The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[Radical]

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.

I think you are trying to make way too much out of the silence. We have these instructions in the letters to the disciples (Tim and Titus) b/c they had a particular job to do. By your reasoning, what should I make of Paul’s instruction on the Eucharist?..it is addressed to the Corinthian congregation and not Tim or Titus…therefore, by your reasoning, the bishop must not play any significant role with regard to the Eucharist…it must be the entirely the congregation’s responsibility.

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.

I am not sure what transmission of legitimate authority you are talking about. Paul appointed (with or without others?) Titus and Timothy to a certain task. That appointment did not make Titus or Timothy apostles. Titus and Timothy appointed elders to a certain task and those appointments did not make the elders either apostles or the co-workers of apostles. “Transmission of authority by appointment” doesn’t seem to be the correct phrase to describe what happened. “Creation by appointment” is what I would call it…and I don’t see (anywhere in the NT) the ability to create authority by way of appointment somehow restricted to those who are in some sort of chain of transmission.

Tim appears a presbyter of presbyters, and as such we don’t see him passing off to a group of elders, rather supervising them.

I wouldn’t call Tim a presbyter of presbyters…he seems to be of a different set. I would classify him as an apostle’s co-worker…someone who is an evangelist and founder…fulfilling a considerably different role than the elders that he appoints in the local churches.

Maybe the best thing is admitting we do not know so much of the organization of the immediately post-apostolic Church.

that I can do.

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).

I don’t see the flock being restricted to the role of nominator in the Didache. The Didache seems to direct the flock to appoint. I also note that the Didache, in contrast to your seat of Moses example, instructs the flock not to always follow what the teacher instructs the flock to do (p 11)

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.

or the second or third generation in that particular corner of the empire

 

[Radical]

pneuma07:

In the Church Paul speaks about in 1 Cor there are the Apostles. He is not speaking about this local congregation only then.

At times in 1 Cor Paul uses “body of Christ’ to refer to the universal church and at other times to refer to the local church. IMHO verses 12:27 (Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.) and 10:17 (Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. ) are two instances of the latter.

The communion of communions is the Body. Every single communion of members is also Body of Christ by being within the communion of communions.

I would say it is b/c “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” I don’t see it as being contingent on being within the communion of communions….though obviously, that situation is what is desired.

If congregations go on unilaterally, and disagree with one another, they do not make up His Body. Therefore, a congregation which ousts its pastor unilaterally, is not acting within His Body.

I find this odd…It seems that from your view, a bishop who acts unilaterally and in direct opposition to the will of God maintains his status as leader. In contrast, if a congregation is in disagreement with another congregation (about its unilateral ousting of a corrupt pastor), the ousting congregation loses its status as the body of Christ or as part of the body of Christ. Does the Spirit continue to indwell the corrupt pastor? Does the Spirit leave the members of the ousting congregation (so that they no longer have the one Spirit to drink)?

It escapes me how they could reject Paul’s teaching ( which we suppose strictly faithful to Jesus’ own ) and be His Body….Rejecting Paul would amount IMHO to rejecting his Master.

I agree (if the rejection was prolonged and significant) b/c Paul was never the corrupt leader we are discussing. In contrast, rejecting Judas between his betrayal and his suicide IMHO would not amount to rejecting Christ b/c Christ was no longer his Master.

How could we say that our relationship to God has not to do with our relationship with those He sent to us ?

Quite easily. If the one he has sent turns from God or is not qualified to be sent according to God’s requirements, then that fellow is no longer sent or was never sent (by God) in the first place.

OK, you mean class by themselves.
Not only actions against 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.

I think the limited ability to communicate between the local churches of the first centuries made unilateral actions by local congregations unavoidable. Not everything could wait until an apostle could be consulted or until letters could be sent and then received from other congregations. Did the Corinthian church pay attention to what Clement wrote (in what is called his first letter)? I don’t know. Was the Roman congregation better placed to decide on the best course of action? Maybe, but quite possibly not. At c. 44 it reads “But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.” Would Rome have objected to Corinth unilaterally removing corrupt pastors w/o consulting with any other congregations?..I doubt it.

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 ?

yes…it is a very real possibility.

Or are we to postulate that any congregation whatsoever is the Body of Christ, acting with His full authority ?

a local congregation is properly designated the “body of Christ’ and would possess whatever authority attaches to that designation. Possessing authority, however, is an entirely different thing from possessing infallibility.

IMH impression, your statements in this thread seem implicitly claim for the single congregation an infallibility.

If so, then I expressly reject the claim.

 

[Radical]

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 ).

Of this I have no doubt….the Catholic’s ability to read between the lines and see something we Protestants couldn’t find in 500 years is legendary.

b) Now you quote 1 Cor. I presume there were no successors of the Apostles in the 50s AD.

really? I would have thought that your view would have had Tim and the elders appointed by him all classified as successors and in the line of apostolic successors.

…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.

Tim, Titus and the appointed elders were indeed to have teaching capabilities and maybe even the spiritual gift of teaching, but I see a great distinction between “teachers” and “successors to the apostles” (as the latter term is used by the CC). I see teachers within Protestantism and within Catholicism who are not in the hierarchical lineage.

c) Through the hands of Tim and Titus grace can be conferred ( and they have to be careful on whom )

I see spiritual gifts being given, the Spirit being received and appointments being made through the laying on of hands….I wouldn’t call that conferring grace. I must say I doubt that I have much of a grasp of the Catholic concept of grace and how it works…it seems to be viewed kinda like a commodity in Catholic thought (its stored and portioned out etc.) …tis all very odd (to me).

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.

Agreed…there were offices and ministries, but I don’t think they were of the same sort as the Catholic priesthood of today

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

IMHO there are problems (including attributing too much importance, power and authority) with both

 

[Radical]

Every age has its own challenges and temptations. ( One of ours own appears being prone to judgments about previous ones).

Judgments seem rather unavoidable. When one reads the works of the ECFs, one can come to the conclusion that the early church was free from error in its official teaching, or one can come to the conclusion that the early church drifted into error. Both conclusions are the result of a judgment. In the first instance one has to also judge which teachings were official. In the second instance one has to then judge which teachings were error free…either way, there is a lot of judging.

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 )

My approach is somewhat similar…You might have noted that I qualify my claim of knowing better than the CC to specific matters…and my knowledge rests on the contribution of many others.

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.

I wasn’t claiming to follow Christ’s message all that well…I would quickly add that 1) Christ’s advice regarding the Pharisees (do what they teach and not what they do) applies to me all too often and that 2) there are so, so many that follow Christ’s message far better than I.

…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 “)

This makes perfect sense if one has come to the conclusion that the Church can not fall into error WRT its doctrine and it doesn’t work so well if that is not one’s conclusion. If error exists, then IMHO, one has to 1) make an effort to try and reconstruct what the error-free Church would have looked like and 2) not build upon the error.

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”.

I would word it differently…With regard to the second one, something like: With the help of many others, I am able to reconstruct the real meaning of the NT (with respect to certain matters only )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.

I wouldn’t use the word “designed”…perhaps established would be better. The design, if there was one, would have included the contribution of prophets and speakers of tongues…where have they gone?

The living informant, assisted by the Spirit, that the Incarnated Logos had left us to attain His message, is then no more.

no, I would say it is still there. It never was infallible and is still quite fallible. It never had a clear vision of the full truth and still sees as through a mirror dimly.

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.

claiming an insight and believing that it was gained through the assistance of the HS is not the greater problem (IMHO)…the greater problem arises when one makes that claim w/o humility and/or claims infallibility for the insights of oneself or of one’s institution. Another (very different) problem arises when one claims that “if you think the ECFs got this or these(official) thing(s) right, then you must also believe that they got every thing (that I declare to be) official right.”

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

Yes, primarily by adding to the original message. The Church (or the CC from your perspective) has done very well in preserving the original message with regard to many things, but unfortunately has also added doctrine WRT a number of matters…for example, by the last half of the second century, it seems that beliefs regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity were moving from the fringe to the mainstream. Those beliefs later became orthodox and then became mandatory.

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.

thanks, the appreciation is mutual

I hope I am giving you here a correct presentation of the Catholic positions.

I don’t doubt that you are well representing the CC

God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

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.

Dear Radical,

through the legitimate hierarchy the voice of the Spirit speaks: Acts 15:28.
And Paul was there.

We agree the Spirit is one, nevertheless what we see in modern times is many claiming each to speak for the Spirit, and the Spirit having sadly …. many cacophonous voices attributed to Him.

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. “

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

• We then seem to agree that we understand there that the follower of Christ has to obey the legitimate religious authority independently from behavioral assessments.

On this very passage Saint Augustine wrote:
*“Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair he verily figured his own) for he warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors.” * Against the letters of Petillianus, Book II Chapter 61.

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

We all are required to be free from immorality ( well, except in radical versions of Sola Fide ).
Clearly Jesus does not set up moral requirements for those in legitimate authority in order to remain such. . As we saw, they can even be vipers, but the command is “do what they say”.

In counter-analogy we should understand, according to the proposed view, that the opposite is true for those whose legitimacy stems from Jesus. By going back to the lists on the qualities of overseers to Timothy and Titus.

As if Jesus had said “ Do what the legitimate authorities rejecting me say, now, even when they’re snakes. But when the authority is passed to the Apostles, and those sent by them, then …. ye must rebel against any of those as soon as they look reproachable to you “

By affirming that “ we have a record that requires elders to be free from immorality and once is immoral he loses legitimacy” you are somehow more…than absolutizing the list to Tim and the list to Titus.
We haven’t just got IMHO propositions like that.

We have lists that can be regarded as guidelines to select candidates.
Or also as guidelines for overseers to medidate on during their service, or also “*what sort of a person a Bishop ought to be. * “ (Chrisostom in Homily 10 on 1 Tim, ). Who also observes there : “Because these qualities ( ie moral ones ) are possessed by most of those who are under their rule, (for in these respects they ought to be equal to those who rule over them,) he, to show what is peculiar to the Bishops, adds, “apt to teach.” For this is not required of him that is ruled, but is most essential to him who has this rule committed to him).

The desirable moral qualities are not as essential as the ability to teach, regarded as peculiar of the Bishop, in Chrisostom’s assessment.

That they are NOT conditions to remain legitimate we get in any case IMHO, as already observed, from the mere fact that there are two and quite different lists.

Moreover, if , just for argument’s sake, they were really conditions to establish the ongoing legitimacy of the minister , and, as a further point, the unappointment is, as you seem to propose, just up the congregations, I don’t get why these words are addressed precisely to Tim and Titus, and not to congregations.

 

[pneuma07]

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

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.
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
.

I like to offer one more reason why we can consider the list to Tim and the list to Titus as more or less guidelikes for the selection of leaders. Immediate contexts.
For Tim we have:

If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task …

That’s about candidates.

For Titus we have

The 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. ….

Which is, once again, about candidates.

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

Let’s read Numbers 16 again.

In Korah’s rebellion with Dathan and Abiram several dimensions can IMHO be read. Among which:

Declared:

• Ecclesiological, verse 3 –
  3And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord ?-

Behavioral, verses 13-14

13Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us?
14Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men?

Exposed by Moses:
unsatisfied pride, verse 10​

10And he hath brought thee near to him, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee: and seek ye the priesthood also?

verse 28 explains what is to be determined

28And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. 29If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men; then the Lord hath not sent me.

whether Moses has a legitimate mandate.

Korah is the prototype of the rebel against legitimate religious authority.

 

[pneuma07]

I think you are trying to make way too much out of the silence. We have these instructions in the letters to the disciples (Tim and Titus) b/c they had a particular job to do. By your reasoning, what should I make of Paul’s instruction on the Eucharist?..it is addressed to the Corinthian congregation and not Tim or Titus…therefore, by your reasoning, the bishop must not play any significant role with regard to the Eucharist…it must be the entirely the congregation’s responsibility.

Let’s not make anything here out of silence, let’s make out of maths then. I may suppose you are better at statistics then I am, so you may want to calculate the likelihood that given two instructions on qualities of overseers within a corpus of 13 letters, these happen to be both in the 3 letters addressed to a disciple.

Or, if we prefer, given the number of Congregations addressed and the two disciples addressed, the a priori probability that zero congregations and both disciples are instructed on that. Or we could also weigh the total length of the epistles.

We could also do a similar calculation about the Eucharistic argument we find in Corinthians.

I am not sure what transmission of legitimate authority you are talking about. Paul appointed (with or without others?) Titus and Timothy to a certain task. That appointment did not make Titus or Timothy apostles. Titus and Timothy appointed elders to a certain task and those appointments did not make the elders either apostles or the co-workers of apostles. “Transmission of authority by appointment” doesn’t seem to be the correct phrase to describe what happened. “Creation by appointment” is what I would call it…and I don’t see (anywhere in the NT) the ability to create authority by way of appointment somehow restricted to those who are in some sort of chain of transmission.
I wouldn’t call Tim a presbyter of presbyters…he seems to be of a different set. I would classify him as an apostle’s co-worker…someone who is an evangelist and founder…fulfilling a considerably different role than the elders that he appoints in the local churches.

Timothy did not receive just a specific task. He received the gift of the Spirit through the hands of Paul ( and probably of others too, as you correcly point out, see 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6 ). This is precisely what the Church means by “ordaining”.

Then he will carefully ordain in his turn ( 1 Tim 5:22), through the semikà.

He has to teach, and train the teachers to come. 2 Tim 2:2

He has to supervise ( oversee, episkopein . 1 Tim 5. 17-20) presbyters.

He has to guard the deposit of the faith. 2 Tim 1:14

There is IMHO more than enough to get that the Apostle is entrusting Tim with an exceptional role/office. Tim is a bishop. A bishop as we call that nowadays.

Maybe the best thing is admitting we do not know so much of the organization of the immediately post-apostolic Church.

that I can do.

I don’t see the flock being restricted to the role of nominator in the Didache. The Didache seems to direct the flock to appoint. I also note that the Didache, in contrast to your seat of Moses example, instructs the flock not to always follow what the teacher instructs the flock to do (p 11)

People would nominate, or ask for themselves, or what we prefer tell that, bishops. Ambrose was …called to become bishop by the crowd in late IV century. That does not mean he was ordained by the crowd, you can bet.
Didache 11 appears essentially instructing against false prophets. Which is very understandable

or the second or third generation in that particular corner of the empire

No contradiction in principle between our formulations, and then I am not opening here a new line on that.

 

[Radical]

Pneuma07…I assume that you have 3 more responses to go, but I hope that you can also clarify one other thing for me. What do you think should have happened if one of the overseers (that Tim appointed in accordance with the qualifications provided by Paul) became grossly immoral and did not change when rebuked by Tim? Your position in this regard is not clear to me. Does Tim remove that overseer?..if so, on what grounds? Does Tim leave that overseer in place?..if so, why?

 

[pneuma07]

At times in 1 Cor Paul uses “body of Christ’ to refer to the universal church and at other times to refer to the local church. IMHO verses 12:27 (Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.) and 10:17 (Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. ) are two instances of the latter. .

You appear essentially with the catholic-orthodox position here.

I would say it is b/c “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” I don’t see it as being contingent on being within the communion of communions….though obviously, that situation is what is desired.

— There is indeed a sort of “community of the baptized ones” which goes beyond the communion of communions, although distinct from it. You and I belong together to it.

But there isn’t the proper Body of Christ IMHO without the oneness expressed through communion.

Quote:

I find this odd…It seems that from your view, a bishop who acts unilaterally and in direct opposition to the will of God maintains his status as leader. In contrast, if a congregation is in disagreement with another congregation (about its unilateral ousting of a corrupt pastor), the ousting congregation loses its status as the body of Christ or as part of the body of Christ. Does the Spirit continue to indwell the corrupt pastor? Does the Spirit leave the members of the ousting congregation (so that they no longer have the one Spirit to drink)?

I would not qualify the presence of the Spirit and His gifts in a person as a yes or no. Otherwise He would be received just once , which is not the case.
A bishop may be excommunicated, and thus declared outside His Body.
I am not saying any unilateral behavior by a congregation means it is automatically cut off from His Body. I am saying that congregations which are not in communion with the universal communion of communions are not fully and properly His Body.
His Body is one.
Cells and tissues are body, or parts of the body, since thay are in union with each other.
Many tissues or organs by themselves would not be many bodies.

I agree (if the rejection was prolonged and significant) b/c Paul was never the corrupt leader we are discussing. In contrast, rejecting Judas between his betrayal and his suicide IMHO would not amount to rejecting Christ b/c Christ was no longer his Master.

If Paul delivered the true Word, those who would reject it were not His Body. Regardless of Pauls’s personal behavior.
Speaking about Judas if he was present among the Twelve, selected by the Lord, how could I even hope , let alone ask, that His Church has not got bad boys, even among the successors of the Twelve ?
This can strengthen one of the points in the Opening Post.

And are we obliged to suppose that there was no reproachable guy, not even one, among all the 70 or so we read about in Luke 10, sent to deliver His message ?

Quite easily. If the one he has sent turns from God or is not qualified to be sent according to God’s requirements, then that fellow is no longer sent or was never sent (by God) in the first place.

I get you are not saying that our relationship to God has nothing to do with those sent.
Basically, we’re back to understand …whether there is a legitimate mandate.

I think the limited ability to communicate between the local churches of the first centuries made unilateral actions by local congregations unavoidable. Not everything could wait until an apostle could be consulted or until letters could be sent and then received from other congregations. Did the Corinthian church pay attention to what Clement wrote (in what is called his first letter)? I don’t know. Was the Roman congregation better placed to decide on the best course of action? Maybe, but quite possibly not. At c. 44 it reads “But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.” Would Rome have objected to Corinth unilaterally removing corrupt pastors w/o consulting with any other congregations?..I doubt it.

We get from that letter at the very least the idea that local major affairs are not just local. The situation was referred, (in spite of the limited development in ICT IN those times) asking for instructions, advise or what you prefer ( by chance, those believers in Greece chose to write to Rome ).
Probably some ( most) Corinthians would consider those pastors corrupt or turning from God.Rome ( and probably other Corinthians ) would not.
From the point of view of a mere assessment of behaviors, locals were of course in better position. If the belief of those early times had been that each congregation has the full authority of Christ, and dismisses pastors whener considered under a known standard, the whole thing does not make sense IMHO.

yes…it is a very real possibility.

a local congregation is properly designated the “body of Christ’ and would possess whatever authority attaches to that designation. Possessing authority, however, is an entirely different thing from possessing infallibility.

We’d have then to admit the possibility, or better the existence, of many derailing “bodies of Christ”. Each with the full authority coming from being His Body.
That sounds really confusing to me, and oxymoronic IMH impression.

If so, then I expressly reject the claim

Amen

 

[pneuma07]

Of this I have no doubt….the Catholic’s ability to read between the lines and see something we Protestants couldn’t find in 500 years is legendary.

I need no legendary ability to show supports for the primacy of Peter in the corpus paulinum

really? I would have thought that your view would have had Tim and the elders appointed by him all classified as successors and in the line of apostolic successors.

Tim or anyone had not succeeded Paul 15 years or so before his death. … Not all the elders appointed and supervised by Tim should be considered bishops.
What is not always clear is that the question was ( and is ) how to orbamize ( manage ) the Church after the Apostles.

Tim, Titus and the appointed elders were indeed to have teaching capabilities and maybe even the spiritual gift of teaching, but I see a great distinction between “teachers” and “successors to the apostles” (as the latter term is used by the CC). I see teachers within Protestantism and within Catholicism who are not in the hierarchical lineage.

From the Catholic-orthodox point of view the bishops are the teachers of the faith par excellence. Every believer can also be a teacher. I hope I am with my children.
Then catholic theologians are peculiarly considered , in JP2’s words “ teachers of the intelligence of the faith”.
A reason we consider the bishops as such, is that they were specially entrusted with preserving and teaching the deposit ( paratheke) of the faith, with the service of the Word.

To support this I call our Tim … 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14.
Then go to Acts 6. Why were deacons ordained ? So to have a dinstinction between the service of the Word and material services. Then we find ( eg in Clement) the offices of bishops and deacons . We can IMHO infer that the service of the Word is specially in charge of the bishops, now that the apostles have gone and deacons go on in their ministry.

 

[pneuma07]

I see spiritual gifts being given, the Spirit being received and appointments being made through the laying on of hands….I wouldn’t call that conferring grace. I must say I doubt that I have much of a grasp of the Catholic concept of grace and how it works…it seems to be viewed kinda like a commodity in Catholic thought (its stored and portioned out etc.) …tis all very odd (to me).

I guess these statements ( which you have maybe personally already pondered ) from the CCC can generally help on sacraments and grace .
875 "How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?"390 No one - no individual and no community - can proclaim the Gospel to himself: "Faith comes from what is heard."391 No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty (“the sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of the liturgy, word and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament. *

1084 “Seated at the right hand of the Father” and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify.

1120 The ordained ministry or ministerial priesthood is at the service of the baptismal priesthood.38 The ordained priesthood guarantees that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit for the Church. The saving mission entrusted by the Father to his incarnate Son was committed to the apostles and through them to their successors: they receive the Spirit of Jesus to act in his name and in his person.39 The ordained minister is the sacramental bond that ties the liturgical action to what the apostles said and did and, through them, to the words and actions of Christ, the source and foundation of the sacraments. 1121 The three sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders confer, in addition to grace, a sacramental character or “seal” by which the Christian shares in Christ’s priesthood and is made a member of the Church according to different states and functions. …

Agreed…there were offices and ministries

OK

but I don’t think they were of the same sort as the Catholic priesthood of today

IMHO there are problems (including attributing too much importance, power and authority) with both

Otherwise you’d be coming home.

 

[pneuma07]

Judgments seem rather unavoidable. When one reads the works of the ECFs, one can come to the conclusion that the early church was free from error in its official teaching, or one can come to the conclusion that the early church drifted into error. Both conclusions are the result of a judgment. In the first instance one has to also judge which teachings were official. In the second instance one has to then judge which teachings were error free…either way, there is a lot of judging.

I was more specifically referring to behavioral judgments.

My approach is somewhat similar…You might have noted that I qualify my claim of knowing better than the CC to specific matters…and my knowledge rests on the contribution of many others.

Everybody’s knowledge IMHO …. rests on the contribution of many others.
We do not do our individual homeworks as a cast away.

I wasn’t claiming to follow Christ’s message all that well…I would quickly add that 1) Christ’s advice regarding the Pharisees (do what they teach and not what they do) applies to me all too often and that 2) there are so, so many that follow Christ’s message far better than I.

—We are a large club

This makes perfect sense if one has come to the conclusion that the Church can not fall into error WRT its doctrine and it doesn’t work so well if that is not one’s conclusion. If error exists, then IMHO, one has to 1) make an effort to try and reconstruct what the error-free Church would have looked like and 2) not build upon the error.
I would word it differently…With regard to the second one, something like: With the help of many others, I am able to reconstruct the real meaning of the NT (with respect to certain matters only )better than the CC does

-------------I’d see Neuhaus’ quoted expression as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The CC lives forward. Outside the Apostolic Church I rest on reconstruction only, in principle.
One of the reasons why I doubt individual homeworks do better than the collective continous reflection of the Church, is that they so often contradict each other no less than the CC.

I wouldn’t use the word “designed”…perhaps established would be better. The design, if there was one, would have included the contribution of prophets and speakers of tongues…where have they gone?

They would live within the Church, and their contributions must have IMHO enriched the life of the Church from within . Without being specifically documented.

Are we together on the view of the existence of an original legitimate visible Church ?

no, I would say it is still there. It never was infallible and is still quite fallible. It never had a clear vision of the full truth and still sees as through a mirror dimly.

We have made it clear that we all see through a mirror dimly. The CC as Saint Paul, as anybody.
Yet Paul delivers some certainties

3For(F) I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died(G) for our sins(H) in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised(I) on the third day(J) in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that(K) he appeared to Cephas, then(L) to the twelve……, 1 Cor 15

together with something we could consider profound opinions.

The Pauline mirror does not mean absence of any certainty.The Apostle reflects on what he received. And teaches with different degrees of certainties the paradosis, the fruit of his reflections and applications to circumstances.
His disciples will have to live forward these certainties, reflections and applications.

This the CC has IMHO been doing for two millennia.

 

[pneuma07]

claiming an insight and believing that it was gained through the assistance of the HS is not the greater problem (IMHO)…the greater problem arises when one makes that claim w/o humility and/or claims infallibility for the insights of oneself or of one’s institution. Another (very different) problem arises when one claims that “if you think the ECFs got this or these(official) thing(s) right, then you must also believe that they got every thing (that I declare to be) official right.”

*The entire course of Christian fidelity * ( Richard Neuhause again in the above quoted essay ) is obedience to the received truth of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, and the Spirit’s guiding of the Church’s reflection on that truth.”

THE Church, seeing thorugh a mirror, is humbler, much humbler than that is often presented or given for granted. If she comes to us once or twice in a century for example with a new definition, saying “ dear children, now I reached that deepest degree of persuasion that allows me to teach you authoritatatively this and that”, that precisely means hers is a millennia long humble reflection on the depositum fidei. She shares what she can see how she can see it.

So, if we ask her
“ So tell me, teach, what is EXACTLY the relation between grace and free will ?Are Scriptures materially sufficient ?“. She will answer
“ Dear children, at present I do not have any definitive answer “

Before this millennia long careful collective living reflection, which is so often sadly misunderstood and ridiculed ( “how come it took centuries to understand this or that, were that not known to Peter or Paul ?” ) we can weigh the reconstruction of the most learned and smartest individual believer in two or twenty years of personal commitment.

Yes, primarily by adding to the original message. The Church (or the CC from your perspective) has done very well in preserving the original message with regard to many things, but unfortunately has also added doctrine WRT a number of matters…for example, by the last half of the second century, it seems that beliefs regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity were moving from the fringe to the mainstream. Those beliefs later became orthodox and then became mandatory.

How do we attain the original message ?
Seriously.

I don’t doubt that you are well representing the CC

Maybe you should.

 

[pneuma07]

Pneuma07…I assume that you have 3 more responses to go, but I hope that you can also clarify one other thing for me. What do you think should have happened if one of the overseers (that Tim appointed in accordance with the qualifications provided by Paul) became grossly immoral and did not change when rebuked by Tim? Your position in this regard is not clear to me. Does Tim remove that overseer?..if so, on what grounds? Does Tim leave that overseer in place?..if so, why?

I cannot say I know what he would do. I could say he knew what to do.

I believe there must always have been a form of discipline. Ecclesiastical sanctions can go up to forbidding the regular exercise of the ministry, and excommunication. A recent famous case was Emmanuel Milingo. The ground for sanctions is openly disregarding the rules of the house. A minister cannot be “unordained”, or anybody “unbaptized”.

Whether sanctions are to be softer or harder, more frequent or not, that is open to debate.

God bless you.

 

[Radical]

through the legitimate hierarchy the voice of the Spirit speaks: Acts 15:28. And Paul was there.

yes, that is one of a few ways in which the Spirit spoke in the NT

We agree the Spirit is one, nevertheless what we see in modern times is many claiming each to speak for the Spirit, and the Spirit having sadly …. many cacophonous voices attributed to Him.

True and in my mind the solution is for everyone to be very cautious and humble in attributing the Spirit’s inspiration for any of their own claims….I don’t see any (modern or historical) body that can (even begin to) legitimately claim that it is free from error in what it has taught

We then seem to agree that we understand there that the follower of Christ has to obey the legitimate religious authority independently from behavioral assessments.

No, b/c a pastor’s legitimacy is based, in part, on behavior. I would describe it as the congregation should obey the pastor:

a) Provided his decision is within an area in which he has been granted authority to act;
b) Provided his decision is not clearly contrary to God’s will; and
c) Provided his words and/or deeds do not establish that he is unfit to lead.

Clearly Jesus does not set up moral requirements for those in legitimate authority in order to remain such. . As we saw, they can even be vipers, but the command is “do what they say”.

Nor did he set up any authority in the same style as those who occupied the seat of Moses…in fact, he makes it clear that his followers are to lead in a very different manner.

As if Jesus had said “ Do what the legitimate authorities rejecting me say, now, even when they’re snakes. But when the authority is passed to the Apostles, and those sent by them, then …. ye must rebel against any of those as soon as they look reproachable to you “

that last part is quite the negative spin…I would reword your effort as follows:

“Do what the legitimate authorities rejecting me say, now, even when they’re snakes. You have to use some common sense in hearing this command. For example, don’t reject me, if that is what they teach you to do. Also, when you become leaders later, you are to lead in an entirely different way than the Pharisees currently lead. My church will not have rulers who rule as the Pharisees now rule. (I believe that this follows from Matt 23:5-12)”….

“But after the new authority that I establish for my church is given to the Apostles, they will, under the guidance of the Spirit, appoint others to serve in certain roles in the church. Those appointees are to possess the qualifications that I will list through the Spirit. I expect that those qualifications will not be forgotten as soon as the appointment is made….the leaders of my church are not to be hypocrites (as are the Pharisees) or otherwise immoral….they are to be pure and are to remain pure.“

Now Jesus didn’t say the words that I have just posted, but I believe that the idea behind them is contained in the NT. I am at a loss as to why you would think that Christ would repeatedly point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and then proceed to set up a hierarchical structure that could fall prey to the same problems with hypocrisy (and also fall prey to gross corruption).

By affirming that “ we have a record that requires elders to be free from immorality and once is immoral he loses legitimacy” you are somehow more…than absolutizing the list to Tim and the list to Titus.

I am giving the lists enduring effect. I am at a loss as to why you would think that an overseer, once appointed, need not maintain that initial morality. Why not argue that the lists were only for Tim and Titus to follow and the lists can be totally disregarded for all subsequent appointments?..to me, that argument and the argument that the lists are only to be considered at the time of appointment make about the same amount of sense. Consider these two verses:

He 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. (Titus 1:9 NIV)

IMHO there is absolutely no way that Paul was merely requiring the candidate to hold firmly to the trustworthy message up to the time of appointment, after which it didn’t matter….b/c the appointee would still be able to encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it based solely on his status at the time of appointment (and notwithstanding that he has failed to hold firmly to the trustworthy message thereafter).

He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. (1 Tim 3:7 NIV)

IMHO there is absolutely no way that Paul was merely requiring the candidate to possess a good reputation up to the time of appointment, after which it didn’t matter….b/c the appointee could not fall into disgrace or into the devil’s trap if he did something to damage his reputation after his appointment

 

[Radical]

The desirable moral qualities are not as essential as the ability to teach, regarded as peculiar of the Bishop, in Chrisostom’s assessment.

I am inclined to think that the overseer should teach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.

That they are NOT conditions to remain legitimate we get in any case IMHO, as already observed, from the mere fact that there are two and quite different lists.

The specifics that Paul mention vary, but the principle governing the specifics is identical:

the overseer must be above reproach….(1 Tim 3:2)

An elder must be blameless… (Titus 1: 6 & 7)

Moreover, if , just for argument’s sake, they were really conditions to establish the ongoing legitimacy of the minister , and, as a further point, the unappointment is, as you seem to propose, just up the congregations, I don’t get why these words are addressed precisely to Tim and Titus, and not to congregations.

B/c they were to handle the appointments (in question) at the time Paul wrote the letter……as we have observed, the NT doesn’t clarify if Tim and Titus passed on the responsibility to appoint elders to the congregation as a whole or solely to the already appointed elders. We disagree on how it went

 

[Radical]

I like to offer one more reason why we can consider the list to Tim and the list to Titus as more or less guidelines for the selection of leaders… Which is, once again, about candidates.

I agree that the lists that are provided in 1 Tim and in Titus are lists that detail the qualifications that a candidate for overseer must possess…b/c that was the task that Tim and Titus were to complete. (I suppose you wouldn’t be saying “must”) I am at a complete loss as to why one would think that the lists have no binding effect once the selection is made. I suspect it has to do with how we differ in respect to what an appointment means. You think that an overseer can never be unappointed (as impossible as being unbaptized)and therefore, there is no need to revisit the list…it is (in your view) once ordained, always ordained. I think that an overseer can be dismissed (unappointed) and as such, I understand that the overseer must continue to make the grade. (Unlike baptism, serving as an overseer is an ongoing endeavor and qualifying as an overseer is therefore an ongoing endeavor). In any event, see above as to why I think the lists have an ongoing application throughout the overseer’s tenure.

Let’s read Numbers 16 again…Korah is the prototype of the rebel against legitimate religious authority.

again I agree…but I disagree with your reasoning and with your use of Korah to argue against the dismissal of a corrupt overseer in the church.
First, Moses and Aaron were not corrupt. They were doing God’s work and Korah wasn’t. If you want to use Korah to argue against the congregation’s ability to dismiss a corrupt overseer in the church, then Korah should be the righteous one and Moses and Aaron should be corrupt. It is exactly backwards from what you need.

Second, no where do we see Moses employ the “Aaron was appointed, therefore he can’t ever be removed and so that absolutely settles it” argument. Instead we find that Moses proposed a test as to determine who belonged to the Lord (and not a test to determine who was appointed).

Third, Moses declared that the test demonstrated who was sent by and who was doing the will of God (and who was following his own plan). If you want to use Korah to argue against the congregation’s ability to dismiss a corrupt overseer in the church, then Moses shouldn’t have been proven to be the one doing God’s will…he should be corrupt and pursuing the desires of his own flesh. It is exactly backwards from what you need.

 

[Radical]

Let’s not make anything here out of silence, let’s make out of maths then. I may suppose you are better at statistics then I am, so you may want to calculate the likelihood that given two instructions on qualities of overseers within a corpus of 13 letters, these happen to be both in the 3 letters addressed to a disciple.

I would suggest that before we could even start a calculation, you would have to tell me how many of the letters were written (at least in part) for the purpose of instructing the person(s) charged with appointing elders as to how to go about doing that task…for example, 2 Tim has no instructions on qualities for overseers… b/c 1 Tim took care of the matter. When 1 Cor was written, was the appointment of elders a pressing concern?..was it a concern at all? Had it been addressed previously?

We could also do a similar calculation about the Eucharistic argument we find in Corinthians.

One of the things I would wonder is that, if the rule was as you say (ie that the appointed one is to be obeyed) why does Paul feel the need to justify his authority to the Corinthians and to the Galatians? Why didn’t he merely say, “Listen, I have been appointed and therefore, you are to obey my teaching no matter what”?..now Paul might go on and humor them by providing his reasons, but one would think, that instead of making his case as he did, that somewhere he would have just demanded obedience on the basis of his uncontested appointment.

Timothy did not receive just a specific task. He received the gift of the Spirit through the hands of Paul ….There is IMHO more than enough to get that the Apostle is entrusting Tim with an exceptional role/office. Tim is a bishop. A bishop as we call that nowadays.

I think that there is a considerable difference between the office of the modern catholic bishop (it is properly called an office) and the task/role/function Tim and Titus performed (it would be a very loosey goosey office if an office at all)……I have used “office” to describe a designated function, but I think the Catholic uses “office” to describe a designated hierarchical position

Didache 11 appears essentially instructing against false prophets. Which is very understandable

it seems to be addressing the situation WRT apostles as well and maybe bishops. In any event, C. 15 encourages the people to treat their bishops as they would prophets and teachers and so it would seem that C 11 would apply to bishops when they perform the ministry of prophets and teachers.

 

[Radical]

pneuma07:

There is indeed a sort of “community of the baptized ones” which goes beyond the communion of communions, although distinct from it. You and I belong together to it.

I see the unity that we enjoy as the product of God’s work through the Spirit (God’s Unity) and I see the disunity that exists between your church and mine as the result of man failing to give precedence to God’s Unity.

But there isn’t the proper Body of Christ IMHO without the oneness expressed through communion.

we’ll continue to disagree on this point.

I am not saying any unilateral behavior by a congregation means it is automatically cut off from His Body. I am saying that congregations which are not in communion with the universal communion of communions are not fully and properly His Body.

and we disagree here since I don’t recognize your “universal communion of communions” (for example, I am not going to agree that the baptist church down the road is not part of the body of Christ b/c it is not in communion with Rome…it is fully part of that body IMHO and if Rome wants to exclude the baptist church from enjoying that designation, then I would suggest that it is Rome that is jeopardizing its status…as in, those who want to be first will be last).

His Body is one…Many tissues or organs by themselves would not be many bodies.

IMHO it is akin to “where two or more are gathered, Christ is there”…it’s where a congregation is gathered, the body of Christ is there

If Paul delivered the true Word, those who would reject it were not His Body. Regardless of Pauls’s personal behavior.

well, I don’t think that we need consider the hypothetical situation of an apostle preaching correct doctrine while at the same time acting grossly immoral…b/c there is no indication that such ever happened or will ever happen. In any event, I am not proposing that the congregation should reject the Word b/c it is preached by a corrupt pastor. I am suggesting that a congregation should refuse to be led by a corrupt pastor. In Ephesians 5: 5-7 it reads:
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person–such a man is an idolater–has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them. (NIV)
To dismiss and separate from a corrupt pastor is not rejecting the Word, it is following the Word.

Speaking about Judas if he was present among the Twelve, selected by the Lord, how could I even hope , let alone ask, that His Church has not got bad boys, even among the successors of the Twelve ?

Judas was selected by the Lord for a purpose that made him “doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled.” We surely aren’t still selecting pastors for that type of purpose. Yes, mistakes will be made and bad apples will be appointed, but the church shouldn’t knowingly appoint bad apples…and yes, some who are appointed will fall away, but the church shouldn’t allow such bad apples to remain as leaders. We are not to be partners with the corrupt …nor should we be led by the corrupt.

And are we obliged to suppose that there was no reproachable guy, not even one, among all the 70 or so we read about in Luke 10, sent to deliver His message ?

I think selecting and keeping 70 pure for a short time is not too hard for God…also IMHO you should find it a very easy pill to swallow compared to being obliged to suppose that no one has officially taught error in the 2000 year history of the CC.

Basically, we’re back to understand …whether there is a legitimate mandate.

that does seem to be the case

We get from that letter at the very least the idea that local major affairs are not just local. The situation was referred,…asking for instructions, advise or what you prefer ( by chance, those believers in Greece chose to write to Rome

do we know that any one wrote to Rome? …or that the matter was referred to Rome? If so, my money is on the ousted one(s) as looking for support wherever they could find it.

If the belief of those early times had been that each congregation has the full authority of Christ, and dismisses pastors whener considered under a known standard, the whole thing does not make sense IMHO.

I don’t know about that…obviously the people in Corinth thought they had the authority to oust pastors…specifically, I suspect that they thought that they had to authority to oust unfit pastors. Clement et al didn’t actually deny that concept. Their complaint is that Corinth had ousted godly leaders. I get the impression that Clement et al would not have objected to the dismissal of ungodly leaders.

We’d have then to admit the possibility, or better the existence, of many derailing “bodies of Christ”. Each with the full authority coming from being His Body.

well in the NT we had more than 12 apostles, each with full apostolic authority (no indication that Peter held any kingship IMHO) and then we had a good number of congregations each with a number of prophets, teachers, speakers of tongues, interpreters of tongues and givers of words all purporting to speak on behalf of the Spirit with the possibility of giving conflicting messages. This possibility is something that we, as humble, Christian servants should have been able to handle. Where the “derailing” usually comes in is when any change to the gospel is introduced and the congregation, prophet, etc. treats the change as being on par with the original gospel. A monarchical bishop (accompanied by apostolic succession) was probably a good tool for enabling unity, but it became a bad thing as soon as it is seen as divinely instituted.

 

[Radical]

Tim or anyone had not succeeded Paul 15 years or so before his death. …

so death is necessary for succession?..Strikes me as odd, but I guess it is a necessary concept for the CC, otherwise there could be multiple successors of Peter

A reason we consider the bishops as such, is that they were specially entrusted with preserving and teaching the deposit ( paratheke) of the faith, with the service of the Word…. We can IMHO infer that the service of the Word is specially in charge of the bishops, now that the apostles have gone and deacons go on in their ministry.

as long as the special entrustment is special b/c it is greater in degree and not b/c it is different in kind from the entrustment to each and every Christian (WRT the preservation and teaching of the deposit) then I do not object to this explanation.