terms of Catholic morals, faith trumps obedience. We must be obedient to our superiors in everything except sin. Since it would be a sin to deny the divinity of Christ, a Catholic would not have to align himself with an Arian bishop. For those Catholics being deceived by the Arian bishop into believing that Arianism was the true faith, they would not go to hell because mortal sin requires full knowledge and consent. If those Catholics under the Arain bishop’s jurisdiction, however, knew what the true teaching was and rejected it, they would be guilty of mortal sin. To find out what the true faith was, they would have to look to Rome. The teaching of the Roman church (headed by the pope) sets the standard.
 
X would have to follow the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which was held in 325 AD and he would have to look to Rome for Orthodoxy. Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Pontiff outrank local bishops.

“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” as St. Ambrose once said.
 
Marocchino said:
Interesting question. In terms of Catholic morals, faith trumps obedience. We must be obedient to our superiors in everything except sin. Since it would be a sin to deny the divinity of Christ, a Catholic would not have to align himself with an Arian bishop. For those Catholics being deceived by the Arian bishop into believing that Arianism was the true faith, they would not go to hell because mortal sin requires full knowledge and consent. If those Catholics under the Arain bishop’s jurisdiction, however, knew what the true teaching was and rejected it, they would be guilty of mortal sin. To find out what the true faith was, they would have to look to Rome. The teaching of the Roman church (headed by the pope) sets the standard.
Click to expand...
Very good answer. Much depends upon the knowledge of X in regards to Church teachings.
Credo_ergo_sum said:
X would have to follow the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which was held in 325 AD and he would have to look to Rome for Orthodoxy. Ecumenical Councils and the Roman Pontiff outrank local bishops.

“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” as St. Ambrose once said.
Click to expand...
True - but at the same time one must recognize that a tanner or sheepherder or some other “uneducated” Christian of the time might not be aware of these things unless told by his bishop or priest. So again it comes down to the honesty of the person’s heart in the matter.
The Bishop - or priest on the other hand carries the burden of great sin for misleading - especially if it is done in contravention of a direct knowledge of what the Holy Spirit decreed through the councils.
In relation to such a bishop, I’m reminded of the bible verse about a millstone around the neck of one who misleads.
In relation to those who honestly follow what they are being taught, a different passage applies. Mt 23:1-3 where Jesus upholds the teaching authority of the pharisees even if they themselves are “blind guides”.

Peace
James
 
It seems the OP wants to argue for private interpretation of the scriptures, one can’t do that when one is an illiterate tanner or shepherd. If you could read back then, you could find out about the Nicene Council and the view of the Roman Church.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
It seems the OP wants to argue for private interpretation of the scriptures, one can’t do that when one is an illiterate tanner or shepherd. If you could read back then, you could find out about the Nicene Council and the view of the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
Point well taken - but since the OP was not specific in this, I felt it important to interject the point that culpability is effected by the level of learning and the capacity to learn and understand.

Peace
James
 
Thank you for the responses. I’m not sure how this discussion relates to the method of interpreting the scriptures. To me, it’s relevant to the questions surrounding the duty of obedience to one’s bishop, in circumstances where Rome has not (yet) spoken definitively. Does the individual believer have the right and authority to draw his own private theological views from whatever sources (scriptures, the records of Church councils, etc.) or is he obligated to adhere to the theological instructions of his bishop, who one might think on Catholic principles would be better able to synthesize Church teaching and have the authority to do so? I do think that there are important issues here, but not to my mind anything to do with sola scriptura.

CThomas
 
CThomas said:
Thank you for the responses. I’m not sure how this discussion relates to the method of interpreting the scriptures. To me, it’s relevant to the questions surrounding the duty of obedience to one’s bishop, in circumstances where Rome has not (yet) spoken definitively. Does the individual believer have the right and authority to draw his own private theological views from whatever sources (scriptures, the records of Church councils, etc.) or is he obligated to adhere to the theological instructions of his bishop, who one might think on Catholic principles would be better able to synthesize Church teaching and have the authority to do so? I do think that there are important issues here, but not to my mind anything to do with sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
On non-dogmatical points one is free to speculate* within the limits of scripture and tradition* but should accept admonishment if one’s corrected by his bishop. One shouldn’t go down the path of Origen Adamantius.
 
Based on briefly reading the Arianism article on Wikipedia, it seems to me that one did not simply end up with a local bishop who happened to be a heretic, but that the king or ruling dynasty would exile the rightful bishops and priests and appoint heretical clergy in their place.

As such, the locals would have no obligation of obedience to the usurpers. Further, they may even called to martyrdom in defending their faith during such a persecution.
 
CThomas said:
Thank you for the responses. I’m not sure how this discussion relates to the method of interpreting the scriptures. To me, it’s relevant to the questions surrounding the duty of obedience to one’s bishop, in circumstances where Rome has not (yet) spoken definitively.
Click to expand...
Aahhh…Thanks for the clarification.
Does the individual believer have the right and authority to draw his own private theological views from whatever sources (scriptures, the records of Church councils, etc.) or is he obligated to adhere to the theological instructions of his bishop, who one might think on Catholic principles would be better able to synthesize Church teaching and have the authority to do so?
Click to expand...
Credo ergo sum - provided a wonderful answer. Essentially - yes one can come to his/her own conclusion within certain limits. Essentially those limits being that such conclusion cannot contradict some other teaching that might bear on the subject.
That said, it is certainly reasonable to assume that the Bishop, by virtue of his priestly training and his Holy Orders, IS “better able to synthesize Church teaching”, and does indeed have the authority to do so within his bishopric.
But recognize too that if different bishops come to differing conclusions and teach different and conflicting things, the larger Church may need to become involved in order to resolve the issue. Such would be in keeping with the biblical instructions in Mt 18 to “tell it to the Church”, and the example in Acts 15 where a doctrinal conflict was resolved.
I do think that there are important issues here, but not to my mind anything to do with sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
No problem. We probably jumped to a conclusion about what you were asking…It’s good that you cleared it up.

Peace
James
 
By the way, glad to see you’re a fellow Cincinnatian. I grew up there and still get back now and then. Enjoy the Skyline chili.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top