The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[pneuma07]

My wording was sloppy. My question really was, where do you get the idea that Jesus, the apostles or the ECFs ever considered tolerating the existence of a corrupt bishop?

.

If you by not tolerating mean “rebelling against and unordaining”, then Matthew can help us:

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them……
33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

That is strong indeed: He commands to do everything that those snakes and vipers say to do.

If you mean “not disciplining, condoning”, then the Church has never taught that a sinful pastor cannot or has not to be disciplined

I see an involvement on behalf of the congregation. I don’t see that the instructions are only for Tim or Titus in this particular instance. Instead, I see these instructions as being requirements/principles (to follow) for anyone who appoints an overseer.

Dunno where we see the “on behalf” part.
Not only the instructions do appear to Tim or to Titus on individual basis ( these letters are the first examples of christian instructions to a pastor), but I invite to consider the following.
Paul, particularly in his undisputed epistles, addresses congregations usually, not a pastor. How come the exhortations about qualifications of overseers are precisely in the few letters instructing a pastor/disciple ?

I have never seen a need to reconcile these two passages. I didn’t see the parable as speaking to the practice of the church. The field is the world and not the church (verse 37). In contrast to the story of Noah, this time God will allow the ungodly to continue in the world until the 2nd coming.

We could also imagine the sown area, within the world, is the Church. It looks about what we should or should not do. I have here no definitive answer of course.
I understand there are different interpretatitive traditions on the parable.

 

[pneuma07]

where do you get that an overseer can not be “unordained”? I look at 1 Tim 5: 17- 19 where it reads:
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire. Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses. Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that the rest also may be in fear.
From this, one can see that Paul contemplated that elders would sin, that they should be accused (by 2 or 3 witnesses) and that the sinful elder would be subject to a rebuking in front of the congregation. I just don’t see where you get the idea that if the elder does not correct his behavior upon being rebuked, then the congregation has no recourse but to tolerate the continued occupation of the office by that elder (and carry out meaningless public rebukes every now and then). IMHO that approach would make no sense.

.

I think 1 Tim 5: 18-19 describes the approach…and I have to think that, in the case of a pastor who does not turn from his wicked ways, the ineffective public rebuking is followed by a dismissal and maybe even an expulsion from the congregation.
that sounds too much like simply running from the problem…but even still, if everyone left, isn’t that in essence a dismissal?

The pericope has IMHO nothing at all to do with “unordaining”.
This is a pericope showing us that Timothy is a “presbyter of presbyters”, what the following terminology would firmly call a bishop. He has indeed a role of government on ordinary presbyters.
You may note that the instructions ( receive, reprove) are in the singular, as it in manifest in Greek. To Tim therefore, not the congregation.
Members of the congregation witness, the overseer then decides. They do not carry out the public rebukes in this picture. Let alone “unordain” their pastor.
You may consider these scriptural prescriptions ineffective, but you can bet Timothy could discipline the unrepentant.

that sounds too much like simply running from the problem…but even still, if everyone left, isn’t that in essence a dismissal?

That has nothing to do with a supposed “unordaining power”. The problem can be also tackled by appealing to the pastor’s superior, who can discipline him.

no, I see an exhortation to a careful well pondered selection as a proactive measure, however, I don’t think it stops there. If the proactive measure is not successful, then a reactive measure follows. The sound moral character is not just important for the selection of an overseer, it is even more important for the effectual ministry of an overseer

I do concur the sound moral character is important for the effectual ministry of an overseer. Who could question that ?
The question is about reading that in other cases the pastor falls into illegitimacy, that he can be unordained, and that this is up to the flock.

 

[pneuma07]

An example from the OT that I would think is relevant is the Israelites demand for a king. It was God’s plan that he would be their king, but the Israelites rejected God as their king (! Sam 8:7) in favor of a human king. It seems to me that the early church fell into exactly the same error…and appointed for itself (in the West) an earthly king to rule over it. When did the bishop of Rome amass sufficient power to be fairly labeled an earthly king? That question is open to debate, but historians could likely agree on a time range. That would be one criterion that would make me “state that the Church guided by B16 is another entity than the one guided by Peter and the apostles.”

I did not know that the people of Israel with David was another entity than the one with the Judges.

Anyway, since I would otherwise derail the thread by myself, I just take note that it is the ( sufficiently powerful ) papacy who makes the CC illegitimate. ( I could indeed imagine it was the monarchical ignatian Episcopate ).

I agree that the legitimate Christian authority stems from Christ. That said, I note that the Spirit of Christ dwells in all Christians and not just in the members of a certain hierarchy. I further note that it is all those who possess Christ’s Spirit that constitute the body of Christ and not just the members of a certain hierarchy. As such, IMHO Christ’s representative on earth (from which his authority would flow) is the entire Church (his entire body) and not a certain hierarchy. Christ’s representative amid a particular congregation, is the entire congregation.

It appears God did not choose a continuous constant intervention. He chose Incarnation as the supreme event within history, and the fundamental locus of His Revelation.
He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent the Apostles.
No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones. No doctrinal irenism, if those claiming to be directly inspired by the Spirit about what to preach could learn His lesson the same way.

I wouldn’t classify any protestant view as holding that “self is the supreme judge” unless one is merely saying that for oneself, one must decide what is the truth….in which case both the protestant and the catholic would be seeing oneself as the supreme judge. I judge/evaluate which doctrines I will accept, but I do not think that I possess any infallibility in that regard. … As such, b/c the CC claim to infallibility stands in the way of greater unity, do you think it should be abandoned…or should it be preserved b/c you believe it to be true?

The simple basic difference is in the answer to the question: who knows better, the Church or myself ?

So since a lot of denominations and non-denominations were founded, by those who left the CC and those who left the formers’ denominations …and so on, now we’ll say:
“You know what, the obstacle to unity is … the CC”.
“ We could maybe get along nevertheless with it, if it just gave up its nonsensical claim to be His Church, and therefore infallible”.

Let me also offer the IMHO beautiful words of the Blessed John Henry Newman
*
Christianity …comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee.
The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and {89} other authority there is none but she.
A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.*

The unity that you speak of is viewed from this side of the fence as being unity around error. Such a unity is of little or no value. Just as you would not abandon the CC’s claim to infallibility for the sake of a certain form of unity, I wouldn’t abandon what I perceive to be the truth for the sake of unity under the bishop of Rome. Unity in Christ is what we seek and Vatican II seemed to be a good step in that direction….In the protestant world, a great deal of unity has been achieved around the “I think that my denomination has got it closest to right, but yours is close enough” view that I described above. With Vatican II, the CC seemed to get to: “We think that the CC has got it absolutely right, but your protestant view isn’t all that bad.” Maybe Vatican III will see the CC take that extra necessary step and declare: “We think that the CC has got it closest to right, but your protestant view is close enough”. Such would be my hope.

I fully agree with you we cannot betray what we believe for the sake of unity.

Following Newman’s lead, it is not my hope that everybody is going to say ( whether consciously or not ) that a revelation is not given. It is my hope that we could all one day see that it is.

And that meanwhile we all have fraternal dialogues. Which is a degree of unity we should keep and deepen, being grateful for it to the Spirit.

God bless you

 

[Radical]

If you by not tolerating mean “rebelling against and unordaining”, then Matthew can help us…

I don’t think Matt 23 is as straightforward as it is often presented. Just a bit earlier at Matt 15: 6-9 Jesus said:

Thus you (the Pharisees) nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’"…

…is it that the Jews were simply “obey them and do everything they tell you” even when what the Pharisees said nullified the word of God? In Matt 16:12 it reads:

*Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. *

…why should the people guard against the teaching of the Pharisees if they were to simply obey the Pharisees and do everything the Pharisees told them to do? The disciples were in the audience at Matt 23, but the gospels tell how the disciples went against the teaching of the Pharisees whilst following Jesus’ example. Jesus, therefore, went against his own teaching if we are to understand Matt 23 as teaching the Jews to simply obey the Pharisees and do everything the Pharisees told them to do. I have to think that Jesus is not simply teaching absolute and unqualified obedience to all that the Pharisees taught. Perhaps “obey what they tell you” was restricted to what the Pharisees told the people to do whilst sitting in the seat of Moses and reading the law. In any event, even if Jesus did teach total obedience this does not establish that the Pharisee could not be “unordained”. Do we know how a Pharisee was appointed in that day and do we know if a Pharisee could/could not be “unappointed”?

Finally, I can’t help but note what Jesus said just after he instructed obedience to those who sat in Moses’ seat (in verses 8-10):

Matt 23: 2-10* "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. 5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. *

It seems to me that any one trying argue a similar obedience (as directed in Matt 23) is to be enjoyed by the offices of the Church (regardless of the integrity of the office holder) encounters a problem with what Jesus said at verses 8-10. There Christ said that his followers are to have only God as their Rabbi, their father and their teacher. IMHO he told them that they are not to have offices that resemble the roles claimed by the Pharisees. So even if a Pharisee holding office could not be dismissed, it wouldn’t mean that an officer of the Church could not be unordained, b/c the offices are not to be of the same nature.

BTW, how do you reconcile Matt 23: 8-10 with your hierarchy?

 

[Radical]

Dunno where we see the “on behalf” part.
Not only the instructions do appear to Tim or to Titus on individual basis ( these letters are the first examples of christian instructions to a pastor), but I invite to consider the following.
Paul, particularly in his undisputed epistles, addresses congregations usually, not a pastor. How come the exhortations about qualifications of overseers are precisely in the few letters instructing a pastor/disciple ?

Well, it would seem (in part at least) b/c one of the main things Titus was directed to do was to appoint elders. (Titus 1:5) …Timothy might have been in the same boat. Perhaps Paul wasn’t hasty to appoint elders…rather he waited until the cream had a chance to rise to the top in a newly founded church. That would be consistent with the requirements that he laid out.

The pericope has IMHO nothing at all to do with “unordaining”.
This is a pericope showing us that Timothy is a “presbyter of presbyters”, what the following terminology would firmly call a bishop. He has indeed a role of government on ordinary presbyters.

I agree that as the assistant of the founding apostle he had a role possessing a certain authority for the purpose of completing what was left unfinished. Once that task was finished it becomes a question of who took over the role of ordaining pastors and on what basis should we conclude that an overseer could not be dismissed by his congregation.

You may note that the instructions ( receive, reprove) are in the singular, as it in manifest in Greek. To Tim therefore, not the congregation.

Yes, but once Tim, Paul or Titus had left, what would make you think that the task of reproving would “remain in the singular.”

Members of the congregation witness, the overseer then decides.

Titus was to appoint elders in each town and so it seems that originally congregations enjoyed a group of elders who were to lead as servants…not the single monarchical bishop suggested by Ignatius’ epistles.

They do not carry out the public rebukes in this picture. Let alone “unordain” their pastor.

what made the rebuke something to be feared was the presence of the congregation. Its involvement was necessary. Further, Paul described the disbursement of gifts throughout the whole congregation, he described the congregation’s active participation in a worship service by way of tongues and prophecy etc. and he described the local church as the body of Christ with the members of the congregation serving as the members of the body… with each playing a vital role. IMHO, these descriptions do not jive with a congregation that merely serves as a passive witness.

You may consider these scriptural prescriptions ineffective, but you can bet Timothy could discipline the unrepentant.

not only could he discipline the unrepentant, but he could dismiss the unrepentant elder…and when Timothy left, that authority IMHO was passed to the local church as a whole and not to a select few (this is not to say that overseers would not be inclined, for practical or self-serving reasons, to try and consolidate power in their offices at the first drop of a hat).

That has nothing to do with a supposed “unordaining power”. The problem can be also tackled by appealing to the pastor’s superior, who can discipline him.

That may be a method that would address the problem, but I don’t see it as the prescribed method. Paul tells the Ephesians that among them there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality etc. If the source of such immorality was an overseer, the congregation has no power but to wait and see if they can get the elder’s superior to act and discipline the overseer? No, they are the body and they should act to remove the cancer. As the body of Christ, they stand in for Christ with his authority…and that is, of course, more than enough authority to “unordain”.

I did not know that the people of Israel with David was another entity than the one with the Judges.

the kingdom created under Saul was a different animal than what existed under the judges…and the invisible church is constant notwithstanding any deviation by Rome.

It appears God did not choose a continuous constant intervention. He chose Incarnation as the supreme event within history, and the fundamental locus of His Revelation.
He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent the Apostles.
No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones. No doctrinal irenism, if those claiming to be directly inspired by the Spirit about what to preach could learn His lesson the same way.

I believe that this is part of the point that Paul was making about every member of the body serving and utilizing the gift provided by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the church lost it way by the creation of a priestly caste that took too much upon itself.

The simple basic difference is in the answer to the question: who knows better, the Church or myself ?

Ahhh, that question should be worded: Who knows better with respect to some specific things, the modern Catholic Church or myself? I might note that it is very similar to this question: Who knows better with respect to some specific things, the Church of the Latter Day Saints or myself?

God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t think Matt 23 is as straightforward as it is often presented. :

Dear Radical,

things …. often are indeed not as straightforward as they are often presented.

Just a bit earlier at Matt 15: 6-9 Jesus said

Thus you (the Pharisees) nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: " ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men’"…

…is it that the Jews were simply “obey them and do everything they tell you” even when what the Pharisees said nullified the word of God? In Matt 16:12 it reads:

*Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. *

…why should the people guard against the teaching of the Pharisees if they were to simply obey the Pharisees and do everything the Pharisees told them to do? The disciples were in the audience at Matt 23, but the gospels tell how the disciples went against the teaching of the Pharisees whilst following Jesus’ example. Jesus, therefore, went against his own teaching if we are to understand Matt 23 as teaching the Jews to simply obey the Pharisees and do everything the Pharisees told them to do. I have to think that Jesus is not simply teaching absolute and unqualified obedience to all that the Pharisees taught. Perhaps “obey what they tell you” was restricted to what the Pharisees told the people to do whilst sitting in the seat of Moses and reading the law. In any event, even if Jesus did teach total obedience this does not establish that the Pharisee could not be “unordained”. Do we know how a Pharisee was appointed in that day and do we know if a Pharisee could/could not be “unappointed”?

Far from being removed for reasons of morality, the legitimate religious authorities are to be obeyed, as such, in Jesus’ own teaching.

It appears IMHO quite irrelevant whether jewish customs or laws of His time would prescribe “unappointments”. Indeed, if it had been jewish custom to revoke religious authority out of ethic questions, the Lord’s words here would be…even stronger.

About the conciliation with Matthew 15, from a doctrinal point of view we know of course Jesus is going to challenge parts of what was taught by Pharisees and, more clearly so, those taught by the Sadduccees. What Jesus is more specifically stating in 23 IMHO, is that the legitimate religious authorities of his time remain for His followers authorities on moral matters: do what they say.

As long as they do remain the authorities in charge. Before the existence of the Church.

Then, as we read in Acts 15:28, it is what the leadership of the Church discerns, with the Holy Spirit, that the followers of Christ have to observe.

28For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:

Finally, I can’t help but note what Jesus said just after he instructed obedience to those who sat in Moses’ seat (in verses 8-10):

Matt 23: 2-10* "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves . …; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ 8 "But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. *

It seems to me that any one trying argue a similar obedience (as directed in Matt 23) is to be enjoyed by the offices of the Church (regardless of the integrity of the office holder) encounters a problem with what Jesus said at verses 8-10. There Christ said that his followers are to have only God as their Rabbi, their father and their teacher. IMHO he told them that they are not to have offices that resemble the roles claimed by the Pharisees. So even if a Pharisee holding office could not be dismissed, it wouldn’t mean that an officer of the Church could not be unordained, b/c the offices are not to be of the same nature.

BTW, how do you reconcile Matt 23: 8-10 with your hierarchy?

Something like this: Jesus underlines that every religious authority is from God ( only ultimate Father and Rabbi) , and enlightens the usage about those terms, which has to be far from flatteries and complacencies, differently from what happens with those He is speaking about ( verse 7)
The actual exclusion of any usage of those terms ( even specifically in religious sense ) according to the Lord’s teachings is ruled out IMHO by the abundant hints we have through the pauline corpus: disciples are called spiritual children, ie the Apostle is calling himself their father, precisely in the spiritual rligious sense. Moreover, we also learn by him that in the Church there are teachers, defined as such.

Observe that if Jesus pointed to a refusal of any acknowledged human authorities in verses 8-10, the whole exhortation in the incipit of Matthew 23 would make no sense.
And I guess we agree that Scriptures show that there is a structure of authority in the NT Church also.

Shall we then believe that, if those who would refute Christ are to be obeyed even if they are snakes, because they are still at the moment the legitimate authorities, christian legitimate authorities can/are to be revoked and “unordained” by their flocks in case of objections to their behaviors ?

 

[pneuma07]

Well, it would seem (in part at least) b/c one of the main things Titus was directed to do was to appoint elders. (Titus 1:5) …Timothy might have been in the same boat. Perhaps Paul wasn’t hasty to appoint elders…rather he waited until the cream had a chance to rise to the top in a newly founded church. That would be consistent with the requirements that he laid out.

Paul had selected Tim and Titus. Paul instructs now them ( who are to become the first post-apostolic generation) on how they are going to select pastors for the the second post-apostolic generation and for the new churches.
In the many epistles addressed to congregations, on the contrary, Paul does not instruct them on ordaining, let alone unordaining.

I agree that as the assistant of the founding apostle he had a role possessing a certain authority for the purpose of completing what was left unfinished. Once that task was finished it becomes a question of who took over the role of ordaining pastors and on what basis should we conclude that an overseer could not be dismissed by his congregation.

Isn’t is simpler to see that Paul had made Tim overseer/bishop ? If ordaining is up to Tim, why in the following generations that task would pass to the congregations as such ?
To my poor knowledge I just cannot see an age of the church where lawful unordaining of pastors by congregations was practiced.
You somehow say Tim and Titus would indeed share somehow an apostolic authority, but…on a temporary basis. Consider that shepherding and teaching are not temporary tasks. They are offices. That there must be teachers after Tim’s generation we know from 2 Tim 2:2.

2and(A) what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses(B) entrust to faithful men(C) who will be able to teach others also.

Yes, but once Tim, Paul or Titus had left, what would make you think that the task of reproving would “remain in the singular.”
Titus was to appoint elders in each town and so it seems that originally congregations enjoyed a group of elders who were to lead as servants…not the single monarchical bishop suggested by Ignatius’ epistles.

Titus appears IMHO something like the bishop of Crete, with all its towns. The fact that presbyters were appointed by Titus means that theirs was a ministerial role, not just a matter of biological seniorship.
(We also know Tim is young, and he has to rule over the elders). The primitive Church had then her ordained ministerial offices.
. Even accepting the earlier date for Tim’s death as 80 AD, there is simply not enough time to assume a supposed congregationalist evolution and then a mono-episcopalian counter-evolution after Tim and Titus AND before Ignatius’ epistles.

what made the rebuke something to be feared was the presence of the congregation. Its involvement was necessary. Further, Paul described the disbursement of gifts throughout the whole congregation, he described the congregation’s active participation in a worship service by way of tongues and prophecy etc. and he described the local church as the body of Christ with the members of the congregation serving as the members of the body… with each playing a vital role. IMHO, these descriptions do not jive with a congregation that merely serves as a passive witness.

I was specifically referring to the procedure described in 1 Tim 5, which had been previously quoted . I fully concur we are all members if the Body of Christ. Everyone has a role in the community of faith.

not only could he discipline the unrepentant, but he could dismiss the unrepentant elder…and when Timothy left, that authority IMHO was passed to the local church as a whole and not to a select few (this is not to say that overseers would not be inclined, for practical or self-serving reasons, to try and consolidate power in their offices at the first drop of a hat).

See observations above.

 

[pneuma07]

That may be a method that would address the problem, but I don’t see it as the prescribed method. Paul tells the Ephesians that among them there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality etc. If the source of such immorality was an overseer, the congregation has no power but to wait and see if they can get the elder’s superior to act and discipline the overseer? No, they are the body and they should act to remove the cancer. As the body of Christ, they stand in for Christ with his authority…and that is, of course, more than enough authority to “unordain”.

Since your proposal appears to rest on ecclesiology even more than on history, I like to offer an excerpt of a catholic-orhodox exposition of the Church , universal and local, as Body of Christ

"

1. The body of Christ is unique. There exists then only one church of God. The identity of one eucharistic assembly with another comes from the fact that all with the same faith celebrate the same memorial, that all by eating the same bread and sharing in the same cup become the same unique body of Christ into which they have been integrated by the same baptism. It there are many celebrations, there is nevertheless only one mystery celebrated in which all participate. ….
   In the same way, the local church which celebrates the eucharist gathered around its bishop is not a section of the body of Christ. The multiplicity of local synaxes does not divide the church, but rather shows sacramentally its unity. Like the community of the apostles gathered around Christ, each eucharistic assembly is truly the holy church of God, the body of Christ, in communion with the first community of the disciples and with all who throughout the world celebrate and have celebrated the memorial of the Lord. It is also in communion with the assembly of the saints in heaven, which each celebration brings to mind.
2. Far from excluding diversity or plurality, the koinonia supposes it and heals the wounds of division, transcending the latter in unity.
   Since Christ is one for the many, as in the church which is his body, the one and the many, the universal and local are necessarily simultaneous. Still more radically, because the one and only God is the communion of three persons, the one and only church is a communion of many communities and the local church a communion of persons. The one and unique church finds her identity in the koinonia of the churches. ……
3. Since the universal church manifests itself in the synaxis of the local church, two conditions must be fulfilled above all if the local church which celebrates the eucharist is to be truly within the ecclesial communion.
   a) First, the identity of the mystery of the church lived by the local church with the mystery of the church lived by the primitive church - catholicity in time - is fundamental. ….
   b) b) Today mutual recognition between this local church and the other churches is also of capital importance. Each should recognize in the others through local particularities the identity of the mystery of the church. …"

(from JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, SECOND PLENARY MEETING, Munich, June 30 to July 6 – 1982
“THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE EUCHARIST
IN THE LIGHT OF THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY”)

So the catholic-orthodox view is that the local church ( diocese or eparchy ) IS the body of Christ, as in your view !
Specifications are added:

1. a local church “around its bishop” is considered, not without or against him.
2. A local church in diachronic communion ( I guess you are with the catholic-orthodox position on that) and in synchronic communion with the other local churches making up the One Church.

From this point of view the action of a local church ( or a faction within it) against its own bishop ( or a congregation against its own pastor ) and without the green light by the koinonia of the Universal Church is not to be considered an action by the Body of Christ. It rather sounds IMHO an action against the Body of Christ.

If we go back to 1 Cor 12, where we started from in this ecclesiological line, when we read
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.
28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

the above conditions of union with the Universal Church are IMHO discernible. If we say in the Church there are the Apostles, there is no local church as Body of Christ which is not in communion with the Apostles, and the Universal Church around them. This koinonia then is through the direct communion with Paul: he would not say the corinthian church is the Body of Christ were it not in communion with himself, or “around himself”.

 

[pneuma07]

the kingdom created under Saul was a different animal than what existed under the judges…and the invisible church is constant notwithstanding any deviation by Rome.

We can of course always say a later stage of something is different from an earlier one. We can often dispute about being there different animals, as you’d say. We could propose beatiful historical debates, such as : “Is the USA the same animal as it was before the Civil War ? Or before the New Deal ?"
“Is Canada the same animal after the statutes of Westminster of 1931 ? Or after 1982 ?”

What matters here IMHO is whether Hebrews were the people of God after as well as before the establishment of the monarchy.
Anyway this is tangential to the present thread.

I believe that this is part of the point that Paul was making about every member of the body serving and utilizing the gift provided by the Holy Spirit. It seems that the church lost it way by the creation of a priestly caste that took too much upon itself.

Ministerial priesthood within Christianity was never a caste. That said, whether its role may have been too enhanced in different ages, that is IMHO an open question.
What I do object to is that the church “lost its way” by creating ministerial priesthood (or was that by creating the papacy ?). I’d say it’s rather hard to accept while reading again together the letters to Tim and Titus.

Ahhh, that question should be worded: Who knows better with respect to some specific things, the modern Catholic Church or myself? I might note that it is very similar to this question: Who knows better with respect to some specific things, the Church of the Latter Day Saints or myself?

God bless you

A more explicitly reworded question is “ Who knows Jesus’ message better ?”

You see, to make myself better witness and judge on His message than the modern CC, what I do postulate is that I also know better than … the ancient Church, as well of course as the animal Catholic Church in any following age.
Since what I affirm is that she, the ancient Church, was derailing and derailing step by step, eg by “the creation of a priestly caste”.
What I affirm is that the ancient Church did not get the message as clearly as I do now. She went indeed adrift, whereas I know she went adrift, and I know on which issues and with which errors. ( which is BTW basically what LDSs teach, if I am not mistaken ).

God bless you

 

[Radical]

Far from being removed for reasons of morality, the legitimate religious authorities are to be obeyed, as such, in Jesus’ own teaching.

“obeying what they say” does not equal “allowing the corrupt to stay in authority” …for example, obedience by the people does not mean that God could not remove a corrupt Pharisee, or that fellow Pharisees could not remove the corrupt Pharisee. Further, if the obedience is qualified then removal at the insistence of the people is easy to imagine. Also, if one corrupt Pharisee is teaching A and the other corrupt Pharisee is teaching non-A, which corrupt Pharisee should the Jews have followed?

It appears IMHO quite irrelevant whether jewish customs or laws of His time would prescribe “unappointments”.

well, if you are going to point to the Pharisees (on the seat of Moses) as an authority that couldn’t be unappointed, then they had better actually be (by the rules of their time and office) an authority that couldn’t be unappointed…otherwise, it is simply: I will assume that they couldn’t be ousted and then I’ll present them as an example of an authority that couldn’t be ousted.

What Jesus is more specifically stating in 23 IMHO, is that the legitimate religious authorities of his time remain for His followers authorities on moral matters: do what they say…As long as they do remain the authorities in charge. Before the existence of the Church.

Something like this: Jesus underlines that every religious authority is from God ( only ultimate Father and Rabbi) , and enlightens the usage about those terms, which has to be far from flatteries and complacencies, differently from what happens with those He is speaking about ( verse 7)…The actual exclusion of any usage of those terms ( even specifically in religious sense ) according to the Lord’s teachings is ruled out IMHO by the abundant hints we have through the pauline corpus: disciples are called spiritual children, ie the Apostle is calling himself their father, precisely in the spiritual rligious sense. Moreover, we also learn by him that in the Church there are teachers, defined as such.

Jesus said 2 things in the first 10 verses of Matt 23 which I’ll summarize as:

a) obey the Pharisees
b) don’t be called teacher or father

It seems to me that your explanation of Matt 23: 1-10 is very inconsistent in how you treat those two things. WRT the 2nd, you (IMHO rightly) recognize that the command is qualified by the example of the apostles (which can be found elsewhere in the NT). In contrast, it seems that you want to present the 1st command as absolute (w/o qualification) even though Christ’s own actions and deeds show that he led his disciples in violating that command if it was indeed w/o qualifications. As a result, I am very skeptical as to the validity of your interpretation of the passage.

Observe that if Jesus pointed to a refusal of any acknowledged human authorities in verses 8-10, the whole exhortation in the incipit of Matthew 23 would make no sense.
And I guess we agree that Scriptures show that there is a structure of authority in the NT Church also.

Yes we agree that there is to be an authority structure w/i the Church,…but there is a type of leader that sees himself as a servant first, and there is a type that sees himself as a monarch. The servant would not envision that he is above the law, whereas the monarch would. The servant would not hope to hold onto power w/o proper qualifications whereas the monarch would. Yes, the “don’t be called teacher or father” is not absolute, but that doesn’t mean that it has no application whatsoever (and I know you would agree with that). Where we disagree is that you seem to think that only those higher up the line of authority can discipline a corrupt pastor (or remove a pastor that does not possess the qualifications or does not act as a servant) and I think that the congregation can act if necessary. BTW in your view, who disciplines (or removes) the corrupt Pope who won’t heed calls for repentance from below?

Shall we then believe that, if those who would refute Christ are to be obeyed even if they are snakes, because they are still at the moment the legitimate authorities, christian legitimate authorities can/are to be revoked and “unordained” by their flocks in case of objections to their behaviors ?

Yes. Here again I see an inconsistency on your part. We have God (through Paul) stating that overseers are to be w/o immorality. That command you are prepared to limit, but the requirement of “obedience to vipers” you seem to see as absolute. Why qualify “don’t be called teachers” and “overseers are to be free from immorality”, but not qualify “obey the viper”? As such, I would answer “yes” to your question b/c 1) the direction to obedience is qualified, 2) the Church leaders are to be servants and not leaders who rule as did the Pharisees and 3) God gave qualifications for an overseer to possess (I am not aware of any such qualifications for the seat of Moses) and I see no reason for the congregation to ignore God’s requirements so as to endure a corrupt pastor. With God himself being our Rabbi, our Teacher and our Father we, the congregation, should follow his teaching as opposed to the teaching of a corrupt pastor.

 

[Radical]

Paul had selected Tim and Titus. Paul instructs now them ( who are to become the first post-apostolic generation) on how they are going to select pastors for the the second post-apostolic generation and for the new churches.

I don’t think it matters, but I would classify the apostles as 1st generation and those who received the gospel from them as 2nd generation. As such Tim, Titus and Paul’s converts would all be 2nd generation by my reckoning

In the many epistles addressed to congregations, on the contrary, Paul does not instruct them on ordaining, let alone unordaining.

Right…and he doesn’t say that they must obey their bishop as the Jews were to obey the Pharisees and he doesn’t tell them that they must allow the corrupt bishop to remain in that office.

Isn’t is simpler to see that Paul had made Tim overseer/bishop ? If ordaining is up to Tim, why in the following generations that task would pass to the congregations as such ?

here is what seemed to happen WRT Titus:

a) Paul preached the gospel in Crete in various towns

b) Paul’s preaching met with success with new converts gathering in local churches

c) Paul did not appoint elders, but left Titus behind to appoint elders

d) Titus appointed a number of elders in each of the various towns in accordance with the qualifications set out by Paul

e) The NT doesn’t clarify whether it was the congregation, the overseers or both who took up the task of appointing pastors in Crete after Titus completed what Paul left unfinished

f) personally I think the task would fall to the elders to lead with the approval of the congregation, but where the elders failed in any task, the congregation as the body of Christ could act with his authority

To my poor knowledge I just cannot see an age of the church where lawful unordaining of pastors by congregations was practiced.

The change to a monarchical bishop took hold very quickly (around Antioch and Asia Minor) and we are not talking about the ideal situation. Ideally, if a corrupt elder arose amongst the number of elders, then the corrupt elder would repent or step down. If he did not repent or step down, then the remaining elders (together with the congregation) would rebuke and eventually dismiss the corrupt elder if he did not repent or step down. Finally, if the elders did not lead in this matter then the congregation would have to act so as to ensure that God’s requirements were not ignored. To my poor knowledge the period where corrupt bishops were tolerated in the church comes well after the institution of monarchical bishops.

Even accepting the earlier date for Tim’s death as 80 AD, there is simply not enough time to assume a supposed congregationalist evolution and then a mono-episcopalian counter-evolution after Tim and Titus AND before Ignatius’ epistles.

I am sorry, I may not have been clear. The scenario that I have been contemplating is the situation where a monarchical bishop is corrupt and refuses to step down. In my mind the congregation is the proper authority to remove the corrupt bishop in that scenario. As such, I don’t see any need for (what I would call ) a congregationalist evolution first. Tim passed off to a group of elders that led by serving the congregation with considerable contribution and participation by the congregation. About four decades later it seems that Ignatius is still trying to sell a system of monarchical bishops in the corner of the empire where it caught on first.

 

[Radical]

pneuma07:

the above conditions of union with the Universal Church are IMHO discernible. If we say in the Church there are the Apostles, there is no local church as Body of Christ which is not in communion with the Apostles, and the Universal Church around them. This koinonia then is through the direct communion with Paul: he would not say the corinthian church is the Body of Christ were it not in communion with himself, or “around himself”.

I don’t see where Paul stressed communion with himself…I do see where he stressed sharing the Spirit. It is about one’s relationship to God and not about one’s relationship to Paul or to some bishop. If the bishop does not possess the Spirit, then it is he that is not in communion with the church and the congregation loses nothing by dismissing him…and that is not an action against the body of Christ, b/c the corrupt bishop is outside of that body

Ministerial priesthood within Christianity was never a caste.

what I mean by caste is demonstrated by these sorts of comments/claims:

the action of a local church against its own bishop and without the green light by the koinonia of the Universal Church is an action against the Body of Christ.

the local church which celebrates the Eucharist gathered around its bishop is not a section of the body of Christ…Like the community of the apostles gathered around Christ

The bishops etc. have been placed in a class by themselves.

What I do object to is that the church “lost its way” by creating ministerial priesthood (or was that by creating the papacy ?). I’d say it’s rather hard to accept while reading again together the letters to Tim and Titus.

Why is it hard to accept after reading 1 Tim and Titus? Where in those letters do we find:

a) anything about the primacy of Peter?

b) anything about the apostles passing on their full authority to the appointees? (it is first apostles, second prophets etc and not first apostles, second the successors of the apostles etc.)

c) anything about bishops needing to preside over the Eucharist? (or anything about their ability to confer grace?)

d) anything about a ministerial priesthood or any reference to a priest whatsoever? (again, it is first apostles, second prophets etc…priests don’t even make the list).

A more explicitly reworded question is “ Who knows Jesus’ message better ?”

well, we should be more precise and ask these sorts of specific questions (working off of your reworded question):

a) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether it is proper and holy to lead military crusades, the members of the church who approved and participated in those crusades or me?

b) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether it is proper and good to burn heretics at the stake, the members of the church who approved of and carried out those executions or me?

c) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether one can buy one’s way out of purgatory, the members of the church who accepted and used payments made for that purpose or me?

I could go on of course, but I think it is clear that we all think that certain groups (in leadership) within the church didn’t follow Jesus’ message very well and that we know better…it is a question of how often.

You see, to make myself better witness and judge on His message than the modern CC, what I do postulate is that I also know better than … the ancient Church, as well of course as the animal Catholic Church in any following age.

It is rather that I know better than the church hierarchy of a certain time period in regard to certain matters. In contrast, I expect that you will distinguish between your agreement with the “official teachings” put forward by certain groups and your disagreement with the “unofficial teachings” put forward by other groups (claiming that only the former actually spoke for the Church) but I think that distinction is artificial and that really you are claiming that you know better than the hierarchy at various times. You will likely dismiss certain differences between the modern teachings of the CC and the ancient teachings of the Church by claiming that the difference is due to inspired development, but I think that it goes well beyond development and that in reality you are in disagreement with the ancient church. I expect that you would dismiss certain differences between the modern teachings of the CC and what is found in the NT by claiming that the CC is the beneficiary of Sacred Tradition, but I think that is merely wishful thinking and that you are in disagreement with the early church (in areas where it was silent). So WRT the church of the early 2nd century (on the specific question of apostolic succession) it is not merely a) do I know Jesus’ message better (in regard to that matter)? it is also b) Have I accurately described the belief of the early 2nd century church (in regard to that matter)? To declare one’s agreement with a improperly described belief isn’t actual agreement with the ancient church.

God bless you.

 

[pneuma07]

“obeying what they say” does not equal “allowing the corrupt to stay in authority” …for example, obedience by the people does not mean that God could not remove a corrupt Pharisee, or that fellow Pharisees could not remove the corrupt Pharisee. Further, if the obedience is qualified then removal at the insistence of the people is easy to imagine. Also, if one corrupt Pharisee is teaching A and the other corrupt Pharisee is teaching non-A, which corrupt Pharisee should the Jews have followed?
well, if you are going to point to the Pharisees (on the seat of Moses) as an authority that couldn’t be unappointed, then they had better actually be (by the rules of their time and office) an authority that couldn’t be unappointed…otherwise, it is simply: I will assume that they couldn’t be ousted and then I’ll present them as an example of an authority that couldn’t be ousted.

.

Dear Radical,

no doubtGod could remove whomever. .

As to the problem about A and non-A that is a very real one.
You may note that just the same could be said with irreproachable leaders as well.
That points IMHO to the Church needing one ultimate voice. That points, in other words, to oneness and catholicity.

We are not going by late-second-Temple rules, but by the words of the Word. The former are either irrelevant here, or even would make Jesus’ command stronger.
I mean, in case we had something like “Ye know that customs allow for unappointments of those guys, but ye, who listen to me, that notwithstanding must obey them, and do what they say, even if they can be vipers. “
Now, it sounds quite clear IMHO that this rules out unappointments by Jesus’ followers. It would not make sense go on obeying …the very ones you have unappointed.

Jesus said 2 things in the first 10 verses of Matt 23 which I’ll summarize as:

a) obey the Pharisees
b) don’t be called teacher or father

It seems to me that your explanation of Matt 23: 1-10 is very inconsistent in how you treat those two things. WRT the 2nd, you (IMHO rightly) recognize that the command is qualified by the example of the apostles (which can be found elsewhere in the NT). In contrast, it seems that you want to present the 1st command as absolute (w/o qualification) even though Christ’s own actions and deeds show that he led his disciples in violating that command if it was indeed w/o qualifications. As a result, I am very skeptical as to the validity of your interpretation of the passage.

If that is the reason of your scepticism, I am quite confident we can remove it. ( although I’m ready to see illusions fall )
Not only infact do we agree on the second command being qualified by what we find elsewhere in the NT. I also do not want to present the first command as absolute either. I cannot imagine Jesus commanding to obey eg a guy ordering to slaughter all the Apostles.
I only observe that the qualifications we could conceive do not include what matters for us here ie the behavioral dimension of those legitimate authorities.
By analogy I guess that also for

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account ( Heb 13:17)

The same is valid.

Yes we agree that there is to be an authority structure w/i the Church,…

Amen

but there is a type of leader that sees himself as a servant first, and there is a type that sees himself as a monarch. The servant would not envision that he is above the law, whereas the monarch would. The servant would not hope to hold onto power w/o proper qualifications whereas the monarch would. Yes, the “don’t be called teacher or father” is not absolute, but that doesn’t mean that it has no application whatsoever (and I know you would agree with that). Where we disagree is that you seem to think that only those higher up the line of authority can discipline a corrupt pastor (or remove a pastor that does not possess the qualifications or does not act as a servant) and I think that the congregation can act if necessary.

I previously offered some reasons for that.
I’ll also come back to congregations.

BTW in your view, who disciplines (or removes) the corrupt Pope who won’t heed calls for repentance from below?

IMHO the Head of the Church.

 

[pneuma07]

"

Yes. Here again I see an inconsistency on your part. We have God (through Paul) stating that overseers are to be w/o immorality. That command you are prepared to limit, but the requirement of “obedience to vipers” you seem to see as absolute. Why qualify “don’t be called teachers” and “overseers are to be free from immorality”, but not qualify “obey the viper”? As such, I would answer “yes” to your question b/c 1) the direction to obedience is qualified, 2) the Church leaders are to be servants and not leaders who rule as did the Pharisees and 3) God gave qualifications for an overseer to possess (I am not aware of any such qualifications for the seat of Moses) and I see no reason for the congregation to ignore God’s requirements so as to endure a corrupt pastor. With God himself being our Rabbi, our Teacher and our Father we, the congregation, should follow his teaching as opposed to the teaching of a corrupt pastor.

1)Again, I do not object to a qualified obedience. I do fail nevertheless to see legitimate rebellions against the legitimate leaders on grounds of their behaviors.

1. That is for sure what they are invited to be
2. As I tried to show the lists on the qualifications were given Titus and Tim as guidelines for the selection of leaders. Not as instructions to rebel against and unordain whomever happen to cease from being able to boast all ( or almost all, or which ? ) elements of one of the lists.

BTW The recent commentary to the pastoral epistles within the “New International Commentary on the New Testament” uses precisely this definition: “guidelines for the selection of leaders”. And it is from the evangelical Protestant tradition.
Now, you can simply say it is as wrong as I am, and your own interpretation of the meaning of those lists is “God’s teaching”. Fine.

But the rebellion you would lead or would incite to lead ( in case either your interpretation of the Revelation on this point or the assessment about the pastor whose heart is supposed to be corrupt were not strictly correct ) would mean committing Korah’s sin.

“11Woe to them! For they ….and(C) perished in Korah’s rebellion.” Jude 11

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t think it matters, but I would classify the apostles as 1st generation and those who received the gospel from them as 2nd generation. As such Tim, Titus and Paul’s converts would all be 2nd generation by my reckoning

.

Same here. Second generation = Fist post-apostolic generation.
Only I’d say “apostolic generation” about those believers about the same age as the Twelve.

Right…and he doesn’t say that they must obey their bishop as the Jews were to obey the Pharisees and he doesn’t tell them that they must allow the corrupt bishop to remain in that office.

I would not say that we have two equivalent arguments from silence here.
I am precisely comparing Paul’s undisputed letters to the pastoral ones.
When addressing, as usual, congregations, there are no instructions on ordaining.
As soon as a disciple is addressed we do have these instructions. That speaks quite eloquently IMHO.

here is what seemed to happen WRT Titus:

a) Paul preached the gospel in Crete in various towns

b) Paul’s preaching met with success with new converts gathering in local churches

c) Paul did not appoint elders, but left Titus behind to appoint elders

d) Titus appointed a number of elders in each of the various towns in accordance with the qualifications set out by Paul

e) The NT doesn’t clarify whether it was the congregation, the overseers or both who took up the task of appointing pastors in Crete after Titus completed what Paul left unfinished

f) personally I think the task would fall to the elders to lead with the approval of the congregation, but where the elders failed in any task, the congregation as the body of Christ could act with his authority

I will not consider now the different scenarios as proposed by the traditional and now minority view of the pastoral epistles as Paul’s own, and the nowadays majority view they should be considered pseudoepigraphical ( or something like that ).
I just wonder why we should imagine that after Paul selected Tim and Titus, and after they selected those to come, the principle of the transmission of legitimate authority via the ancient semikà by the one previously selected was abandoned.
And just to be later resumed.

The change to a monarchical bishop took hold very quickly (around Antioch and Asia Minor) and we are not talking about the ideal situation. Ideally, if a corrupt elder arose amongst the number of elders, then the corrupt elder would repent or step down. If he did not repent or step down, then the remaining elders (together with the congregation) would rebuke and eventually dismiss the corrupt elder if he did not repent or step down. Finally, if the elders did not lead in this matter then the congregation would have to act so as to ensure that God’s requirements were not ignored. To my poor knowledge the period where corrupt bishops were tolerated in the church comes well after the institution of monarchical bishops.

Is that just an ideal situation or an historical one ?

I am sorry, I may not have been clear. The scenario that I have been contemplating is the situation where a monarchical bishop is corrupt and refuses to step down. In my mind the congregation is the proper authority to remove the corrupt bishop in that scenario. As such, I don’t see any need for (what I would call ) a congregationalist evolution first. Tim passed off to a group of elders that led by serving the congregation with considerable contribution and participation by the congregation. About four decades later it seems that Ignatius is still trying to sell a system of monarchical bishops in the corner of the empire where it caught on first

Tim appears a presbyter of presbyters, and as such we don’t see him passing off to a group of elders, rather supervising them.
Maybe the best thing is admitting we do not know so much of the organization of the immediately post-apostolic Church.
What we could quite safely get in the pastoral letters IMHO is the principle that one is ordained by an ordained one ( often nominated by the flock, as in the Didache).

We then also know from Ignatius that there was a
rapid evolution toward ( or extension of, or explicitation of ) the monarchical episcopate during the first and second post-apostolic generation.

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t see where Paul stressed communion with himself…I do see where he stressed sharing the Spirit. It is about one’s relationship to God and not about one’s relationship to Paul or to some bishop. If the bishop does not possess the Spirit, then it is he that is not in communion with the church and the congregation loses nothing by dismissing him…and that is not an action against the body of Christ, b/c the corrupt bishop is outside of that body

In the Church Paul speaks about in 1 Cor there are the Apostles. He is not speaking about this local congregation only then.
There cannot be many different bodies of Christ IMHO. Paul was baptized into one body with Corinthians ( 1 Cor 12.13), but also with Colossians and Thessalonians I presume.

OK, you mean class by themselves.
Not only actions againt the bishop, but more generally unilateral behaviors and statements by a single community are not within and can be against the Body of Christ IMHO.

We have been dealing quite in depth the possibility that pastors are vipers or so on.
Is according to you the mere possibility ever conceivable that a single congregation is wrong, in doctrines or behavior, that it can derail ? Or are we to postulate that any congregation whatsoever is the Body of Christ, acting with His full authority ?

IMH impression, your statements in this thread seem implicitly claim for the single congregation an infallibility.
Whose scope appears definitely larger, than the one I would ever claim for the Universal Bride of Christ.

[/QUOTE]

 

[pneuma07]

.

Why is it hard to accept after reading 1 Tim and Titus? Where in those letters do we find:

a) anything about the primacy of Peter?

b) anything about the apostles passing on their full authority to the appointees? (it is first apostles, second prophets etc and not first apostles, second the successors of the apostles etc.)

c) anything about bishops needing to preside over the Eucharist? (or anything about their ability to confer grace?)

d) anything about a ministerial priesthood or any reference to a priest whatsoever? (again, it is first apostles, second prophets etc…priests don’t even make the list).

God bless you.

a) in the mentioned letters only, I probably could not find support for the primacy of Peter. ( Whereas in the corpus paulinum at large I could ).

b) Now you quote 1 Cor. I presume there were no successors of the Apostles in the 50s AD. …third teachers. Then , according to your quotation, who were to become the highest authorities after the time of the Apostles and of the prophets ( on whom we know so little) ? Now we get that Tim and Titus receive from the Apostles the authority, since Tim is clearly instructed to teach those who would become the new teachers. ( BTW the successors of the Apostles are NOT Apostles ). .
As for Tim and Titus they receive indeed the governing, the teaching and the sanctifying function.

c) Through the hands of Tim and Titus grace can be conferred ( and they have to be careful on whom ) . I don’t find direct Eucharistic teachings in the mentioned letters.

d) Back to Tim and Titus. They are going to ordain ministers. Presbyters are not mere biologic elders here. They are appointed. By the young Tim. That’s an office, a ministry.

Did the Church loose her way by “creating” ministerial priesthood or with the Papacy ?

 

[pneuma07]

well, we should be more precise and ask these sorts of specific questions (working off of your reworded question):

a) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether it is proper and holy to lead military crusades, the members of the church who approved and participated in those crusades or me?

b) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether it is proper and good to burn heretics at the stake, the members of the church who approved of and carried out those executions or me?

.

Every age has its own challenges and temptations. ( One of ours own appears being prone to judgments about previous ones ).
I do not maintain I know Jesus’ message better than the leadership of the CC in the XI or XIII or XVI centuries. That would sound to me an excess of individualism and presentism even if I were non-catholic and non-believer.( BTW, I could not maintain that I know His message better than the great minds within Protestantisms, I believe the CC does )

The basic specific principle of the crusades was the pilgrimage.
The basic principle of the fight against heresies was the defense of the faith.

IMHO a number of factors including grave weaknesses and sins within the leaders of the Church produced disastrous consequences in the applications of those principles.

c) Who knows Jesus’ message better as to whether one can buy one’s way out of purgatory, the members of the church who accepted and used payments made for that purpose or me?

• The Church who developed the doctrine of indulgences knows better than myself ( BTW there is more freedom of opinion on the contents of this doctrine for the catholic believer than it is often imagined )
• About the depth of the knowledges of single abusers of the indulgences I can offer no specific insight.

I could go on of course, but I think it is clear that we all think that certain groups (in leadership) within the church didn’t follow Jesus’ message very well and that we know better…it is a question of how often.

If your general point is that you follow Jesus’ message better than a number of Christian leaders would do during history,then I have nothing to object.

It is rather that I know better than the church hierarchy of a certain time period in regard to certain matters. In contrast, I expect that you will distinguish between your agreement with the “official teachings” put forward by certain groups and your disagreement with the “unofficial teachings” put forward by other groups (claiming that only the former actually spoke for the Church) but I think that distinction is artificial and that really you are claiming that you know better than the hierarchy at various times. You will likely dismiss certain differences between the modern teachings of the CC and the ancient teachings of the Church by claiming that the difference is due to inspired development, but I think … … To declare one’s agreement with a improperly described belief isn’t actual agreement with the ancient church.

Let me quote Richard Neuhaus, who left this world last year:
*"The Catholic Church has always taught with St. Paul that now, as he says in 1 Corinthians 13, we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now we know in part; then we shall understand fully, even as we have been fully understood. Along the way to that eschatological fullness—which is a frequently jagged, confusing, and conflicted way—it is promised to the Church that she will not, she will not irretrievably, lose the way. It is not everything that we might want, but it is enough; it is more than enough.

The Church’s teaching lives forward; it is not reconstructed backward—whether from the fifth century or the sixteenth or the nineteenth or the twenty-first." *( from the essay “How I became the Catholic I was “)

The single believer acting by himself, or the single community within Protestantisms, reconstruct backward. The CC lives forward. That could IMHO be the basis of a not completely inadequate reply to your profound questions.

You affirm you know the present teachings are in disagreement ( I so interpret “different” in the context ) with the ancient Church. You affirm they are in disagreement with the NT. And they are in disagreement with the early Church on areas she was silent about.

Consider please that this does not amount merely to
“I reconstruct in 2010 the real meaning of the recorded teachings of the ancient Church better than the CC does.” “I reconstruct the real meaning of the NT better than the CC does” “I reconstruct the silences, or not recorded tenets, of the early Church better than the CC does”.

You are also mainly stating, that the living teaching of His Church ( since we seem to agree there was an original legitimate visible Church ) designed to deliver His message …… lost it step by step. The living informant, assisted by the Spirit, that the Incarnated Logos had left us to attain His message, is then no more.

And to attain the message of the Incarnated and Resurrected One we have our own reconstructions, by means of documents, themselves delivered through a derailing body, even unable to get their meanings. Each “reconstructor” claiming special assistance by the Spirit.

On the Church in the early second century my question here is trivially: was she derailing ?

I wish to tell you that ( although you are a little overloading me now ) I am grateful for this exchange, for all the insights you’re presenting and the difficult questions you ask.
I hope I am giving you here a correct presentation of the Catholic positions.

God bless you

 

[Radical]

Hey Pneuma07…for the next while I will only have short bits of time and so I’ll likely answer your posts one at a time…please bear with me

As to the problem about A and non-A that is a very real one.
You may note that just the same could be said with irreproachable leaders as well.
That points IMHO to the Church needing one ultimate voice. That points, in other words, to oneness and catholicity.

the voice of one that I see presented in the NT is the voice of the Spirit…and not a hierarchy. For example in 1 Cor 1 Paul urges the Corinthians to unite by agreeing with one another and not by submitting to a hierarchy.

We are not going by late-second-Temple rules, but by the words of the Word. The former are either irrelevant here, or even would make Jesus’ command stronger.
I mean, in case we had something like “Ye know that customs allow for unappointments of those guys, but ye, who listen to me, that notwithstanding must obey them, and do what they say, even if they can be vipers. “

I think it would be more of something like: "Ye know that customs allow for removal of those guys from the seat of Moses, but ye, who listen to me, must obey them and do what they say until they are actually removed, even if they are vipers while in that seat. “

Now, it sounds quite clear IMHO that this rules out unappointments by Jesus’ followers. It would not make sense go on obeying …the very ones you have unappointed.

right, once they are removed from the seat of Moses, the command to obey them would not apply

I only observe that the qualifications we could conceive do not include what matters for us here ie the behavioral dimension of those legitimate authorities.

To my poor knowledge we don’t have a record that requires the Pharisees to be free from immorality, but we have exactly that for elders. Once the elder is immoral he loses his legitimacy.

 

[Radical]

1)Again, I do not object to a qualified obedience. I do fail nevertheless to see legitimate rebellions against the legitimate leaders on grounds of their behaviors.

I can only add that IMHO the overseer would lose his legitimacy as soon as he lost his morality…the overseer appointed when immoral would never possess legitimacy

1. As I tried to show the lists on the qualifications were given Titus and Tim as guidelines for the selection of leaders. Not as instructions to rebel against and unordain whomever happen to cease from being able to boast all ( or almost all, or which ? ) elements of one of the lists.

I won’t call them instructions to “unordain” either…they are qualifications that are to be maintained…not to be followed only at the time of appointment and not to be ever disregarded

BTW The recent commentary to the pastoral epistles within the “New International Commentary on the New Testament” uses precisely this definition: “guidelines for the selection of leaders”. And it is from the evangelical Protestant tradition.

I’ll take a look at that, but the commentaries in my NIVs don’t stop at them being mere guidelines for the sole purpose of the selection of leaders…the commentaries that I have fully agree with them being qualifications that apply to the duration of the appointment

But the rebellion you would lead or would incite to lead ( in case either your interpretation of the Revelation on this point or the assessment about the pastor whose heart is supposed to be corrupt were not strictly correct ) would mean committing Korah’s sin.

No, quite the opposite. Between Moses and Korah the the Lord chose who was holy…who belonged to the Lord. The immoral overseer does not possess the fruit of the Spirit, does not belong to the Spirit/Lord. In other words, the immoral church leader would have his counterpart in Korah, the immoral leader of the Levites.