The Catholic Church is Not a Democracy

[guanophore]

Excuse me but I am offering my opinions. When I see no evidence, I see no evidence. And when the Catholic scholars and experts on the subject agree with my view I think I am on solid ground.

Yes, that is my point. You choose not to look at the evidence, and are satisfied that you have found “Catholic scholars” that agree with you (not that they really do, but I understand why you convinced yourself they do).

One has to wonder what your point is coming to a Catholic Answers Forum, when you don’t seem to be interested in any “catholic answers”.

Of course they have developed since the NT. That is my point. What was in the 3rd century is not what was in the 1st century regarding practices and the role of clergy.

I am glad we are in agreement about SOMETHING!

But there was ordination in the first century, and there was hierarchical authority in the Church.

If you are speaking of Fr. Raymond E. Brown, he is an expert on these matters and many historians agree with him. I am simply discussing the issue of laying on of hands with you and I have asked you to show me where the Catholic church teaches contrary to my view and Fr Browns view. Dont you realize his book would not get the Imprimatur if it contradicted Catholic teaching?

His book does not. It is your perception of what he has written that does.

The priniciple of ordination is not even discussed there or anywhere in the writings of the early church documents as far as I can tell. The principle of the Trinity is of course discussed in the NT, but no mention of ordination or the meaning of it.

Hence my response. If you are convinced in advance that the evidence does not exist, what is the likelyhood that you will evaluate the evidence? You deny what is written in the NT, and will most likley deny what is in the Fathers, because you don’t want to have to change your preconceived position. It is called researcher bias. You look for stuff to confirm your present thoughts, and disregard that which calls you conclusions into question.

Where is that? The Roman church was always an esteemed church but many ECFs in other churches led the way in doctrine and practice it seems to me.

Yes, both things are true. were in not for Athanasius, we would all be Arian!

Acts 6: 1-6 shows democracy in action. So does the Didache which recommends the election of bishops. I dont think a bishop was among the burial crew at all.

Acts 6:2-4
2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, **pick out **from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom **we may appoint to **this duty.

This is a lot of imperatives (giving of orders) for a democracy, Rob. The disciples are “summoned”, then the aurhorative position was told to them (they were not asked what they wanted or thought). They were given a directive, and marching orders were issued (appointments made). You have a strange idea about democracy.
submariner2;9400051:

When you say that top historians and experts like Fr. Raymond E. Brown disagree with early church writings I think you should back that up.

I never said that, Rob. I said your perception of what he wrote disagrees. You have drawn conclusions that Fr. Brown does not hold, based upon your own bias.

He was a very respected Catholic scholar of the bible and church history. His over 30 books were approved by Arch bishops. Why do you think I should accept your opinions over theirs?

I don’t think you should. I have not offered you any opinions to accept.

 Most of all, these subjects should be debated with respect for each other and for the view of the top Catholic scholars on the subject. That is what I try to do.

If that is true, then you would not be so opposed to find out alternative points of view about the early church. If you think it is a Roman Catholic matter, I challenge you to look East. The Orthodox will also affirm that ordination, real presence, and monarchial bishops have been in place since the first century. They will also confirm that Timothy and Titus were bishops.

 

[submariner2]

Hence my response. If you are convinced in advance that the evidence does not exist, what is the likelyhood that you will evaluate the evidence? You deny what is written in the NT, and will most likley deny what is in the Fathers, because you don’t want to have to change your preconceived position. It is called researcher bias. You look for stuff to confirm your present thoughts, and disregard that which calls you conclusions into question.

I notice you offer nothing to contradict my assertion on the matter.

Acts 6:2-4
2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, **pick out **from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom **we may appoint to **this duty.

This is a lot of imperatives (giving of orders) for a democracy, Rob. The disciples are “summoned”, then the aurhorative position was told to them (they were not asked what they wanted or thought). They were given a directive, and marching orders were issued (appointments made). You have a strange idea about democracy

.

The administrators were elected. That is plain and that is democracy. The Didache plainly tells the congregation to elect its bishop. If you think they were selected in any other manner you might want to present it.

If that is true, then you would not be so opposed to find out alternative points of view about the early church. If you think it is a Roman Catholic matter, I challenge you to look East. The Orthodox will also affirm that ordination, real presence, and monarchial bishops have been in place since the first century. They will also confirm that Timothy and Titus were bishops.

I look in scripture and in the words of the ECFs. When they dont mention something I draw the conclusion that something was not there. Simple as that. I dont look at strongly held opinions. I want only the facts.

Rob

Rob

 

[guanophore]

I notice you offer nothing to contradict my assertion on the matter.

Indeed not. What would be the point? A productive dialogue is not really possible with someone who already has their mind made up, and closed, before it even begins. You have not shown any interest in looking at what evidence Catholics use to support their beliefs. You prefer to repeat your “there is no evidence” mantra. How does that encourage anyone to engage you in reasonable exploration of history?
.

The administrators were elected. That is plain and that is democracy. The Didache plainly tells the congregation to elect its bishop. If you think they were selected in any other manner you might want to present it.

Actually, it is not. The Apostles, who were placed in authority over the Church by Christ, directed the disciples to choose from among themselves persons to take on the duties. The Apostles then “appointed” them to the duty. I don’t know what you learned in your government and civics classes, but this is not “democracy”.

I look in scripture and in the words of the ECFs. When they dont mention something I draw the conclusion that something was not there. Simple as that. I dont look at strongly held opinions. I want only the facts.

I expect this works especially well when you approach the documents with your blinders in place, so if there is anything there that might actually support a Catholic view, you manage not to see it!

 

[submariner2]

Indeed not. What would be the point? A productive dialogue is not really possible with someone who already has their mind made up, and closed, before it even begins. You have not shown any interest in looking at what evidence Catholics use to support their beliefs. You prefer to repeat your “there is no evidence” mantra. How does that encourage anyone to engage you in reasonable exploration of history?

guano,

You could at least try, but you offer only generalizations or scripture that does not relate while I offered specific examples from scripture and ECFs. Then you say it is no point to argue your point.
.

Actually, it is not. The Apostles, who were placed in authority over the Church by Christ, directed the disciples to choose from among themselves persons to take on the duties. The Apostles then “appointed” them to the duty. I don’t know what you learned in your government and civics classes, but this is not “democracy”.

It plainly says they were elected and not appointed by the apostles. Check your New Jerusalem Bible.

I expect this works especially well when you approach the documents with your blinders in place, so if there is anything there that might actually support a Catholic view, you manage not to see it!

You call it the “Catholic view” when it is only your own view. Where do you see the Catholic church teaching that the early church was un-democratic? Scholars know they were very democratic electing bishops for almost every church for centuries.

Ron

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Actually, it is not. The Apostles, who were placed in authority over the Church by Christ, directed the disciples to choose from among themselves persons to take on the duties. The Apostles then “appointed” them to the duty. I don’t know what you learned in your government and civics classes, but this is not “democracy”.

It plainly says they were elected and not appointed by the apostles. Check your New Jerusalem Bible

.

And election debunks ordination? How?

Quote:
I expect this works especially well when you approach the documents with your blinders in place, so if there is anything there that might actually support a Catholic view, you manage not to see it!

You call someing the “Catholic view” when it is only your own view.

Nope! It is called history and early church history clearly shows the early church was Catholic,not Protestant. Protestanism is a late invention and history proves it over and over. No amount of denials will make it go away. Why Protestants deny such a fact is beyond me.

Where do you see the Catholic church teaching that the early church was un-democratic?

And where is the teaching it was democratic in nature? Ahhhh…Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. Only ONE reigns in Heaven. Only one reigned King amongst the 12: Jesus. Jesus chose 12 to carry His mission and thus it is logical successors are needed to carry on the mission of building God’s kingdom on earth. Protestanism has proven over and over again that without an authoritative church it is absolute chaos. Protestanism is a rebellion against authority,plain and simple. Reform is one thing and the founding of thousands of denominations is pure rebellion.

Scholars know they were very democratic electing bishops for almost every church for centuries.

Again…how does that debunk ordination and a hiearchy?

 

[guanophore]

You could at least try, but you offer only generalizations or scripture that does not relate while I offered specific examples from scripture and ECFs. Then you say it is no point to argue your point.

Really! Look back at post 28 in this thread, where I quoted you Apostolic instructions to a monarchial Bishop encouraging autocratic governance of the Church in Crete.

Then look at your response. You will see your favorite refrain.
.
If you refuse the witness of the Holy Scriptures themselves, then what else will be of value? The authority of the Bishops clearly seen in the ECF;s will be invisible to you if your antiCatholic blinders are on.

It plainly says they were elected and not appointed by the apostles. Check your New Jerusalem Bible.

Ok Rob. Whatever floats your boat. Ordination has always been done this way. If you wish not to see it, it is ok. For some reason it is important to you.

You call it the “Catholic view” when it is only your own view. Where do you see the Catholic church teaching that the early church was un-democratic?

The Church has been a monarchy since she was formed. Her Head is Christ, a King. He gave His authority to His Apostles, to rule in His name. They passed their authority to the Bishops. There never has been a “democracy” in the church founded by Christ.

Scholars know they were very democratic electing bishops for almost every church for centuries.

Perhaps it is a semantics problem, and you have some sort of interesting definition for the word "democratic’. Democracy never existed in those centuries.

The closest thing to it was the Greek and Roman republics, who were ruled by Senators.

 

[submariner2]

And election debunks ordination? How?

Nicea,

I dont think I said that.

Nope! It is called history and early church history clearly shows the early church was Catholic,not Protestant. Protestanism is a late invention and history proves it over and over. No amount of denials will make it go away. Why Protestants deny such a fact is beyond me.

We see no reason why not. We see our beliefs and practices in the NT and the ECFs.

And where is the teaching it was democratic in nature? Ahhhh…Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the democracy of Heaven. Only ONE reigns in Heaven. Only one reigned King amongst the 12: Jesus. Jesus chose 12 to carry His mission and thus it is logical successors are needed to carry on the mission of building God’s kingdom on earth. Protestanism has proven over and over again that without an authoritative church it is absolute chaos. Protestanism is a rebellion against authority,plain and simple. Reform is one thing and the founding of thousands of denominations is pure rebellion.

Of course the early church considered Christ to be its King. But it handled things in a democratic manner electing administrative positions like bishops as the Didache describes. Acts 6:1-6 also illustrates that the whole body elected positions of responsibilty. We also see our pastors and bishops as successors of the apostles.

Again…how does that debunk ordination and a hiearchy?

My own church ordains its pastors so I do not get your point.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

]Really! Look back at post 28 in this thread, where I quoted you Apostolic instructions to a monarchial Bishop encouraging autocratic governance of the Church in Crete.

Then look at your response. You will see your favorite refrain.
.
If you refuse the witness of the Holy Scriptures themselves, then what else will be ovalue? The authority of the Bishops clearly seen in the ECF;s will be invisible to you if your antiCatholic blinders are on.

Notice it says "who WE may appoint. The selection was by election and not appointment by some individual.

Ok Rob. Whatever floats your boat. Ordination has always been done this way. If you wish not to see it, it is ok. For some reason it is important to you.

The truth is important to me. It is your presumption how ordination was always done. That is not a good method to determine the historic truth. Best to listen to the expert historians for advice.

The Church has been a monarchy since she was formed. Her Head is Christ, a King. He gave His authority to His Apostles, to rule in His name. They passed their authority to the Bishops. There never has been a “democracy” in the church founded by Christ.

The bishops were elected by their congregations for centuries.

Perhaps it is a semantics problem, and you have some sort of interesting definition for the word "democratic’. Democracy never existed in those centuries.

Why do you ignore the Didache which is an example of democracy in action where it says the congregation should elect the bishop?

Rob

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well, it’s odd how people who want to have a say in how our Church operates are willing to turn most of their lives over to a man who thinks he’s already a King…

 

[submariner2]

Well, it’s odd how people who want to have a say in how our Church operates are willing to turn most of their lives over to a man who thinks he’s already a King…

Juliane,

Sorry but I do not follow.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

You imagine that “election” meant then what it means today - that everyone, both male and female, who possessed full membership rights in the local parish, was casting a ballot.

Such a thing was actually unheard of before the end of the 1800s; women and non-whites didn’t vote until well into the 20th century. Even in the 1700s, it was understood that “voters” were white male land owners and business tycoons - not their wives or grown children, and certainly not their employees or their slaves. In the time of Plato, “democracy” was for Senators - not members of the public.

So, even if an election was being held back then, you can be certain that the only voters were people who had already, themselves, been ordained - just as today, it is the Cardinals who elect the Pope.

jmcrae,

The didache says the congregation should elect the bishop. It does not say only ordained people and in fact never mentions ordained people and in fact there is no evidence there even was any ordained people in the Didache church at all. So how can anyone be certain of what you contend? History shows that bisops were elected by the congregations for centuries.

Rob

 

[hn160]

Any Church not only the Catholic Church is not a Democracy when it come to the basic Christian Truths. We can not change the wording of Scripture to suit the world view, the three Eccumenical Creeds, or the Holy Trinity.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

The didache says the congregation should elect the bishop. It does not say only ordained people and in fact never mentions ordained people and in fact there is no evidence there even was any ordained people in the Didache church at all. So how can anyone be certain of what you contend? History shows that bisops were elected by the congregations for centuries.

Rob

What Didache are you reading? It is clear that there are Bishops; Bishops are ordained people. They receive the laying on of hands from the Apostles; that is the definition of a Bishop.

 

[submariner2]

Any Church not only the Catholic Church is not a Democracy when it come to the basic Christian Truths. We can not change the wording of Scripture to suit the world view, the three Eccumenical Creeds, or the Holy Trinity.

hn,

The issue is the early church which appears ot be quite democratic. The Didache is a good example where it says the congregation should elect its bishop.

But there are many churches that are quite democratic today - the baptists and the evangelicals which elect their leaders.

As far as Christian truths that is Scripture which is the Word of God, yet each person decides what he really believes. Who can do that for him?

Rob

 

[submariner2]

What Didache are you reading? It is clear that there are Bishops; Bishops are ordained people. They receive the laying on of hands from the Apostles; that is the definition of a Bishop.

jmcrae,

Laying on of hands was not ordination as we think of it today as defining a special office of christians. There is no evidence of ordination in the NT. No evidence whatsoever that bishops were ordained in the NT.

Ordained is NOT the definition of a bishop in the NT. It may be now but not then.
In the NT a bishop was simply an overseer, a person who led a gathering as in Jewish tradition. It was the same in christian gatherings.

Catholic scholars support this view.

Rob

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

Laying on of hands was not ordination as we think of it today as defining a special office of christians. There is no evidence of ordination in the NT. No evidence whatsoever that bishops were ordained in the NT.

Ordained is NOT the definition of a bishop in the NT. It may be now but not then.
In the NT a bishop was simply an overseer, a person who led a gathering as in Jewish tradition. It was the same in christian gatherings.

Catholic scholars support this view.

Rob

Rob;

The Jews had priests, and high priests and rabbis. They certainly weren’t electing them by popular vote. These were hereditary offices, belonging to the tribe of Levi.