The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[pneuma07]

an individual can not act alone in dismissing an elder…it has to be an act by the bulk of the congregation and so it can’t come down to “just more or less what I’d say myself”.

Please keep in mind that it is my position that Tim and Titus would have passed on the instructions (that they received from Paul) to the congregation. Those instructions include the method of accusing and rebuking an elder and make it impossible for a person to act alone against an elder.
the religion that should shape me is to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.(NIV) I shouldn’t shape Christianity and corrupt leaders shouldn’t shape Christianity (neither should be allowed).

I wonder whether we need a qualified majority.
It is clear that one member does not fire the pastor by himself. I was imagining a guy just switching from one denomination to another one for considering the former going out of orthodoxy, as defined by himself.
Defining orthodoxy by myself any time I’d imagine as one of the ways of properly shaping religion, or the Revelation, rather than being shaped.

Understood….working off of this wording, I would defend: the existence of immoral leaders is not OK, rebellion against moral leaders is not OK, dismissing immoral leaders is not rebellion and is OK, leaders who rule in the fashion of Pharisees are acting contrary to Christ’s commandment

We already share a good 75% here i’d say ( and probably even more )

but we are not reading these instructions to Tim/Titus as “Y is an important quality of a good X, but feel free to appoint an X who lacks Y”….so why should it be that “Y is an important quality of a good X, but you must endure an X who lacks Y (until someone higher up the hierarchy acts…which may or may not happen)”?

What about something like “Try to find out which of the available candidates fit these qualities best, qualities that are among those which make a guy suitable to exercise well the episkopate ” ?.

And I am trying to show that Your particular reading does not produce IMHO a viable ecclesiology.

 

[pneuma07]

IMHO “real life” makes the thing more complicated. Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands and at that time divorce was allowed and even today your church annuls marriages…therefore, the husband can be “unordained” as a spouse for reasons of immorality. Paul tells slaves to obey their masters and at that time slaves could be freed…therefore, the master could be “unordained” as someone who must be obeyed (but not for reasons of immorality). Paul tells children to obey their parents and although parents can be “replaced” with more important “spiritual parents”, biological parents can not be “unordained” as mom and dad. Paul tells Christians to obey the governmental authorities and at that time governmental authorities could be “unordained” as rulers for reasons including immorality. “Real life” seems to be all over the place…I even think that we could come up with an example of “X is no more a legitimate Catholic unless he is Y”…and then what if X is a bishop? Is it that X is then a legitimate Catholic bishop w/o being a legitimate Catholic? Sounds just plain wrong.
.

Annulment does not unordain a valid marriage at all. It establishes that there was not a valid marriage.
I maintain that in most cases whan we say “ X must be Y, W and Z” we don’t mean X ceases to be X unless Y,W and Z are there always together, as implying that Y, w, and Z are defining and essential to having a X.

I also pointed out in the first pages of the thread that if you have two lists, to Titus and Timothy, that are not equal, neither of them can be a list of defining inherently essential elements of X.

Say you have “X must be A, B, C, D and E” , then you have “X must be C, D, E, F, G”
How can I consider A to G as essential qualities whose absence determines the ceasing of us having a X ?
By following the proposed reading, Titus and Timothy were being commanded to unordain according to different rules.

Are you pointing to excommunications in the last sentence ?

It occurs to me that someone from the sacramental school of thought must take this approach. If something is gained through the sacraments that is critical/vital for one’s salvation, then unless corrupt priests can still effectively administer the sacraments, one would have no certainty that any grace was being conferred at any sacrament (b/c the heart of the priest can’t be known). The whole system would then fall into question.

That was one of the profound weaknesses of Donatism. Keep please in mind that during the donatist upheaval what you call sacramental school was the common shared framework, which wasn’t in question, to my poor knowledge. From your POV ancient Christianity had deeply derailed on that en masse.
If I get correctly, your position is on the contrary, that nothing can be done by a pastor that cannot be done by any baptized one ( or even by a non baptized one ? ). It is clear then that ousting a pastor in that context is more or less comparable to firing a manager or a consultant.
Consider also that the gist of the thread as originally conceived was about the behavioral dimension as a possible stumbling block to people otherwise getting near to catholic views. In your approach the behavioral difficulty seems rather embedded within profound persuasions that catholic teachings are deviated, and the whole case we are dealing with is quite different.

I am inclined to think that his defense of corrupt priests was the result of (the error) of being committed to a sacramental approach

.

You’re correct that Francis was deeply faithful to the doctrines of the Church and to her sacramental teachings. So as you are correct IMHO in considering him committed to preaching by example.

we both use “ordained”, but it means different things to us

---- I don’t know. To me that means 2 Tim 1:6

“the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands”

I think it would have went more like this:

a) Titus arrives at a location and advises the congregation (and not just a select few) that Paul has instructed him to appoint elders.

b) Titus announces that if anyone desires to be an overseer, that person must be blameless etc. Titus also describes the role and duties of an overseer to the entire church.

c) Some provide their own names as candidates and some supply the names of others for Titus to consider.

d) Titus, with the approval of the congregation, appoints some men to be elders.

e) Titus then passes the reigns to the church to carry on

Christ had a very unique role to fulfill, the apostles had a unique role to fulfill, Tim and Titus had a somewhat less unique role to fulfill, the overseers had roles to fulfill and each congregation had a role to fulfill. What has changed is that Jesus, the apostles and Tim and Titus are no longer here on earth. Their earthly ministries have ended. The pastors and the congregations still must function as the eyes, hands and feet of the body of Christ. IMHO the idea that one could only be ordained by someone who was himself ordained never existed at that time

Titus and Tim are in charge about ordaining, by the apostle’s own command. I just don’t get why, when how this changed, and that was passed to congregations.
Which is definitely not what we can see later. So we’re IMHO postulating an in-between , AND giving it a seemingly normative status. This is clearly for another thread.

 

[pneuma07]

In my (non-Catholic) world, being forbidden from exercising ministry is equal to being ousted.
It does and it doesn’t…tis like feeding someone an apple…once eaten, it can’t be taken back. We don’t have a counterpart to this. Is the grace conferred = the sacred power?

…

875: … No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, they receive the mission and faculty (‘the sacred power’) to act in persona Christi Capitis. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.*

that is where the 2 or 3 witnesses come in…they provide the level of certainty that is required.

Witnesses help in establishing facts. They are less useful on reading hearts, and on discerning the legitimacy of a mandate. Which, I repeat, is the point Moses wanted to show Korah and the People.

I see no significance from a statistical point of view with regard to these observations. Given the small sample sizes (4 and 9) one can’t assume a sufficient overlap in the factors motivating the letters in order to say that any difference is statistically significant. With such small samples one can pick and choose items and come up with some rather strange conclusions. For example there are about 200 countries in the world and 9 start with the letter “I” (counting the Ivory Coast). None are in the two Americas…should that cause us to conclude that Americans have some aversion to that letter? 4 are on the continent proper of Asia and all share latitude 30’ N. What are the odds of that? Should we conclude that there is a correlation between latitude and a preference for the letter “I” among Asians? I think that the first fact that you state above can be entirely explained by what Tim and Titus were sent to do vs. what Paul’s concerns were when he wrote the other letters.

I take note you do not see any statistical hint there, and wondering about how this can be banned from an effort to understand who was in charge with ordaining, which isn’t exactly about say Tim and Titus having names beggining with a T, we can agree to differ.

IMHO he affirms the source of his gospel (as being Christ and not other apostles) b/c it seems the actions/teachings of the other apostles (Peter and James) were contributing to the Galations’ rejection of the gospel as presented by Paul. I don’t think his apostleship was questioned, but he felt that he had to show that he was not a lesser apostle.

Whereas here I see no major difference.

sanctifying through laying on of hands is a foreign concept to me (I believe that you meant 5:22) and I don’t see it in the verse. Also, this “sacred power” idea is also something that I do not accept. I don’t see either concept in the NT. I think that it is these sort of differences that are at the root of our disagreement.

I think it clarifies (at least in part) why we disagree.

-You believe correctly of course about the verse Put together this with 2 Tim 1:6 .
το χαρισμα του θεου , the free gift of God is passed through the hands of the apostle, and remains in Timothy. χαρισ is conferred through the semikà. Now it’s Tim’s turn to carefully deliver this gift through his hands, having received this power through Paul.

IMHO this doesn’t explain 15.2

*Therefore despise them not; for they are your honorable men along with the prophets and teachers., *coming after
*for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers. *
says IMHO they have to honor their ministers as they do with true prohets and teachers, and they also are seen in prophetic and teaching functions.

I see the unity as a spiritual thing…I am not sure what “organic” togetherness would be.

Kinda “being members together” I’d guess.

I am not officially affiliated with any church or denomination…I enjoy worshipping at a variety of denominations (even Catholic when invited by family or friends).

Does the same go for yours as well ?

no I do not…it’s the gathered “in my name” bit…I don’t think that a congregation of wicked fellows could be said to be gathering in Christ’s name.
whatever wicked people do to or with one another is not properly called an action of the body of Christ.
that is pretty much the way it is…God ultimately determines who was acting in accordance with his instructions…I would expect that the congregation of 10s or 100s would possess the greater likelihood of acting correctly if the congregation is on one side and a lone pastor is on the other

I hope I can explain why this whole thing is a point of major difficulty to me.

I am getting that a congregation is not always to be considered Body of Christ, for it can possess only a behavior-based authority in its turn. So far so good. You quote a most simple case , where 100 act hunanimously against their pastor. But if most or many of the 100 happen to be reproachable, is there any authority to oust the reproachable fellow ? Or to appoint a new one ? Shall I determine who is reproachable among the whole congregation in order to get an idea of the status of the question ? Then we should know what happens when factions arise …

Have we to believe that, while for sure ultimately determining who was acting according to His instructions, God made His instructions for us so fuzzy ?

 

[pneuma07]

Not being a partner (v. 7) would require some action, it would seem, in order to ensure that not even a hint of impurity exists among them (v 3)…it is not, “you must ensure that the congregation is pure, but you are not responsible to ensure the pastor is pure.”

IMHO in order not to have an impure congregation, I have to be pure, the way explained in verses 1 and 2 of this chapter 5 of Ephesians we’re referring to.

(Then, you may note that verse 7 is seemingly in particular about not following deviating preachers.)

I don’t know enough about St Francis to have an opinion as to whether he partnered with corruption…as stated, dismissing a corrupt bishop would take the action of more than just one Francis. Did he have the means of removing corruption, but instead defended its continued existence within the church? If so, then I think his sacramental view likely led him down the wrong path

Yes, St. Francis was definitely down the wrong path from your perspective.

Casting out a wicked leader does not break the body, it removes a cancer from the body.
Any disunity that results would be due to the wrongful support of the wicked. The hierarchy should not be the vehicle for unity. Bishops should not be the umbilical cords connecting and unifying the various bodies of Christ.
alas, life and faith are subjective endeavours
this doesn’t need to be as hard as you make it out. If there is a question of the pastor’s purity, let two or three witnesses bring sound evidence…if the evidence is good, let him be rebuked and repent and if he doesn’t, let him step down. The legal systems of our countries require this sort of assessment all the time…surely a Christian “court” should be able to do the job as well. If there are strong questions about a pastor’s impurity (from a good portion of the congregation) it would seem that that his ability to serve is greatly compromised…I would suggest that such a pastor should voluntarily step down for the good of the body. It shouldn’t be that hard a thing for a humble servant to do…particularly if not doing so would lead to division. It would seem that attaching more power and prestige to the office, would make it harder to give up.
The qualifications (blameless and above reproach) of an overseer listed in Tim and Titus are not understood to mean “sinless” and “error free”…at least by me.

When union is broken, it is always the other’s fault !

OTOH if I just want pure leaders I have to oust one after the other. Once the principle is there that the pastor has to be unreproachable or ousted, there is no way out: either I break and break until I have my Church of one ( but then I’d be the leader, and should…oust myself ) , or I look for compromises with the said principle …on which the Church should rest.

You see, by any of us “blameless” and “above reproach” can be understood …. one’s own way. That is one of the motivations I cannot believe that the Church rests on such a principle.
The terms of the two lists, to Titus and Tim, should be defining in that particular view.
And an undefinite term cannot ….be a defining one IMHO.

Interesting. This is Lightfoot’s translation:
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among you, dearly beloved,…
and this is Edgar Goodspeed’s comment:
*There is nothing to suggest that the Roman church has been appealed to by the Corinthians; the epistle seems rather to be an unsolicited contribution. *

Yes it is interesting . Going back to the Greek clause we have :
περὶ τῶν ἐπιζητουμένων παρ ̓ ὑμῖν πραγμάτων
The verb is:

ἐπιζητέω,v {ep-eed-zay-teh’-o}

1. to enquire for, seek for, search for, seek diligently 2) to wish for, crave 3) to demand, clamour for
   . ἐπιζητέω to seek (after) τι]; to enquire (of), to consult τι]; to request τι];

I don’t get where “have arisen” comes from, OTOH the “us” of the translation I had seen turns out to be interpretative.

LITERALLY we’d have

“about the requested (or enquired for) among you things.”
( I have to say my Greek is both poor and rusty). The question is open for what I can get.

In any case, the apologies on being late state implicitly that Rome was expected to address the Corinthian troubles.

If there were corrupt elders at Corinth and their ousting caused division, then the division was the result of some partnering with corruption…If there weren’t corrupt elders at Corinth and their ousting caused division, then the division was the result of a wrongful dismissal…either way the division is the end result of sin. Am I to believe that sin has no effect in a system that has overseers who can’t be ousted?

No you are not. And yes, division is result of sin, and in Corinth there was sin. We should avoid sin I suppose. Which cannot be our priority IMHO, if our focus is getting rid of supposedly sinful leaders.

I don’t come from a “sacramental perspective” and so I know that we diverge at that aspect of this description.

Just as a note, our loved Augustine would tell us about baptism and holy orders. in the disputations between Catholics and Donatists.

*If both are sacraments, which no one doubts ( quod nemo dubitat ) how is the one not lost (by defection from the Church) and the other lost?" *(Contra Epistulas Parmeniani, Book II, chapter 13)

agreed…we are thinking beings and thinking beings will reflect
well said

Thanks

 

[pneuma07]

Just in case you are curious as to why I have had a focus on these two matters…regarding the Eucharist, the CC makes it central and if the CC is correct WRT it, then I need to move from where I am at, even if the CC has gotten other things wrong. WRT Mary, I think it is the most obvious example of innovative addition.

IMHO what you say is understandable on the second issue and absolutely correct on the first one

The reconstruction is a much easier and confident undertaking when the core is viewed as being rather brief.

In the light of that reconstruction of a brief core, one then assesses anything else, we have to remember

Well, thanks to the very early recognition of the identity and authority of scripture, there was a written body of works to which any addition/development had to measure up. That, and IMHO 1) the ability to designate any unacceptable teaching as unofficial coupled with 2) the ability to further interpret any questionable teaching into a more acceptable form and plus 3) resorting to forced (and self-serving) interpretations of the scriptures and ECFs to support claims and eliminate issues…makes the lack of contradictions in the official teachings of the CC not that remarkable …given those three tools, most any group could claim that its official teachings were free of contradiction and error (look at how the LDS manage with reconciling Smith’s fabrications with Christian scriptures).

On the first point, let me nevertheless just note that Sola Scriptura simply did not avoid open contradictions among Protestantisms which follow it. Any mutually contradicting tenet is supposedly coming from Scripture there.

The second and IMHO more to the point part is something like saying: “*Look, it is not that the violinist did never play false notes. He’s just so able as to make those errors not clearly perceivable, even if some expert listeners claim they could detect errors, just usually not the same ones”. *

I guess I could not play a two millennia long capriccio without not only gross undoubtable errors, but also without breaking strings or bow or the whole instrument.
I do not know precisely how well the LDS cover false notes in their far shorter performance as violinist-teaching body.

I think I understand your question. WRT the “Trinity”, I think your question would set up like this: With P2, the church’s explanation is not guaranteed to be free of error. Why didn’t the apostles give a proper explanation? B/c they didn’t, am I to understand that God does not care if we gain a correct understanding WRT this matter? If that is your question, then, as it applies to the Trinity, I would say, yes I can’t be sure that the ECFs got it right… I also don’t think God “cares a great deal” if his children gain a correct understanding WRT that matter…particularly when compared to how much he would care WRT whether we treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves etc.

The question had been elaborated to address a position which is not yours, as it turns out in these posts.
Many brothers, while accepting that no stable answer can be reached in their field, wonder why the Church takes so long to reach stable answers, considering that the Apostles had delivered the whole of the deposit. Since you share the necessity of an ongoing reflection on the deposit, that is not your case.

Your “core doctrines and primacy of works” approach (if this is an acceptable definition for you ), is quite appealing to me. OTOH I see ongoing reflection on the Revelation as natural and unavoidable, as we said above. I only attain Revelation through this collective reflection on the delivered deposit. If this unfolding reflection were nowhere no way guided by a legitimate earthly informant, then IMHO I cannot get the Revelation.
Blessed Newman would tell us that in this case a Revelation “is not given”.

Dear Radical, I guess we have by now written quite a lot, both on and off topic.
As it happens , we see further threads would be necessary on several lines, which might in future take place.This one made my perceptions a little clearer on several points.

As for the present issue I imagine we are probably on some parts reaching the famous wall, on others acknowledging relevant agreements.
If in your response you are not going to introduce brand new arguments, I guess after that I am going to write down a summary/ commentary as a last effort in our present exchange

May God bless you

 

[Radical]

I’m with you that the binding diecision was “the result of the presence of apostolic authority”. I am puzzled by imagining, after the apostolic generation, the Spirit speaking everywhere …and binding decisions being made nowhere, because there was no longer any sort of apostolic authority.

For me it is no harder to imagine than a post apostolic world where scripture is no longer being written and no one has the power to perform miracles of the same class or frequency as was done by the apostles themselves…they were in a class by themselves…

I am just, simply, getting that Jesus commands His followers to obey those in legitimate religious authority, and that this has not to do with possible grave moral problems with them.

later, however, when discussing church practices, the apostles present a different approach than merely obedience without question:

*Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17:11 NIV)

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said (1 Cor 14:29 NIV)

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.(1 John 4:1 NIV)*

The congregation is to actively evaluate what they are taught by apostles and prophets…not simply accept and obey. The congregation is to examine the teaching and make the decision (as opposed to referring the matter to a bishop). The accumulation of power and responsibility in the office of the bishop to the point where the population was deprived of the scriptures in their native tongue(s) is terribly wrong (IMHO). We also see:

*15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt 18 NIV)

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? (1 Cor 5 NIV)*

It is the congregation that is to police the conduct of its members and expel the immoral fellow who refuses to repent. No where are overseers exempted from expulsion.

As a disclaimer, I need to say that we should not abuse the Pharisees collectively, and I am sure we share they were highly commendable people among them.

we do

It is IMHO about interior dispositions, attitudes, that nothing is or should be any more as usual. IMHO categorizing a pastor , or any brother (which is a temptation I sometimes feel in different contexts), as a cancer sounds as “business as usual”.

I guess I could have gone with “blot and blemish” as per 1 Peter…I also can’t ignore Paul’s declaration that we are to judge those inside the church

 

[Radical]

Defining orthodoxy by myself any time I’d imagine as one of the ways of properly shaping religion, or the Revelation, rather than being shaped.

well, as we have discussed earlier, we all stand on the shoulders of others…we can’t actually define anything by ourselves. I agree that you have identified an area that merits great concern, but the answer is not simply adhering to the teachings of a body that claims authority for itself. The authority could be legitimate or could be terribly wrong (some of the worst cults have the grandest demands for unquestioning adherence).

And I am trying to show that Your particular reading does not produce IMHO a viable ecclesiology.

it is a type of Church that enjoys a great deal of success in the real world. The monarchical hierarchy hasn’t exactly enjoyed unqualified success …a good chunk of its history is a blot and blemish on Christianity. I would agree that a monarchical clergy is more successful in achieving unity than a congregational system. OTOH I am not aware of any congregational church that has had a history of being plagued with openly immoral pastors.

I also pointed out in the first pages of the thread that if you have two lists, to Titus and Timothy, that are not equal, neither of them can be a list of defining inherently essential elements of X
Say you have “X must be A, B, C, D and E” , then you have “X must be C, D, E, F, G”
How can I consider A to G as essential qualities whose absence determines the ceasing of us having a X ?
By following the proposed reading, Titus and Timothy were being commanded to unordain according to different rules. .

I have probably made this clear already, but in case not…I read both lists as: The overseer must be blameless/above reproach and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, he must be…(and then different particulars are supplied A, B, C, D and E in one case and C,D,E,F and G in the other case.) In essence, it is the same list as every individual item fits under the generality of blameless/above reproach.

Are you pointing to excommunications in the last sentence ?

I wasn’t

Keep please in mind that during the donatist upheaval what you call sacramental school was the common shared framework, which wasn’t in question, to my poor knowledge. From your POV ancient Christianity had deeply derailed on that en masse.

yep…it seems to to part and parcel of placing too much significance on the ministers. But just as the “numbers involved are not the substantive part”, the earliness of the error is also not the substantive part.

If I get correctly, your position is on the contrary, that nothing can be done by a pastor that cannot be done by any baptized one ( or even by a non baptized one ? ). It is clear then that ousting a pastor in that context is more or less comparable to firing a manager or a consultant.

right, though a non-baptized person shouldn’t be appointed to lead

Consider also that the gist of the thread as originally conceived was about the behavioral dimension as a possible stumbling block to people otherwise getting near to catholic views. In your approach the behavioral difficulty seems rather embedded within profound persuasions that catholic teachings are deviated, and the whole case we are dealing with is quite different.

yes and no. Some thoughts of mine in this regard are:

a) I note Catholics will argue that since the Spirit is a spirit of unity, and since the doctrine developed in the Reformation (aka Sola scriptura) has led to disunity, it follows that the Reformation can’t be the work of the Spirit. If the fruit of the Spirit is a proper means for assessing a Protestant claim, surely it should be a proper means of assessing Catholic claims.

b) before I could hope to embrace your idea that bishops can not be ousted, I would have to accept your sacramental approach that needs the actions of even a corrupt bishop to work in conferring grace to the laity. The sacramental approach is such a foreign concept for me, that I don’t know how to even begin to think that it might be valid. It seems (so obviously) to be a replacement of the yoke of the Pharisees with the yoke of the bishops (I think that you have perceived this already)
.

---- I don’t know. To me that means 2 Tim 1:6
“the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands”

the gift was a power or ability, it isn’t an office. It isn’t clear what gift is referred to in this passage.

Titus and Tim are in charge about ordaining, by the apostle’s own command. I just don’t get why, when how this changed, and that was passed to congregations.
Which is definitely not what we can see later. So we’re IMHO postulating an in-between , AND giving it a seemingly normative status. This is clearly for another thread.

From my point of view there is a change in both cases. First, the responsibility of appointments went from God to man. Second, it went from apostles/apostles’ co-worker to congregation (in my view) or elder(s) (in your view). Leadership in the NT church seems to be in the hands of a plurality of elders, but shortly thereafter Ignatius appears to endorse a monarchical single bishop in his corner of the empire. Change seems to be happening rather rapidly

 

[Radical]

875: … No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, they receive the mission and faculty (‘the sacred power’) to act in persona Christi Capitis. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.*

I would simply respond that grace comes from God and God does not need or require a specially empowered and authorized clergy to be the vehicle for delivery. I cannot find such a concept in the NT.

-You believe correctly of course about the verse Put together this with 2 Tim 1:6 .
το χαρισμα του θεου , the free gift of God is passed through the hands of the apostle, and remains in Timothy. χαρισ is conferred through the semikà. Now it’s Tim’s turn to carefully deliver this gift through his hands, having received this power through Paul.

It would seem Timothy enjoyed more than one spiritual gift. One was given via elders (1 Tim 4:14) and one was given via Paul (2 Tim 1:6). I wouldn’t understand either of these gifts to be Tim being appointed to some office.

says IMHO they have to honor their ministers as they do with true prohets and teachers, and they also are seen in prophetic and teaching functions.

yes, this would suggest that the congregation was inclined to honor prophets ahead of their elders…not exactly consistent with Ignatius’s view of the bishop king who rules the local church.

Does the same go for yours as well ?

I am not sure of your question

I hope I can explain why this whole thing is a point of major difficulty to me.
I am getting that a congregation is not always to be considered Body of Christ, for it can possess only a behavior-based authority in its turn.

I would categorize it as a Spirit based authority. We are to walk in the Spirit and this would apply doubly to any leader. Righteous behavior is tied to being Spirit-led. One can’t be walking in a manner that is contrary to being Spirit-led and then claim to be leading in accordance with God’s Spirit.

So far so good. You quote a most simple case , where 100 act hunanimously against their pastor. But if most or many of the 100 happen to be reproachable, is there any authority to oust the reproachable fellow ?

There is practical authority and spiritual authority. A corrupt pastor is not walking in the Spirit and therefore can’t lead in the Spirit as intended…he does not possess spiritual authority. Same goes for the congregation as a whole…spiritual authority is contingent on being led by the Spirit and the best evidence we have of such leading is the spiritual gifts and fruit… Lacking spiritual authority, however, is not equivalent to lacking practical authority. In the OT, the kings of Israel governed whether they had spiritual authority or not.

Have we to believe that, while for sure ultimately determining who was acting according to His instructions, God made His instructions for us so fuzzy ?

I don’t think they are that fuzzy at all. The NT is full of examples as to what is righteousness and what is sinfulness. If two or three witnesses come forward and say that the pastor committed adultery, is there a big debate as to whether adultery is righteous or sinful behavior? It is also pretty clear that overseers aren’t supposed to be adulterers…where it seems to have gotten fuzzy (IMHO) is with what has been added to the NT.

 

[Radical]

OTOH if I just want pure leaders I have to oust one after the other.

This is exactly why one needs to be very cautious and not hasty in appointing elders…select reputable and tested elders that won’t fall away and won’t need to be ousted. Do the first job properly and it should never come near to the need of “ousting one after the other”.

Once the principle is there that the pastor has to be unreproachable or ousted, there is no way out: either I break and break until I have my Church of one ( but then I’d be the leader, and should…oust myself ) , or I look for compromises with the said principle …on which the Church should rest.

it seems that you are going way too far with this…if unreproachable is to mean “absolutely free of sin”, then neither Tim nor Titus could appoint anyone in the first place.

You see, by any of us “blameless” and “above reproach” can be understood …. one’s own way. That is one of the motivations I cannot believe that the Church rests on such a principle.

again, I think the NT provides quite a bit to help us understand what is righteous and what is sinful…I am not aware of any debate (of any significance) regarding such matters between Protestants and Catholics.

I don’t get where “have arisen” comes from, OTOH the “us” of the translation I had seen turns out to be interpretative.

LITERALLY we’d have

“about the requested (or enquired for) among you things.”
( I have to say my Greek is both poor and rusty). The question is open for what I can get.

In any case, the apologies on being late state implicitly that Rome was expected to address the Corinthian troubles.

as it turns out, the apologies are also missing from Lightfoot’s translation…perhaps different manuscripts were referenced?..my copy which follows Lightfoot has Clement’s letter as likely being a response to the report (47.7) that reached Rome.

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical, I guess we have by now written quite a lot, both on and off topic.
As it happens , we see further threads would be necessary on several lines, which might in future take place.This one made my perceptions a little clearer on several points.

same here…I have enjoyed this thread and learning what is at the base of our differing views regarding the clergy

As for the present issue I imagine we are probably on some parts reaching the famous wall, on others acknowledging relevant agreements.
If in your response you are not going to introduce brand new arguments, I guess after that I am going to write down a summary/ commentary as a last effort in our present exchange

please proceed as intended…hopefully I haven’t introduced too much new stuff. Cheers

May God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

It is not unusual that the behavioral dimension comes out as a stated stumbling block for no few non-catholic brothers. Something like… “But in any case, how could I trust the Catholic Church, accept it as my moral authority, acknowledge it as His Church, being its historical behavioural record what is, and with many unworthy ministers ?”.

Dear Radical and everybody,

so here is something of a synopsis of the main considerations that were presented on the topic of the thread, besides the Opening Post, in response to what we could call behavior-based-authority discourse (BBAD, let’s say)

  - The main scriptural texts on which  a behavior-based-authority  discourse (BBAD ) appears to rest  are the lists  to Titus  (  Titus 1) and to Timothy ( 1 Tim 3).    In order to have a relationship to the point, we have to accept a  particular reading of “must”, by which “X must be Y”,   would mean “ X  is or remains X if and only if it is Y”.  Which is far from being the usual meaning of such a clause.

In the present texts this reading appears is IMHO moreover ruled out for at least two motivations:

1. the two lists are not equal, and therefore neither of them can imply absolute necessities, or defining elements. That would amount to giving different instructions to the two disciples, who would ordain and “unordain” under different rules.
2. If OTOH the gist of the two lists are considered the terms “blameless” and “above reproach” , the answer is that two such undefinite terms ( and moreover we have in each of the two lists a different, albeit similar, Greek term),. cannot be …defining ones.

• It has been suggested that a light, conditional leadership elected and ousted by the congregation can be less prone to sins than a stable structured one. Indeed anarchy avoids having sinful leaders at all, but that does not mean it is the best way…at all.
• We have in the NT legitimate pastors ordaining the new legitimate pastors, rather than congregations ordaining and “unordaining” them. In the apostolic fathers, the Corinthian troubles connected with ousting pastors is branded in hard terms in 1 Clement.
• Rejecting BBAD does not mean accepting immorality in pastors, or anybody. Suitable discipline exercised by those in charge with the said pastors are provided for in the Church rules. All have ultimately and most importantly, we know, to face the Head of the Church, answering for how they would shepherd their lots of His flock.
• Scriptural invitations to looking for a purer Church can be essentially considered as exhortations … to getting purer. Jesus’ exhortations against being judgmental , among which the parable of the tares is just one, are IMHO sufficiently strong and repeated to exclude seeing oneself as something like an ecclesial policeman looking for pastors to oust rather than a sinner in need of metanoia.
• Jesus, (Who would have His own people as God’s people in spite of all their past and present sins), is most explicit in Matthew 23 in commanding to obey the legitimate religious authorities in His own time, while considering them most severely about the behavioral dimension. That remains hard to fit with a “get-a-purer-church-by-rebellion” mindset.

 

[pneuma07]

• BBAD incites to rebellions ( considering rebels as policemen ) which, if the theory is not strictly correct, or the assessment of the case in question is not every time strictly correct, means committing a grave sin, as per Numbers 16 and Jude, Korah’s sin.
• BBAD is a powerful inexhaustible seed of division. Division comes from sin , and not from the Spirit, and it produces sin. While it is for sure accepted that you may have sin without division, you cannot have division without sin.
• If authority has to rest on behavior, than we cannot consider congregations a sure locus of Christian legitimate authority. They cannot be automatically seen as Bodies of Christ, possessing as such His authority, since that depends on the people there being above reproach, or something like that.
• Passing to a practical level, no one of us can IMHO know whether ( members of ) congregations are above or below a given moral standard, let alone an undefinite one such as “above reproach”. On top of that the further question about who has the authority to proclaim the fellows in the congregation above or below a supposed standard remains IMHO open.
• It turns out then, that BBAD appears in principle unable to equip us with an identification of any shared legitimate authority, being then not viable, that is provided that its consequences are to be consistently followed, even in a non-sacramental Christianity.

My general conclusion here to the best of my poor knowledge is that IMHO BBAD not only cannot found in itself the rejection of the Catholic Church, but should be rejected on its own merits.

May God bless you and yours

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07, I wasn’t sure if you expected (yet another) response, but here are my final comments,after which I invite you to have the last word.

• The main scriptural texts on which a behavior-based-authority discourse (BBAD ) appears to rest are the lists to Titus ( Titus 1) and to Timothy ( 1 Tim 3). In order to have a relationship to the point, we have to accept a particular reading of “must”, by which “X must be Y”, would mean “ X is or remains X if and only if it is Y”. Which is far from being the usual meaning of such a clause.

In Timothy, Paul lists a quality that is to ensure that the pastor (and the church together with him) does not fall into disrepute. This is a concern that is even more pronounced after the appointment than before and so the limiting of the criteria to the time of appointment seems terribly misplaced. In Titus, Paul lists a quality that is to ensure that the pastor can encourage others and refute those in opposition to sound doctrine. Again, this is a concern that is even more pronounced after the appointment than before and so the continued application of the criteria only makes good sense.

In the present texts this reading appears is IMHO moreover ruled out for at least two motivations:

1. the two lists are not equal, and therefore neither of them can imply absolute necessities, or defining elements. That would amount to giving different instructions to the two disciples, who would ordain and “unordain” under different rules.

Paul, in Galations 5 and Colossians 3 presents things to do and things to avoid., however, his lists are not identical. Should we therefore assume that b/c the “two lists are not equal, … neither of them can imply absolute necessities”? Is it that the Colossians must avoid filthy language and lying, but such is not necessarily the case for the Galatians? Perhaps it was only a suggestion that the Galatians avoid witchcraft and for the rest of us that avoidance isn’t an absolute necessity?

1. If OTOH the gist of the two lists are considered the terms “blameless” and “above reproach” , the answer is that two such undefinite terms ( and moreover we have in each of the two lists a different, albeit similar, Greek term),. cannot be …defining ones.

For me there is more than enough in the rest of scripture to give a definite idea of what is blameless and above reproach and what is sinful. As Paul states, the acts of a sinful nature are obvious (Gal 5:19)

• We have in the NT legitimate pastors ordaining the new legitimate pastors, rather than congregations ordaining and “unordaining” them. In the apostolic fathers, the Corinthian troubles connected with ousting pastors is branded in hard terms in 1 Clement.

It is not as simple as pastors appointing pastors in the NT. We have apostles sending their co-workers who in turn appoint pastors. Apostles are in a class by themselves. It is unavoidable (IMHO) that a change in the nature of the appointer occurs when the task of appointing a pastor is passed off by the apostle/the co-worker of the apostle to either the group of elders (history IMHO strongly establishes that originally it was a group of elders in leadership) or to the congregation.

In 1st Clement we find that the church at Corinth believed that it had the authority to oust its pastors. The Roman church, in 1st Clement, never denies such an authority, it only takes issue with the dismissal of (what it thinks were) righteous pastors. It seems to me that the Roman church would have insisted on the ousting of a pastor that it thought was corrupt.

• Scriptural invitations to looking for a purer Church can be essentially considered as exhortations … to getting purer. Jesus’ exhortations against being judgmental , among which the parable of the tares is just one, are IMHO sufficiently strong and repeated to exclude seeing oneself as something like an ecclesial policeman looking for pastors to oust rather than a sinner in need of metanoia.

In expelling a member from the church at Corinth, Paul clearly stated that the congregation was to judge those inside the church (1 Cor 5:12). That task cannot be ignored and a pastor is inside the church.

• Jesus, (Who would have His own people as God’s people in spite of all their past and present sins), is most explicit in Matthew 23 in commanding to obey the legitimate religious authorities in His own time, while considering them most severely about the behavioral dimension. That remains hard to fit with a “get-a-purer-church-by-rebellion” mindset.

In Matt 23 Jesus was very clear that his followers were to lead in a manner that was not at all similar to the ruling style of the Pharisees. Further, IMHO your use of “rebellion” is questionable. In Matt 23 Jesus teaches obedience to the teachings of the Pharisees, but you indicate that such obedience would not extend to rejecting Christ if that is what the Pharisee taught. Wouldn’t disobeying that teaching by a Pharisee be considered “salvation-by-rebellion” by your definition? Perhaps we could label both “get-a-purer-church-by-rebelling-against-the sinful” and “get-salvation-by-rebelling-against-the sinful”.

 

[Radical]

pneuma07:

BBAD incites to rebellions… which, if the theory is not strictly correct, or the assessment of the case in question is not every time strictly correct, means committing a grave sin, as per Numbers 16 and Jude, Korah’s sin.

Paul’s direction to the congregation to judge those within the church and the obvious parallel between the judging procedure set out at 1 Tim 5:19-20 (WRT elders) and Matt 18: 15-18 (WRT the unrepentant brother) make it clear (IMHO) that the pastor who does not turn from corruption is to be ousted. It should also be noted that Moses was hand-picked by God and was an OT prophet. The closest NT parallel would be an apostle. I am not advocating the dismissal of an apostle, but I am advocating the dismissal of a corrupt pastor appointed by the congregation itself. Those in Jude who are said to have been “destroyed in Korah’s rebellion” are godless men who change the grace of God into a license for immorality and who deny Jesus (v. 4)…and a corrupt pastor might be exactly one of those. Did God allow Korah et al to remain Levite servers despite their immorality or were they removed?

BBAD is a powerful inexhaustible seed of division… While it is for sure accepted that you may have sin without division, you cannot have division without sin.

One can indeed have division w/o sin…dividing oneself from the sinful person is what we are instructed to do. The only inevitable division that results from the dismissal of a corrupt pastor is the division between the congregation and the sinful pastor.

• If authority has to rest on behavior, than we cannot consider congregations a sure locus of Christian legitimate authority. They cannot be automatically seen as Bodies of Christ, possessing as such His authority, since that depends on the people there being above reproach…

As indicated, authority rests on the possession of the Spirit and the best indication of the Spirit’s presence is the presence of the fruit of the Spirit. Your concern for “legitimate authority” is greater than it needs to be(IMHO), for as Christ taught we are not to have a Rabbi, a Master, a Father or a Teacher other than God himself. A pastor with “legitimate authority” is not required for any special task (that someone else in the congregation couldn’t possibly perform)…no matter what, those who seek Christ’s Spirit will always have the perfect Rabbi, Master, Father and Teacher. Christians are never orphaned or w/o their Shepherd. Christ and the Spirit provide the required authority.

• Passing to a practical level, no one of us can IMHO know whether ( members of ) congregations are above or below a given moral standard, let alone an undefinite one such as “above reproach”. On top of that the further question about who has the authority to proclaim the fellows in the congregation above or below a supposed standard remains IMHO open.

From a practical point of view, under the Law of Moses people were put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses (the same procedure that Paul provided for the judging of an elder). God didn’t seem too concerned that mistakes would be made on such life and death matters. On that rare occasion when a righteous pastor is wrongfully dismissed by a mistaken (but well-intended) congregation (a congregation that appointed him in the first place), it is not a wrong that the Spirit cannot mend.

…BBAD appears in principle unable to equip us with an identification of any shared legitimate authority, being then not viable, …My general conclusion here to the best of my poor knowledge is that IMHO BBAD not only cannot found in itself the rejection of the Catholic Church, but should be rejected on its own merits.

It seems that your desire for certainty determines your conclusion. Also it seems that your belief that the clergy provide something necessary for salvation drives your desire for certainty. If I understand you correctly, it is (something like):
a) the clergy confer essential grace to the laity through the sacraments
b) only legitimate clergy can confer grace
c) therefore, we must be able to determine with certainty which clergy are legitimate
d) tagging via apostolic succession provides that certainty, whereas if legitimacy is determined by the condition of the clergy’s heart, the essential certainty is not attainable.
Your conclusion at (d), favoring apostolic succession and rejecting BBAD as being unworkable, is only as good as the assertions at (a) and (b). I believe that we have identified these two matters as topics for other threads (or books even), but at this point in time these are the problems that I see WRT those assertions.

Regarding (a), grace comes from God. The Spirit is provided to every Christian. It seems odd (to me) that a Christian would have to seek out a clergyman to obtain something from God when God indwells that Christian. There seems to be no logical basis for thinking that God would restrict himself in that fashion. I see no support for (a) in the NT and from a historical perspective it seems that (a) was a post-apostolic development.

Regarding (b), even if we granted that assertion (a) is correct, such does not establish that “apostolic succession” is the manner by which a clergyman obtains legitimacy. Further, if your position was correct it would seem that God is rather inconsistent. He will override the immorality of a corrupt pastor so as to allow the transfer of grace, but will not override the lack of “apostolic succession” so as to allow the transfer of grace. It seems to me that your assertion has God valuing form (manner of the pastor’s appointment) over substance (the pastor’s being a man after God’s own heart). Finally, I find no logical or scriptural or early historical support for assertion (b) either.

Thanks for this discussion. May God bless you and yours

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma07, I wasn’t sure if you expected (yet another) response, but here are my final comments,after which I invite you to have the last word.
In Timothy, Paul lists a quality that is to ensure that the pastor (and the church together with him) does not fall into disrepute. This is a concern that is even more pronounced after the appointment than before and so the limiting of the criteria to the time of appointment seems terribly misplaced. In Titus, Paul lists a quality that is to ensure that the pastor can encourage others and refute those in opposition to sound doctrine. Again, this is a concern that is even more pronounced after the appointment than before and so the continued application of the criteria only makes good sense.

".

Dear Radical,

since I am called to a last response… then as already stated, what I object to is not an application of the lists also after the ordination, but a particular reading of them, by which “X must be Y”, would mean “ X is or remains X if and only if it is Y”

Paul, in Galations 5 and Colossians 3 presents things to do and things to avoid., however, his lists are not identical. Should we therefore assume that b/c the “two lists are not equal, … neither of them can imply absolute necessities”? Is it that the Colossians must avoid filthy language and lying, but such is not necessarily the case for the Galatians? Perhaps it was only a suggestion that the Galatians avoid witchcraft and for the rest of us that avoidance isn’t an absolute necessity?

Of course a teacher could tell you “be X and do y” and and to a friend “ be W and do Z”, and that would not necessarily mean mutually exclusive teachings at all. But I would not tell you “you have to unordain X if he is not A, B, C, D and E” and your friend “ you have to unordain X if he is not C, D, E, F, G” omitting what we have to consider two absolute conditions on the very same specific issue.

For me there is more than enough in the rest of scripture to give a definite idea of what is blameless and above reproach and what is sinful. As Paul states, the acts of a sinful nature are obvious (Gal 5:19

We are speaking about “who” is blameless, which, as you state, does not mean “sinless”. Then we understand there are just some kinds of “blames” in pastors we have to exclude, and other we can get along with. The undefiniteness comes therefore quite naturally, when you have to state which are which.
Moreover “selfish ambition, dissensions, factions”, quoted in that very list in Galatians 5.20 ( we take note they are among the works of the flesh as idolatry and witchcraft are BTW !) are not so clearly discernible IMHO, and we could not bet we’d see them in the same places.

It is not as simple as pastors appointing pastors in the NT. We have apostles sending their co-workers who in turn appoint pastors. Apostles are in a class by themselves. It is unavoidable (IMHO) that a change in the nature of the appointer occurs when the task of appointing a pastor is passed off by the apostle/the co-worker of the apostle to either the group of elders (history IMHO strongly establishes that originally it was a group of elders in leadership) or to the congregation.
In 1st Clement we find that the church at Corinth believed that it had the authority to oust its pastors. The Roman church, in 1st Clement, never denies such an authority, it only takes issue with the dismissal of (what it thinks were) righteous pastors. It seems to me that the Roman church would have insisted on the ousting of a pastor that it thought was corrupt.

I really don’t know - given for granted of course that the Apostles are a class in themselves - where we see this change in the nature of the appointer in the NT. ( BTW a group og ordaining ministers versus a single one would not be a change in the nature IMHO, since you can have both a single ordainer if necessary, and, possibly, a group in the rules of the CC ) My humble impression is that a change in nature is postulated, having nevertheless to postulate a curious come back to the original nature later on.
Someone in Corinth had prevented pastors from exercising their ministry ( leitourgia), thus stirring dissensions, ie works of the flesh.

In expelling a member from the church at Corinth, Paul clearly stated that the congregation was to judge those inside the church (1 Cor 5:12). That task cannot be ignored and a pastor is inside the church.

“Do not even eat with such people”,
which appears the far milder version of the deuteronomic command on expelling the wicked, does not need IMHO that congregations “unordain” pastors who are supposed to be immoral.

In Matt 23 Jesus was very clear that his followers were to lead in a manner that was not at all similar to the ruling style of the Pharisees. Further, IMHO your use of “rebellion” is questionable. In Matt 23 Jesus teaches obedience to the teachings of the Pharisees, but you indicate that such obedience would not extend to rejecting Christ if that is what the Pharisee taught. Wouldn’t disobeying that teaching by a Pharisee be considered “salvation-by-rebellion” by your definition? Perhaps we could label both “get-a-purer-church-by-rebelling-against-the sinful” and "get-salvation-by-rebelling-against-the sinful

If your boss ( maybe you haven’t any of them ), orders what is outside the scope of his authority, not obeying on that point does not mean IMHO that you reject his authority, let alone rebel against him.

 

[pneuma07]

Paul’s direction to the congregation to judge those within the church and the obvious parallel between the judging procedure set out at 1 Tim 5:19-20 (WRT elders) and Matt 18: 15-18 (WRT the unrepentant brother) make it clear (IMHO) that the pastor who does not turn from corruption is to be ousted. It should also be noted that Moses was hand-picked by God and was an OT prophet. The closest NT parallel would be an apostle. I am not advocating the dismissal of an apostle, but I am advocating the dismissal of a corrupt pastor appointed by the congregation itself. Those in Jude who are said to have been “destroyed in Korah’s rebellion” are godless men who change the grace of God into a license for immorality and who deny Jesus (v. 4)…and a corrupt pastor might be exactly one of those. Did God allow Korah et al to remain Levite servers despite their immorality or were they removed?

God did not allow Korah & C to remain alive, after the rebellion, against whom had be sent by Him in extraordinary way.

Those in Jude 4 , having “ crept in “ or “slipped in among you” are anything except legitimate pastors.

1 Tim 5:19-20 is precisely an instruction about disciplining, within an immediate context, verses 17-21 about pastoring …pastors.

One can indeed have division w/o sin…dividing oneself from the sinful person is what we are instructed to do. The only inevitable division that results from the dismissal of a corrupt pastor is the division between the congregation and the sinful pastor.

You are just speaking about division because of sin. Sin does feed division. Division feeds sin.
What you mention is the only theoretically inevitable division in that case.

As indicated, authority rests on the possession of the Spirit and the best indication of the Spirit’s presence is the presence of the fruit of the Spirit. Your concern for “legitimate authority” is greater than it needs to be(IMHO), …

That line of thought leads us into….churchless Christianity. (And into many possible off topic paths … )

The basic difference here is that we catholics believe that God, the one and only authority and supreme Pastor, decided to confer derived authority to legitimate shepherds - quite obviously invited to be worth their great responsibilities - to which His flock or parts of it are entrusted.

2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 1 Peter 5

From a practical point of view, under the Law of Moses people were put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses (the same procedure that Paul provided for the judging of an elder). God didn’t seem too concerned that mistakes would be made on such life and death matters. On that rare occasion when a righteous pastor is wrongfully dismissed by a mistaken (but well-intended) congregation (a congregation that appointed him in the first place), it is not a wrong that the Spirit cannot mend.

The issue is not judicial errors, which are more or less possible with every system . The issue here is the supposed judicial system itself, where noone can assess whether the court has authority to judge in the first place.

It seems that your desire for certainty determines your conclusion. Also it seems that your belief that the clergy provide something necessary for salvation drives your desire for certainty. If I understand you correctly, it is (something like):
a) the clergy confer essential grace to the laity through the sacraments
b) only legitimate clergy can confer grace
c) therefore, we must be able to determine with certainty which clergy are legitimate
d) tagging via apostolic succession provides that certainty, whereas if legitimacy is determined by the condition of the clergy’s heart, the essential certainty is not attainable.
Your conclusion at (d), favoring apostolic succession and rejecting BBAD as being unworkable, is only as good as the assertions at (a) and (b).

Regarding (a), …

Thanks for this discussion. May God bless you and yours

Since we are closing and not opening an exchange we’ll leave for other possible threads the roots of your present rejection of the sacraments.
Let me just observe that God does no way restrict Himself IMHO: anything He does through His Church is just the ordinary chosen way. And that you simply appear to decide that delivering the free gift of God is form rather than substance.

You’re a) and b) seem essentially one to me.

IMHO BBAD is unworkable in itself, that is without relating to the merits of sacraments and apostolic succession. BBAD means there is no sure authority on which ordaining and “unordaining” - even in the limited scope of being elected manager or consultant by the congregation, which I see as far away from having a flock entrusted - or indeed doing anything.

Lastly, yes, I do have desire for some certainty. That is basically what we look for in religion at the end of the day IMHO, and in revealed religion in particular.
And in Christianity most, where we’re taught that the Incarnated Logos is the truth.

Thank you. God bless you, and see you on the forum.:tiphat: