The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[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 ?”.

I wonder therefore how can we best help them ( and ourselves ) towards an adequate understanding as regards this aspect. What follows could be a contribution to start with.

1. It is the essence of the Church being a human vehicle of divine truths. The human side, as such, is made up of sinners.
   Let’s not forget perspective here. Catholic Church means the largest part of Christianity throughout c\enturies and millennia. No Christian body is even comparable both in extension AND duration.
   Crossing a multitude of countries and centuries, therefore of mindsets and challenges, it is to be expected that much there can be to be proud of, and also much the other way.
   If we wanted a church without any record of sin by its ministers, we should build every day a new one.
2. Many ministers, in particular, are sometimes deemed to be or to have been unworthy.
   Let’s think of that. There are practical aspects too here. Firstly, what authority would decide who are those worth going on occupying their seat from a moral point of view ? The opinion of a single believer ? I know one can quote cases of gross misbehaviour, but what is the threshold of unworthiness ? ( Each of us could propose one subjectively, but subjectivity cannot help here so much).
   More importantly, there is the perspective of the believer. You have to know who can administer validly. In a sacramental church ( as the Apostolic Churches are ) I can go to a church in any town or city, know nothing about the celebrating guy. I have to know the celebration and sacraments are valid, even knowing nothing about the celebrating guy, other that he is a priest. (well looks like one. 99,99 % of those celebrating a Mass looking a priest, are priests, we can conservatively suppose ).
3. Historically the position about behavior barring the validity of ministries was held by the Donatists, who would flourish in Roman Africa in the IV – V centuries That makes clear, a contrario, the position of the universal Church at large, which was different from that, before during and after this dispute or that with Novatianism.
   And ultimately, the donatists’ “rigor” turned out self-defeating
4. Scripturally, is there strong support for such a claim ? It doesn’t seem the case. Saul was a sinner, and
   his dynasty was substituted by David’s. But during his entire life, he would remain the anointed one. Respected as such, even by his enemy David. His status of anointed was not deleted by his sins, even if he could not found a dynasty. David in his own turn would commit grave sin, being punished, but remaining the anointed king and the forefather of kings and of the King. Even Manasses in (2 Kings 21) would reign in Jerusalem for more than half a century, in spite of his sinful behavior. There is no record of disputation about his personal rights, and his successor’s.
5. intratext.com/IXT/ENG0885/_P3.HTM Those who are persuaded that the catholich hierarchy used to be something like the scum of the earth, can have fun reading and meditating this short story by the great Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio, dated XIV century.
6. St Francis was extremely far from going into moral criticisms of believers and priests. He never said a priest was not not worth his position. He would rather assume that he was not worth being a priest himself. Maybe we can agree that this looks a much more christian approach.
7. Last but not least, the fact the Church is not just a club of holy irreproachable people is very good news for me: how could I join or remain otherwise ?

Please, tell me whether this holds water and could be of any help, what should be corrected, what should be added.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church is seen as holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. (Matthew 28: 16-20)

Christ calls all to a holy life. Nonetheless, members of His Church acknowledge their sinfulness and through grace follow the path of conversion, penance, and renewal. United with Christ, their holiness on earth is real, though imperfect.

In canonization, the Catholic Church proclaims that an individual practiced heroic virtue and faithfully followed God’s will. Saints are public examples of the holiness with the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[neophyte]

The terms of the argument lead one to conclude that the person making it can’t trust himself for the very same reason. He can’t accept himself as his own moral authority either, his own record of behavior being what it is.

 

[Fair_Lady]

From NKJ 1 Timothy 3:

"Qualifications of Overseers
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,** but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."**

 

[pneuma07]

The Catholic Church is seen as holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. (Matthew 28: 16-20)

Christ calls all to a holy life. Nonetheless, members of His Church acknowledge their sinfulness and through grace follow the path of conversion, penance, and renewal. United with Christ, their holiness on earth is real, though imperfect.

In canonization, the Catholic Church proclaims that an individual practiced heroic virtue and faithfully followed God’s will. Saints are public examples of the holiness with the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

Hi Grannymh.

For other readres, here is the context about the Church as holy, in the CCC

II. THE CHURCH IS HOLY
823 "The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as ‘alone holy,’ loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God."289 The Church, then, is "the holy People of God,"290 and her members are called "saints."291

824 United with Christ, the Church is sanctified by him; through him and with him she becomes sanctifying. "All the activities of the Church are directed, as toward their end, to the sanctification of men in Christ and the glorification of God."292 It is in the Church that "the fullness of the means of salvation"293 has been deposited. It is in her that "by the grace of God we acquire holiness."294

825 "The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect."295 In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: "Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect."296

826 Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it "governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification."297
If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn’t lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT’S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE - IT’S ETERNAL! 298

827 "Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,’ knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."299 All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners.300 In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.301 Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ’s salvation but still on the way to holiness:

 

[pneuma07]

The terms of the argument lead one to conclude that the person making it can’t trust himself for the very same reason. He can’t accept himself as his own moral authority either, his own record of behavior being what it is.

Hi Neophite.

That’s interesting.
Maybe he doesn’t consider himself as his own moral authority, maybe he’s even looking for a possible one. The scenario I propose is a person somehow interested in Catholicism.

Do you mind that the OPost could address some of the potential difficulties he might have in accepting the CC as His Church ?

May I ask what you experienced with regard to this when you were going to cross the Tiber ?

.

 

[pneuma07]

From NKJ 1 Timothy 3:

"Qualifications of Overseers
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,** but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."**

Hi Fair Lady.

Thank you for reminding us of the qualities proposed for the bishop to Timothy ( and more or less to Titus as well in Titus 1). BTW Do you mind that Tim and Titus received via Paul the power to ordain ministers of the Church ?

Do you mind these qualifications are listed as desirable, normatively necessary or absolutely necessary ?
Is that for the time of the appointment, or to be kept forever, in order to remain a valid pastor ?

 

[Fair_Lady]

Hi Fair Lady.

Thank you for reminding us of the qualities proposed for the bishop to Timothy ( and more or less to Titus as well in Titus 1). BTW Do you mind that Tim and Titus received via Paul the power to ordain ministers of the Church ?

This question can lead us totally off topic so I won’t address it just now.

Do you mind these qualifications are listed as desirable, normatively necessary or absolutely necessary ?

The word “must” shows up several times in that passage, so I understand it to be absolutely necessary. Verse 7 encapsulates the importance of those “musts” - “Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil”.

Is that for the time of the appointment, or to be kept forever, in order to remain a valid pastor ?

The qualificatons of church leadership mentioned in that passage of scripture don’t appear to be of a temporary nature, do they?

 

[pneuma07]

This question can lead us totally off topic so I won’t address it just now.

Dear Fair Lady,

you are right.

The word “must” shows up several times in that passage, so I understand it to be absolutely necessary. Verse 7 encapsulates the importance of those “musts” - “Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil”.

I guess I have some difficulties here.

A general one is that a “must” , or a number of “musts” do not automatically imply absolute necessity.
Let’s say people must get to school or office on time. What about seeing a person in need of your help while on the road , and arriving late for helping her ? So you have a “must” which is not absolute there.

I’m coming to the particular one.
As mentioned before, we have two texts from the pastoral letters dealing with qualifications for the episcopate, the quoted 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1

5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer** is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

They are similar, but they’re not identical.
The question is: If 1 Tim 3 gives a list of absolute necessities, how come the Titus 1 list does not contain all of them ( or vice-versa) ?

( You may note that verse 1 Tim 3:7, in particular, which you invited to focus on, is not in Titus 1).

The qualificatons of church leadership mentioned in that passage of scripture don’t appear to be of a temporary nature, do they?

Are you saying that a pastor who happen to have a child who at a certain time ceases obeying him has for this very fact to be booted out ?

To answer your point directly, consider that you must not be a novice, a recent convert, says verse 1 Tim 3:6.
Now this is clearly a request of a temporary nature, on the present status of candidates. You just cannot be a new convert forever. . So it look like we cannot say that we have a list of permanent conditions here.

Bless you.**

 

[neophyte]

Hi Neophite.

That’s interesting.
Maybe he doesn’t consider himself as his own moral authority, maybe he’s even looking for a possible one. The scenario I propose is a person somehow interested in Catholicism.

In general my response holds for anyone that he might consider, because nearly everyone suffers in the manner of which he speaks. And since he himself is subject to it, his own ability to make the moral judgements on which his argument rests is gravely suspect. Ultimately it puts him in the position of being able to refer himself to no moral authority at all.

Do you mind that the OPost could address some of the potential difficulties he might have in accepting the CC as His Church ?

May I ask what you experienced with regard to this when you were going to cross the Tiber ?

My decision to enter the Church had nothing to do with the sinfulness (or lack thereof) of its members here on earth. It was entirely based on Christ’s promise to protect his Church from ever teaching false doctrine, and the historical evidence which shows that the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome is the Church that he founded. There was nothing subjective about it… in fact, quite a bit of effort was spent on dragging my emotions in line with my will.

 

[Fair_Lady]

A general one is that a “must” , or a number of “musts” do not automatically imply absolute necessity.
Let’s say people must get to school or office on time. What about seeing a person in need of your help while on the road , and arriving late for helping her ? So you have a “must” which is not absolute there.

That would be a “situational dilemma”, which is taking the thrust of 1 Timothy 3 off into another direction. Paul lists qualifications that church leaders need to possess in order to be qualified to take on those positions. That is pretty plain and simple and using a standard less than what he gives us is less than wise.

I’m coming to the particular one.
As mentioned before, we have two texts from the pastoral letters dealing with qualifications for the episcopate, the quoted 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1

5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer** is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

They are similar, but they’re not identical.
The question is: If 1 Tim 3 gives a list of absolute necessities, how come the Titus 1 list does not contain all of them ( or vice-versa) ? **
Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He was writing as he was lead and what was needed at the time. It’s not uncommon in scripture for certain areas to contain more information on one subject than in other areas. But each passage wonderfully complements other passages and I find it a pretty amazing book.

( You may note that verse 1 Tim 3:7, in particular, which you invited to focus on, is not in Titus 1).

Do you expect that two different letter
The thoughts expressed in verse 7 in Titus 1 comes pretty close - “Since an overseer** is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless”. Compare that with verse 7 of 1 Timothy 3 - “Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

To “be blameless” is very close to being the same thing as having a “good testimony”.

Are you saying that a pastor who happen to have a child who at a certain time ceases obeying him has for this very fact to be booted out ?

**
No, but the leader must be “one who rules his own house well”.

To answer your point directly, consider that you must not be a novice, a recent convert, says verse 1 Tim 3:6.
Now this is clearly a request of a temporary nature, on the present status of candidates. You just cannot be a new convert forever. . So it look like we cannot say that we have a list of permanent conditions here.

Are you serious? It’s just saying that the candidate must not be a novice, a recent convert. It’s the standard that is permanent - and the standard is that candidates must not be a novice or a recent convert. In other words, leaders should be mature Christians.

Bless you.

 

[pneuma07]

In general my response holds for anyone that he might consider, because nearly everyone suffers in the manner of which he speaks. And since he himself is subject to it, his own ability to make the moral judgements on which his argument rests is gravely suspect. Ultimately it puts him in the position of being able to refer himself to no moral authority at all.

My decision to enter the Church had nothing to do with the sinfulness (or lack thereof) of its members here on earth. It was entirely based on Christ’s promise to protect his Church from ever teaching false doctrine, and the historical evidence which shows that the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome is the Church that he founded. There was nothing subjective about it… in fact, quite a bit of effort was spent on dragging my emotions in line with my will.

Dear Neophyte,

“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

I guess your comments are in harmony with point 6) and 7) in the OPost.

The legitimacy of religious authority is not jeopardized or invalidated by behaviors. This is the position I am prepared to defend alongside you.

Since, as a matter of fact, sins within the ministers of the Church do feed, in the course of history and nowadays, heresies and incredulity, I guess we have a task to understand and help our brothers who feel upset by those sins. Part of this task can be showing them charitably the reasobleness of the position above.
That is the idea of the OPost.

Bless you.

 

[pneuma07]

that would be a “situational dilemma”, which is taking the thrust of 1 timothy 3 off into another direction. Paul lists qualifications that church leaders need to possess in order to be qualified to take on those positions. That is pretty plain and simple and using a standard less than what he gives us is less than wise.

Paul was writing under the inspiration of the holy spirit. He was writing as he was lead and what was needed at the time. It’s not uncommon in scripture for certain areas to contain more information on one subject than in other areas. But each passage wonderfully complements other passages and i find it a pretty amazing book.

Do you expect that two different letter
the thoughts expressed in verse 7 in titus 1 comes pretty close - “since an overseer** is entrusted with god’s work, he must be blameless”. Compare that with verse 7 of 1 timothy 3 - “moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

to “be blameless” is very close to being the same thing as having a “good testimony”.

No, but the leader must be “one who rules his own house well”.

Are you serious? it’s just saying that the candidate must not be a novice, a recent convert. It’s the standard that is permanent - and the standard is that candidates must not be a novice or a recent convert. In other words, leaders should be mature christians.

Bless you.**

 

[pneuma07]

That would be a “situational dilemma”, which is taking the thrust of 1 Timothy 3 off into another direction. Paul lists qualifications that church leaders need to possess in order to be qualified to take on those positions. That is pretty plain and simple and using a standard less than what he gives us is less than wise.

.

Dear Fair Lady,

 I just told  that as a general rule  we cannot infer  from a "must" that an absolute necessity is predicated.  It seems we agree on that.

Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He was writing as he was lead and what was needed at the time. It’s not uncommon in scripture for certain areas to contain more information on one subject than in other areas. But each passage wonderfully complements other passages and I find it a pretty amazing book.

If the list of instructions to Titus and Tim complement each other, that precisely means that neither can be a list of absolute necessities.

Do you expect that two different letter
The thoughts expressed in verse 7 in Titus 1 comes pretty close - “Since an overseer** is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless”. Compare that with verse 7 of 1 Timothy 3 - “Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

To “be blameless” is very close to being the same thing as having a “good testimony”.**

IMHO “being blameless” and “having a good testimony” are not always the same thing.
You can easily imagine one without the other. And this is not the only difference between the two lists.

No, but the leader must be “one who rules his own house well”.

But does that mean that if you decide that that is no longer the case you boot him out ?

Are you serious? It’s just saying that the candidate must not be a novice, a recent convert. It’s the standard that is permanent - and the standard is that candidates must not be a novice or a recent convert. In other words, leaders should be mature Christians.

Bless you

Sorry that I was not clear. I just meant that “not being a recent convert” is manifestly a qualification for a candidate. Not a lifelong request.
Therefore the list does not look like being one about lifelong requests.
If so, a minister ordained by Titus or Timothy has not to pass continuous moral examinations in order to remain a minister.

“Hebrews” does not tell us “judge whether the ministry of your leaders is still valid”, but “obey your leaders”

I hope this can help
Bless you

 

[Radical]

Hello Pneuma07…have you missed me? …I have misssed your thoughtful posts

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 ?”.

I wonder therefore how can we best help them ( and ourselves ) towards an adequate understanding as regards this aspect.

well, since I am exactly one of those who thinks that the history of the Catholic hierarchy speaks loudly against the validity of its claims…I’ll tell you what I like and don’t like about your presentation

1. It is the essence of the Church being a human vehicle of divine truths. The human side, as such, is made up of sinners.
   Let’s not forget perspective here. Catholic Church means the largest part of Christianity throughout c\enturies and millennia. No Christian body is even comparable both in extension AND duration.
   Crossing a multitude of countries and centuries, therefore of mindsets and challenges, it is to be expected that much there can be to be proud of, and also much the other way.
   If we wanted a church without any record of sin by its ministers, we should build every day a new one.

all good points…My problem here is that the CC claims that it is a church like no other, that it is in a class by itself…that it has a fullness that the others are lacking, that it is possessed of the only Vicar of Christ and that all others are therefore lacking the proper leadership. I am inclined to think that one should be able to recognize a tree by its fruits and there is nothing in the moral fruit of the CC that puts it in a class all by itself. The claim is simply not supported by the fruit. I not saying that it should be w/o any trace of sin, but if it is truly the one true Church, then the CC should look the part from a moral perspective, it should stand above the crowd…as a whole, its leaders should be more like Christ than the leaders of any other church. Why do you think that my expectation is not warranted in light of the Catholic claims? I find it rather odd that when contemplating Christ’s birth, Catholics will stress that God acted to make Mary absolutely sinless b/c she carried the body of Christ (as if sin could somehow be passed by contact to Jesus). In contrast, Catholics seem to think that God wouldn’t be moved to act if a grossly corrupt priest carries the Eucharistic bread (also seen as the body of Christ)…or, Catholics seem to think that God wouldn’t be moved to act if a grossly corrupt bishop (of Rome) leads the Church (also said to be the body of Christ).

1. Many ministers, in particular, are sometimes deemed to be or to have been unworthy.
   Let’s think of that. There are practical aspects too here. Firstly, what authority would decide who are those worth going on occupying their seat from a moral point of view ? The opinion of a single believer ?

The body which is to be subject to the one appointed should act in unity to first appoint the leader in question and to then dismiss that leader if he becomes unworthy

More importantly, there is the perspective of the believer. You have to know who can administer validly. In a sacramental church ( as the Apostolic Churches are ) I can go to a church in any town or city, know nothing about the celebrating guy. I have to know the celebration and sacraments are valid, even knowing nothing about the celebrating guy, other that he is a priest. (well looks like one. 99,99 % of those celebrating a Mass looking a priest, are priests, we can conservatively suppose )

since I don’t have a sacramental approach, this need for a validly administered sacrament does not speak to me as a factor that would serve to justify the need for a office that maintains its authority notwithstanding the moral corruption of its officer.

Historically the position about behavior barring the validity of ministries was held by the Donatists, who would flourish in Roman Africa in the IV – V centuries That makes clear, a contrario, the position of the universal Church at large, which was different from that, before during and after this dispute or that with Novatianism.
And ultimately, the donatists’ “rigor” turned out self-defeating

I don’t know that the Donatist issue speaks to the matter…Was any one in the Catholic camp claiming that unrighteous individuals should continue as leaders throughout their period of unrighteousness, even until death if they never repented? Was any one in the Catholic camp claiming that the qualifications of a overseer which were set out in the NT should simply be ignored? Did the Catholics of that day abandon all aspects of rigor? In any event, I do not feel at all bound by what the Catholics of history have formulated to validate the offices of their hierarchy, notwithstanding gross unrighteousness.

 

[Radical]

1. Scripturally, is there strong support for such a claim ? It doesn’t seem the case. Saul was a sinner, and
   his dynasty was substituted by David’s. But during his entire life, he would remain the anointed one. Respected as such, even by his enemy David. His status of anointed was not deleted by his sins, even if he could not found a dynasty.

Even if one ignores the distinction that Saul’s office was a political one and not a spiritual one, then I still think this example gives you more difficulty than it gives me. Saul was rejected by the Lord as king over Israel. Saul could not pass on the annointing of the Lord to his children. Wouldn’t that mean (if we apply it to your Church) that we could expect God to reject a sinful Pope and that such a Pope would no longer be able to pass that authority down to a successor? Then there is also the example of Eli (whose sins seem rather minor by comparison to the sins of certain Popes). Eli was cut off and God raised up another priest. David’s line gives yet another example. The kingdom was taken away from his sinful successors and only with the coming of Christ was reigning restored to that lineage, but even then, the kingdom was not of this world. For an example from the NT, one could look at the parable of the evil tenants which was directed at the Jewish religious hierarchy. Didn’t the temple priests tie a rope to the leg of the high priest when he went into the Holy of Holies lest God struck him down for his unrighteousness? If so, what should we make of that?

1. Those who are persuaded that the catholich hierarchy used to be something like the scum of the earth, can have fun reading and meditating this short story by the great Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio, dated XIV century.

doesn’t the tale reinforce that persuasion by portraying the hieracrchy of that date as the scum of the earth? The Jewish fellow should have been hired as a “spin doctor”

1. St Francis was extremely far from going into moral criticisms of believers and priests. He never said a priest was not not worth his position.

I don’t know how you get away from it…as Fair Lady has pointed out, the mandatory qualifications of an overseer are set out in scripture. The extent to which certain bishops fell short of those qualifications was legendary…someone should have done something.

He would rather assume that he was not worth being a priest himself. Maybe we can agree that this looks a much more christian approach.

How is it “more christian” to not speak up about what was lacking in the conduct of the Catholic hierarchy?..or is it that it would also be “more christian” to not voice an opinion about what Catholics believe is lacking in the faith of protestants? Perhaps it would be “more christian” if Catholics refrained from saying “we have fullness, you do not”. I could appreciate that approach.

1. Last but not least, the fact the Church is not just a club of holy irreproachable people is very good news for me: how could I join or remain otherwise ?

yes, and in that way the Catholic Church is no different from any other church, yet it claims that it is a cut above.

May God bless you greatly.

 

[Fair_Lady]

 I just told  that as a general rule  we cannot infer  from a "must" that an absolute necessity is predicated.  It seems we agree on that.

Sorry to take so long in responding - I’m on holidays and have been away. It doesn’t seem to me we’re in agreement on that - according to Webster’s, one definition of “must” is: necessity.

If the list of instructions to Titus and Tim complement each other, that precisely means that neither can be a list of absolute necessities.

Why?

IMHO “being blameless” and “having a good testimony” are not always the same thing.
You can easily imagine one without the other.

That would seem to be splitting hairs, in my opinion. If that is a big deal, let’s go to the opposite side of the spectrum and talk about clery are are not blameless and do not have a good testimony. I look upon clergy who are deviant and do evil things to be in the same category as those described in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 - “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 1t is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”

But does that mean that if you decide that that is no longer the case you boot him out ?

Possibly - if there is something that needs to be repented of and he is unwilling to do so.

Sorry that I was not clear. I just meant that “not being a recent convert” is manifestly a qualification for a candidate. Not a lifelong request.
Therefore the list does not look like being one about lifelong requests.
If so, a minister ordained by Titus or Timothy has not to pass continuous moral examinations in order to remain a minister.

It’s pretty straight forward, I think. One qualification is simply that the candidate is not a recent convert. If a person lives long enough, at some point they will not be a recent convert anymore and then may possibly be qualified to be a minister.

That last sentence in your quote blows me away. Is there ever really a time that an ordained minister should be above moral reproach?

“Hebrews” does not tell us “judge whether the ministry of your leaders is still valid”, but “obey your leaders”

I’m assuming you are referring to Hebrews 13:17 - “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

I have no problem with that verse, but it must always be regarded in light of other scripture as well:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
Matthew 7:15-16

In other words, the guy in the robe may or may not be a true man of God. Watch for his fruit. If he evil bears evil fruit- BEWARE! Why should anyone subject themselves to wolves in sheep’s clothing? It is not what God intends for us.

 

[pneuma07]

Hello Pneuma07…have you missed me? …I have misssed your thoughtful posts
.

Hi Radical !

Always a pleasure reading you. Are you joining this sub-forum ?
Sorry that I can reply so late. On the positive side: nice holidays.
On the negative: a burglary at home.
I hope your summer was OK .

Dunno whether it is going to be as thoughtful as you like.

well, since I am exactly one of those who thinks that the history of the Catholic hierarchy speaks loudly against the validity of its claims…I’ll tell you what I like and don’t like about your presentation

I was indeed looking for refinements and suggestions as yo see. I am afraid my presentation as it was scored rather badly under your test. Maybe some improvements are going to come out through it.

all good points…My problem here is that the CC claims that it is a church like no other, that it is in a class by itself…that it has a fullness that the others are lacking, that it is possessed of the only Vicar of Christ and that all others are therefore lacking the proper leadership. I am inclined to think that one should be able to recognize a tree by its fruits and there is nothing in the moral fruit of the CC that puts it in a class all by itself. The claim is simply not supported by the fruit. I not saying that it should be w/o any trace of sin, but if it is truly the one true Church, then the CC should look the part from a moral perspective, it should stand above the crowd…as a whole, its leaders should be more like Christ than the leaders of any other church. Why do you think that my expectation is not warranted in light of the Catholic claims? I find it rather odd that when contemplating Christ’s birth, Catholics will stress that God acted to make Mary absolutely sinless b/c she carried the body of Christ (as if sin could somehow be passed by contact to Jesus). In contrast, Catholics seem to think that God wouldn’t be moved to act if a grossly corrupt priest carries the Eucharistic bread (also seen as the body of Christ)…or, Catholics seem to think that God wouldn’t be moved to act if a grossly corrupt bishop (of Rome) leads the Church (also said to be the body of Christ).

I see nothing in the teaching of the Church that puts her in a class all by herself as per pastors’ or members’ behaviors.

That is not to say that your expectations are to be disregarded.
Several different lines could be explored about the fruits of the Church. Now, for one, you are a Christian, as a key factor, because of the actions of the Catholic Church, from which your spiritual forefathers received the Gospel. That remains true even if in your view they had to get rid of doctrinal corruptions, and you have probably still to work on that doctrinal cleansing nowadays. Your longing itself for a more irreproachable people of God, and anything like that, therefore, came to you through the Church.

That is one of her many wonderful fruits, IMHO.

Aren’t there OTOH consequences if celebrating priests and popes are grossly corrupt ?
Of course there are. As for the Eucharist itself you may note that such a priest does eat his own judgment. If, mind you, he neglected the sacrament of Reconciliation, a good confession with real contrition. In general, ministers will have to answer for themselves, as well as for the souls of their flocks. A formidable responsibility indeed.Which is among God and them. ( I should not start a line on the Immaculate Conception here if not strictly necessary).

But do you interpret that according to Jesus what the Pharisees would do would disqualify automatically what they would say ? Or their roles ?

What is sadly real IMHO is that the sins of the pastors feed the sins of the flock. And the sins of the leaders of the Church are the best food of heresies. It is my persuasion that heresies, as well as incredulity, are ( in part of course ) fruits of the sins of us catholics. Then IMHO, as you are Christian thanks ( also) to the Church ( the Spirit operating through her as prolongation of Incarnation) , so you are not catholic because of the sins of her children. Not only directly I mean, for your personal stumbling block concerning the sins within the Church we’re dealing with, but historically too.

And yet all of us are His people, even with our guilts, even if we unfortunately are not morally outstanding within the human kind ( that is a major point we should tackle together, and I am coming back to that soon). As it also was for the ancient people of God, before Incarnation. The ancient people of God was a visible one, could not boast an irreproachable behavioural record, was often ruled by gross sinners.
Yet that WAS indeed His people ( wasn’t it, according to you ?). As it is now IMHO the Catholic Church and together with her, in various degrees, the set of all Christians. Even if Christianity as a whole is far less persuasive because of its divisions, generated by sins.

A further perspective I propose is that if we are concerned about why catholics do not look any “better” than fellow Christians in modern faith communities, we cannot be less concerned about why we Christians do not look obviously “better” ( whatever our own definition of this term) than non-christian fellows around us. Is that according to you an overarching stumbling block for our faith ? Why ?
I mean, the behavioral dimension should be an even more acute concern in general christian apologetics, than in specific catholic apologetics. Since our behaviors as a whole do not appear to stand above the general human crowd ( do they ? ), which should be a stronger and more founded expectation than anything within Christianity, should we infer that Christian religion has to be rejected ?

 

[pneuma07]

The body which is to be subject to the one appointed should act in unity to first appoint the leader in question and to then dismiss that leader if he becomes unworthy
.

Fair Lady introduced the pastoral letters into this thread. I cannot see appointing bodies there. Should we eg understand in Titus that there is a board in Crete appointing and firing leaders ?

since I don’t have a sacramental approach, this need for a validly administered sacrament does not speak to me as a factor that would serve to justify the need for a office that maintains its authority notwithstanding the moral corruption of its officer.

I understand that. A reason why we see the Church as “holy” ( besides being “one”, ”catholic” and ”apostolic”), is precisely that she is sanctifying. The sanctification action, alongside all the other mentioned marks , makes the CC “outstanding” vis-à-vis modern faith communities IMHO.

I don’t know that the Donatist issue speaks to the matter…Was any one in the Catholic camp claiming that unrighteous individuals should continue as leaders throughout their period of unrighteousness, even until death if they never repented? Was any one in the Catholic camp claiming that the qualifications of a overseer which were set out in the NT should simply be ignored? Did the Catholics of that day abandon all aspects of rigor? In any event, I do not feel at all bound by what the Catholics of history have formulated to validate the offices of their hierarchy, notwithstanding gross unrighteousness

Donatism was as sacramental as Catholicism, so the point of the disputation is outside modern western Christianity. The qualifications for candidates to the episcopate in the pastoral letters are not IMHO, as I was trying to show in previous posts here, setting absolute conditions for a ministry to remain valid. The catholic position, considered irrelevant from your point of view, was then and is now that sacraments are valid *ex opere operato. . *

 

[pneuma07]

Even if one ignores the distinction that Saul’s office was a political one and not a spiritual one, then I still think this example gives you more difficulty than it gives me. Saul was rejected by the Lord as king over Israel. Saul could not pass on the annointing of the Lord to his children. Wouldn’t that mean (if we apply it to your Church) that we could expect God to reject a sinful Pope and that such a Pope would no longer be able to pass that authority down to a successor? Then there is also the example of Eli (whose sins seem rather minor by comparison to the sins of certain Popes). Eli was cut off and God raised up another priest. David’s line gives yet another example. The kingdom was taken away from his sinful successors and only with the coming of Christ was reigning restored to that lineage, but even then, the kingdom was not of this world. For an example from the NT, one could look at the parable of the evil tenants which was directed at the Jewish religious hierarchy. Didn’t the temple priests tie a rope to the leg of the high priest when he went into the Holy of Holies lest God struck him down for his unrighteousness? If so, what should we make of that.

My point is that anointed kings were not routinely subject to moral examinations to be able to go on ruling God’s people. Saul did remain the anointed all his life. David knew that he or anybody else should always respect that.

If however we do postulate that there is no legitimate christian authority, of divine origin, than it’s OK that boards of believers appoint and fire their own pastors, seeing that as a human authority, in a job as other ones. If, I underline “if”, there is not even a remote possibility that Christ did institute an authority and a visible Church which would last through the centuries.

The end of the earthly Davidic kingdom took place through a foreign conquer, not a jewish decision, and not after the first grossly sinful successor ( there were several of them actually ) .
Yes, the office of earthly kingdom was certainly taken away ( we both believe to be later succeeded by the eternal Davidic King, I guess) after four centuries.

How should we then read the unprecedented duration and resiliency of the CC through all the dramatic upheavals of these two millennia ? Saint Augustine maintained that one of the persuasive arguments about the authority of the Catholic Church was her antiquity.
That does not sound less persuasive after sixteen more centuries and counting IMHO.

doesn’t the tale reinforce that persuasion by portraying the hieracrchy of that date as the scum of the earth? The Jewish fellow should have been hired as a “spin doctor”

It does not IMHO. The relevant point of the tale whose link is in the OPost in our context is: OK let’s stretch the moral argument against the CC to the point that we consider her leadership through several centuries the scum of the earth. Isn’t then even more astonishing , in the XIV century or in the XXI, that she is always here, century after century ? ( Yes there was five centuries ago the Reformation, getting within just two generations maybe two fifths of pre-existing western Christianity. We do agree that it had to do with sins within the CC. It also strikes me that in that very same century the CC was blessed with millions of new believers in the New World).
I hope this question does not make me a spin doctor.

I don’t know how you get away from it…as Fair Lady has pointed out, the mandatory qualifications of an overseer are set out in scripture. The extent to which certain bishops fell short of those qualifications was legendary…someone should have done something.

I am trying to show, answering Fair Lady, that those qualifications in the pastoral letters are not mandatory ( which does not mean they are not serious, of course).

“Something” on this line IMHO

James 5:20, “*whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”. *

As for public campaigns, even if we had to prefer guys who preach or cry against others’ mores rather than looking at theirs own ( and IMHO we are far too inclined to constitute ourselves judges in public and daily life ), as if they were as pure or purer than John the Baptist, the fundamental watershed is doing that “something” within the Church or against the Church, ultimately costituting oneself as new leader of God’s people.
More or less the difference between a modern prophet and a modern Korah, the fellow we know from Numbers and Jude.

How is it “more christian” to not speak up about what was lacking in the conduct of the Catholic hierarchy?..or is it that it would also be “more christian” to not voice an opinion about what Catholics believe is lacking in the faith of protestants? Perhaps it would be “more christian” if Catholics refrained from saying “we have fullness, you do not”. I could appreciate that approach.

Boasting any personal merit for being a member of His Church, or anything like that, does not look very christian and very helpful indeed. I am completely with you, if that is the point.
When we OTOH tell each other our perspectives and the differences between them, I cannot see anything judgmental there. It seems IMHO deeply human and Christian.

yes, and in that way the Catholic Church is no different from any other church, yet it claims that it is a cut above.

Yes, in that way the CC is no different from any other faith community, and she does not claim she is a cut above in that sense.

May God bless you greatly

And you. Thanks so much !