The Church and Behavioral Dimension

[Radical]

I guess these statements ( which you have maybe personally already pondered ) from the CCC can generally help on sacraments and grace .

thanks

Otherwise you’d be coming home.

…eventually, we’ll both make it home

 

[Radical]

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

well said

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.

I think the “living forward” description is too positive. It seems to me that “living forward” should do no damage to earlier belief sets, but I do not believe that any where near all the ECFs would endorse modern Catholic doctrine. Instead, I believe that most of fathers from the first two centuries would be horrified as to what has been added to their “rule of faith”. It is also MHO that the claim of a unanimous consent of the fathers (which is used by the CC) is based on a manufactured/inaccurate history. It is "living forward’ from an inaccurately described past.

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.

understood

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

yes, but then you should know that I also think that there is a visible legitimate church today…part of which can be seem at the Moravian and Baptist churches in my neighborhood. I wouldn’t suggest that the church at Corinth ceased to be visible once some started identifying themselves with Apollos and others started identifying themselves as following Paul etc…nor did the church cease to be visible in the locations where Peter and other Jews separated themselves from Gentiles.

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

agreed, but the certainties that Paul delivered were far fewer in number than what the CC puts forward today. Unless one has come to the conclusion that the CC has been protected from error, then another certainty we can hold is that the CC has added error. Within the Protestant world, there has been a great deal of progress in recognizing that putting forward too many certainties has led to disunity

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.

agreed…where we differ is in the “living forward”. You see the CC as merely having developed the certainties and I see the CC as having added uninspired innovations (which it then declares to be inspired developments)

 

[Radical]

*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.”

sounds right…it is just a question of what is the content of that self-revelation and who has enjoyed the Spirit’s guidance (and when)

THE Church, seeing thorugh a mirror, is humbler, much humbler than that is often presented or given for granted.

I think that the CC of today is much humbler than it has been at certain times in the past ….in part b/c of the existence of Protestants and b/c of public scrutiny. By all accounts it seems that the CC is now led by much better men than it was 500 years ago.

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.

I am one of those who has asked and will continue to ask, “How come it took centuries to understand this belief, if this belief was actually known to and taught by the apostles ?” I think it is a necessary and legitimate question. Take the centrality of Mary that is found in current Catholic doctrine. Why is it that the remaining records of the first two centuries (including the NT) make so little reference to a continuing contribution by Mary? The absence of such references cries out that some change of focus has occurred and that beliefs have been added. IMHO the CC must provide an explanation. Is it that the CC has a) developed a full blown doctrine out of the original “seeds” known to the apostles, b) reconstructed the doctrine that was lost but that was fully known to the apostles or c) added an innovation (and if so, is it an inspired or uninspired innovation)?
Your approach seems to be something of:

C1) If the Catholic approach is correct and the CC has been kept free of error, then C2) one can live forward within the CC with full confidence in the teaching she provides.

On the other hand, P1) If the Protestant approach is correct and the CC has not been kept free of error, then P2) one is left with the impossible task of reconstructing the original message (and one can’t attain certainty with respect to what is reconstructed)

As such, since God would not leave us with the inevitable uncertainty attached to P2, C1 must be correct. I realize that there is more to your approach than just the above. I also agree that C2 follows from C1 and that P2 follows from P1. In choosing between C1 and P1, however, my study of history tells me it can’t be C1….and I expect that your study of history tells you that it can be C1. You ask this (when envisioning P2):

How do we attain the original message ?
Seriously.

…and I ask this, when contemplating C1:

Given what we know about the history of Christianity, how can one believe that the CC has been kept free from error? Seriously.

In answer to your question, I can only suggest that we do the best we can. My solution is not to insist (b/c I require a certainty beyond what can be attained in P2) that C1 must be correct in spite of the evidence to the contrary. ….and, to return to the theme of this thread, I think that one of the things one should consider (when assessing whether C1 could be correct) is the conduct/morality of the CC’s hierarchy (for the reasons stated earlier). I can see how you would be uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the uncertainty associated with P2…hopefully you can understand why I might be uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the conclusion made at C1.

May God bless you.

 

[pneuma07]

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

Dear Radical,

what if the Spirit did not decide at a given time to stop forever speaking through or with the legitimate hierarchy of His Church following the
" Jerusalem Council" pattern ?

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

You know, with some explicitations I could be with you on both points.

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.

That legitimacy rests on behavior ( our issue ) does not appear to be the command by Jesus about legitimate religious authorities. It is IMHO by interpreting Matthew 23 through the particular reading you are giving to the lists to Tim and Titus that you are somehow avoiding this conclusion.

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.
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. …
“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).

And your wide rewording on Jesus’ possible words can be on the whole acceptable from my POV. …
I appreciate that you dropped the “rebel against those who look reproachable to you” , since this is the real issue we’re dealing with. Unless …you just mean the longer speech implies the dropped clause.
.Allow me a consideration here. IMHO we can choose to read the Gospel in a “normalized” way, according to some version of common sense… Or we can choose to accept amazing scandalizing aspects which are the core.

If we reduce our relationship to legitimate authority to a continuous assessment of their behaviours, while ready to rebellion…that is not the amazing scandalizing Gospel IMHO. That is business as usual.
The same goes if I accept from a legitimate leader just more or less what I’d say myself, making the plain scriptural command to obey him more or less void.
That is a fundamental dilemma: either religion shapes me, or i shape religion.
( which is told for myself, first of all …)

Finally, back to our precise issue, you and I don’t believe that before Jesus those who were to lead the People of God were told “be hypocrites, never mind, your possible immorality is just OK .

You seem somehow to suggest that if rebellion is not OK, then this implies immorality of leaders is OK.

We are definitely not comparing the merits of “ immorality not OK, rebellion OK” versus “ immorality OK, rebellion not OK”.
What I rather defend is “ immorality not OK, rebellion not OK”.

 

[pneuma07]

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

Reading the thread, you note that I did not rule out possible enduring effects of the lists, besides being a clear guide to select candidates.
Let me just underline that what you’re advocating is just a particular enduring effect.

My main difficulty on your proposal is to a particular reading of “must”, where the “An X must be Y” becomes
“X is no more a ( legitimate ) X unless he is Y”

Where you could well read “ Y is an important quality of a good X”, or several other
meanings.

I am pretty sure we normally do not apply that reading in real life

kinda a parent must so and so, a daughter must so and so, a husband must so and so… otherwise, systematically, no more legitimate parent, daughter, husband…

The Apostle says in Ephesians 5

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing** her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body.

As soon as I am not able to love my wife in the same way as Christ loved the Church, am I no longer a legitimate husband ? I really hope that is not the case.**

 

[pneuma07]

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

That is considered a Franciscan concept.
And Saint Francis was so far from rebelling and preaching rebellion. He would openly defend the legitimacy of supposedly corrupt priests. And, IMHO, he would preach the Gospel his way both to potential rebels and corrupt ministers.
I am inclined to think he would act more Christ-like than both of those. Really another prospective from theories and practices on rebellion.

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)

No problem with “must” per se , as explained above.

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

You know not only that Paul , probably together with other ministers, ordained Tim .
They don’t just have ad hoc task about ordaining . They have received the power to appoint. , to be used with great care.
From this point of view I do not see why we should expect this ordaining ability was afterwards shifted from the ordained one to the congregation, changing the original pattern.

We have to imagine that Tim, the time coming, do not instruct the first fruits of his work on ordaining the further generation, but tells them
. “ You know, I ordained you, having been ordained by the Apostle myself.
But from now that’s over.
That will be up to the congregations. They will ordain, they will deliver legitimacy to the future generations of leaders.”

 

[pneuma07]

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.
.

I have no problem with “must” per se , as explained above.
.

Serving is an endeavour, while being ordained is a permanent status. Therefore you can be forbidden through due discipline from exercising ministry.
The Church does not consider to have the power to unordain the ordained, or to “unconfer” grace. ( which can help IMHO in seeing that grace is not a sort of commodity for the CC )

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

My point was essentially reminding that if you rebel against a legitimate authority you commit a sin described as undoubtedly grave.
(It is quite known who was the righteous between Moses and Korah according to Scriptures). To be sure you do not sin gravely you have to be certain your theory is strictly correct, and your assessment about the pastor’s guilt is correct as well.

IMHO the fact to be established was whether Moses had divine mandate ot not, ie legitimacy.

Moses said,
"This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29 If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. ( Numbers 16)

(The positive aspect is that there is IMHO no risk of commiting Korah’s sin acting within modern faith communities).

We may also expect rebels to likely share some features with Korah & C. in ecclesiology.

 

[pneuma07]

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?

.

The fact is both Tim and Titus received those instructions. No congregation did in the corpus paulinum. You then rightly speak about persons charged with appointing elders.

As for the counter-argument about Eucharist, we have one letter dealing with it, out of 13

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

.

The leadership style you describe does not look the most productive one.

Paul is IMHO precisely somehow affirming in Galatians his apostolic authority, which was possibly not given for granted, since he didn’t know the earthly Christ and had persecuted Him ( aka His Church ).

We could not say at all he was unaware of his authority

21What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit? (1 Cor 4)

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

from the CCC

The teaching office
*888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416 *
Tim has special teaching office 2 Tim 2:2

The sanctifying office
*893 The bishop is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood,"423 especially in the Eucharist which he offers personally or whose offering he assures through the priests, his co-workers. The Eucharist is the center of the life of the particular Church. The bishop and priests sanctify the Church by their prayer and work, by their ministry of the word and of the sacraments. They sanctify her by their example, "not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock."424 Thus, “together with the flock entrusted to them, they may attain to eternal life.”*425
Tim sanctifies through his hands. 1 Tim 5.17
(BTW you may note that bishops are quite obviously also called to personal sanctity.)

The governing office
*894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426 *
Tim has governing office. 1 Tim 5:17-20

The obiter dicta in the letters to Tim give him just the tasks of the episcopate as defined in the CCC.

I hope this can help.

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

The difference IMHO is that the congregation would know who their bishop was, no reason to test them whether they are true bishops. A very different case than when a nice guy comes to them saying : “You know, I am a prophet”. Then, if he asks money and food, (or honors, leadership … ) for himself , suspicions about the nature of his prophecies are to be raised.

 

[pneuma07]

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.

we’ll continue to disagree on this point.

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). .

Yes, disunity has much to do with sin.

Forget for a while the city on the Tiber ( even if it so beautiful … ) . IMHO if the members are not in communion with one another, they are not in communion with the Head. Then we have not a Body of Christ.
OTOH the concept of “body” expresses, as such, an organic togetherness.

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

And I do believe Christ is there when you go to your denomination ( or one of your denominations, that is not very clear to me ).

The day you and I meet and say together the Our Father, I do hope Christ would be with us.

Do you believe Christ would be present in a supposed congregation of wicked guys as in any other congregation ?

Do you believe a congregation of wicked guys has the full authority of Christ and can therefore unordain its reproachable pastor because he is reproachable ?
It would seem, either I consider the authority of the congregation independent and unaffected by the behavioral dimension ,or together with assessing the behavior of the pastor supposedly to be ousted, I must assess the authority of the congregation to do so.

Now, I said “I”, but, as a matter of fact, WHO has the authority to determine whether the particular congregation has the authority to oust the supposedly unfit pastor ( unless it always has it, independently from any behavioral dimension )?

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.

Not being partner with a corrupt pastor does not mean rebelling against him, as I had already pointed out.
Was Saint Francis partner of any corrupt minister because he did not want any rebellion at all ?

 

[pneuma07]

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.

IMHO such a reading would become ultimately “Break and break the Body of Christ with rebellions, no matter how gravely and how many times, for ye have a supreme duty to keep the leadership pure”.
We share that there is also a duty to obey our leaders. ( after all it is written “Obey your leaders” in plain letters ). You have given strict conditions for that. Without assessing here your list, I make explicit one condition that was evidently implicit there. “Provided he is legitimate “.
To fulfil this duty I have to know whether the pastor is legitimate. Who is my legitimate leader ?

If the legitimacy of the pastor rests on the authority of the congregation choosing him, the problem of the legitimacy of the authority of the congregation, even in terms of its behavioral dimension, comes out IMHO, within a “behavior-based” discourse. .
If we have instead to say that his legitimacy rests on the Spirit, on him having the Spirit, no matter what earthly authority appoints him, then I must nevertheless confess I have no “pneumometre” to get objective measurements.

Now, if it can be difficult assessing the pure state of the pastor’s heart, it becomes by far more difficult assessing the state of the individual hearts within the congregation and the “pure “nature of the congregation itself.
I’d feel in a mess in those pews “ Should I obey this guy ? Should I help in ousting him ? Should I acknowledge the legitimacy of the ousting by the congregation ? Is this particular congregation the Body of Christ, even if the behavioral dimension is IMHO far from being stainless here ? Which faction of the congregation is right about the pastor, and which of them is the real Body of Christ here, if any, or maybe both ?..”

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.

The Gospels do not describe the Twelve themselves, other than the Iscariot, as above reproach. (and this IMHO make these Scriptures so credible ). eg:

35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? 37 They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.( Mark 10)

We know neither of us is questioning God’s power while trying to discern His choices.

that does seem to be the case

see above

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.

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.

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury” 1 Clement, ch. 1.

This  ousting, or “detestable sedition”,  is built on division and builds division.  Factions are  involved.

In any rebellion, successful or not, there will be those who disagree on the why or the how. Then those who disagree with the former…
That is a real seed of fissiparousness.

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

You and I suppose the Twelve were not derailing. None of them.
What we see nowadays is many communities going each along its doctrinal path. Some then have somehow derailed doctrinally. Hence this seemingly puzzling scenario of “many distinct derailing Bodies of Christ”.

IMHO all those early speakers on behalf of the Spirit could be checked against the Apostles.

 

[pneuma07]

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
.

I’ ve always guessed an apostle was an apostle forever.

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

Wow !
In order not to create in myself false illusions, this is a full exposition from the CCC
**
Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ **
*
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."21

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit–, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.*

so that you can check whether, or to what degree, that sounds acceptable.

 

[pneuma07]

thanks

…eventually, we’ll both make it home

I do hope so.

 

[pneuma07]

I think the “living forward” description is too positive. It seems to me that “living forward” should do no damage to earlier belief sets, but I do not believe that any where near all the ECFs would endorse modern Catholic doctrine. Instead, I believe that most of fathers from the first two centuries would be horrified as to what has been added to their “rule of faith”. It is also MHO that the claim of a unanimous consent of the fathers (which is used by the CC) is based on a manufactured/inaccurate history. It is "living forward’ from an inaccurately described past.

agreed, but the certainties that Paul delivered were far fewer in number than what the CC puts forward today. Unless one has come to the conclusion that the CC has been protected from error, then another certainty we can hold is that the CC has added error. Within the Protestant world, there has been a great deal of progress in recognizing that putting forward too many certainties has led to disunity

agreed…where we differ is in the “living forward”. You see the CC as merely having developed the certainties and I see the CC as having added uninspired innovations (which it then declares to be inspired developments)

I am one of those who has asked and will continue to ask, “How come it took centuries to understand this belief, if this belief was actually known to and taught by the apostles ?” I think it is a necessary and legitimate question.
Take the centrality of Mary that is found in current Catholic doctrine. Why is it that the remaining records of the first two centuries (including the NT) make so little reference to a continuing contribution by Mary? The absence of such references cries out that some change of focus has occurred and that beliefs have been added. IMHO the CC must provide an explanation. Is it that the CC has a) developed a full blown doctrine out of the original “seeds” known to the apostles, b) reconstructed the doctrine that was lost but that was fully known to the apostles or c) added an innovation (and if so, is it an inspired or uninspired innovation)?

That is in itself a necessary and good question ( what is sad is that it is so popular in deriding form ).
Here is a possible short answer IMHO.

Christianity comes as a Revelation within history. A revelation which unfolds through history. And a Revelation whose content unfolds through history.
Catholicism and with it at least most Protestantisms believe the totality of the revealed datum, or the deposit of the faith, was delivered by the apostles to their disciples and the Church at large. Then we have there the totality of the specific object of Christian meditation, of theology.

Now, one thing is assuming we have the whole of the object of theology, another thing would be assuming we need no thought and no theology at all.
The latter assumption is IMHO implied in the position according to which nothing could be expressed that was not expressed by the Apostles. In other words Paul and John would not be the first Christian great theologians. They would be …. the last ones, since the apostolic teaching did not need any further research.

History does tell IMHO nevertheless that this research did take place, and the ECFs can be considered as prominent witnesses to this collective reflection, as well as prominent contributors.
It took generations and centuries to conceptualize and express the mistery of the Trinity. We could mind that that was a wrong outcome of the theological research, but the question was clearly there about how to conceive the relation among Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So I would not dare say that IV century expressions of the Trinitarian mistery were known to and taught by the Apostles, or their immediate successors. I would dare say the opposite.

Even if I cannot a priori equate apostolic teaching with the documents about it.

“Living forward” means IMHO a delivery of the message of Jesus and of apostolic teaching within and through the life of the Church, with “at the feet learning” and all that.

Plus the reflection on what is received, which is what we’re focusing on right now.
Unless we have to believe , that the end of Revelation was ( or should have been ) the end of Christian reflection as well. Which I cannot. For we know there was historically continuous reflection on the deposit of the faith, and for I guess eg that once told “The Logos became flesh” one is left with questions about who the Logos is and how “became flesh” is to be understood. ( whether and where questions should ultimately stop ….is another question ).

The other great ensuing issue is whether this reflection, and the related unfolding comprehension of the revealed datum within the pauline mirror, is somehow somewhere protected from major grave misinterpretations

 

[pneuma07]

Your approach seems to be something of:

C1) If the Catholic approach is correct and the CC has been kept free of error, then C2) one can live forward within the CC with full confidence in the teaching she provides.

On the other hand, P1) If the Protestant approach is correct and the CC has not been kept free of error, then P2) one is left with the impossible task of reconstructing the original message (and one can’t attain certainty with respect to what is reconstructed)

As such, since God would not leave us with the inevitable uncertainty attached to P2, C1 must be correct. I realize that there is more to your approach than just the above. I also agree that C2 follows from C1 and that P2 follows from P1. In choosing between C1 and P1, however, my study of history tells me it can’t be C1….and I expect that your study of history tells you that it can be C1. You ask this (when envisioning P2):

In answer to your question, I can only suggest that we do the best we can. My solution is not to insist (b/c I require a certainty beyond what can be attained in P2) that C1 must be correct in spite of the evidence to the contrary. ….and, to return to the theme of this thread, I think that one of the things one should consider (when assessing whether C1 could be correct) is the conduct/morality of the CC’s hierarchy (for the reasons stated earlier). I can see how you would be uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the uncertainty associated with P2…hopefully you can understand why I might be uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the conclusion made at C1.

May God bless you.

Thanks for being IMHO both insightul and fair in your assessments in your great post.

Once accepted the inherent nature of P2, and its following from P1, one is IMHO left with something like this
“I am so certain, by way of my reconstruction, that the CC’s teaching derailed from Jesus message, namely adding to it, that I accept that I cannot attain certainty on His message through reconstructions.”
I could add that my reconstructing power can attain negative certainties, namely that some tenets believed and definitely taught by the CC are false or xompletely added. But this does IMHO in part beg the question, since to build my negation of a doctrinal reflection by the CC, I have to assert truths ( eg that the eucharist is not and never was the Body of Christ in any sense compatible with the Church’s teaching, that Mary was virgin – at most - only ante partum, to name but two cases you are extremely well trained on ) which I can confidently use as sticks to beat the Magisterium.

Then, either I can trust at the highest level my reconstructing capabilities, at the very leat on these issues, or else I approach the whole case for the CC’s supposed faithful teaching through the millennia with a so called “hermeneutic of suspicion” .
Since what comes out of all that is such an admittedly undesirable state as P2, and since a presumption of a self-serving nature of magisterial teachings appears as fruit rather than seed of suspicion, I can imagine that the behavioral dimension does play a role in creating this.
And that is what the present thread is about.

…and I ask this, when contemplating C1:

Given what we know about the history of Christianity, how can one believe that the CC has been kept free from error? Seriously.

Since I have to dare a short answer…

As for history it looks IMHO like we had

• The Incarnated Logos sent by the Father, which we consider the foundational tenet of Christianity
• The Apostles chosen and sent by the Incarnated Logos to fish and shepherd.
• The bishops of the first generation chosen and sent by the Apostles to fish and shepherd, with the explicit task to guard and spread the deposit of the faith, and the authority to select the following generation to perpetuate their duties.

This is purely and simply the root of what Catholicism calls Apostolic Church. Which has to preserve, understand and teach the deposit of the faith.

During two millennia the contradictions within even the most authoritative teachings would be so many and blatant
( even if I can imagine that something for you is blatant in the contradictions of Magisterium ), so complete, I’d expect, in a merely human institution, that it would be impossible even addressing them for any apologist. Or rather, we’d simply find no apologist at all.
What we do have is not precisely that

I am also inclined to believe that the Logos did not live and preach in human flesh ( it is often forgotten or defocused He lived among us and for us before dying for us
) in order to have His future people in the P2 dismaying status.
So much always depends IMHO on how central and amazing we see the Incarnation of the Logos as the summit of divine self-revelation.

OTOH, about our present comparison of approaches, consider please this.

How can I accept P2 ( ie being unable to eventually get some definitive answers) AND wondering why anything was not already expressed in explicit perspicuous teaching by the Apostles ( which would mean we don’t even need answering questions) ?

May God bless you

 

[Radical]

what if the Spirit did not decide at a given time to stop forever speaking through or with the legitimate hierarchy of His Church following the " Jerusalem Council" pattern ?

I don’t think that the Spirit ever stopped speaking through such “councils”…nor do I think that the Spirit ever stopped speaking through members of the laity. I don’t think that the result of such speaking (in either case) was always infallible decisions. Please also note that I would describe the Jerusalem Council as a meeting between the representatives of two churches (with a few apostles present). It was far from being a meeting that involved all the apostles and far from being a meeting that involved representatives from all the churches/regions of the empire. It was a meeting that most any modern denomination could easily exceed in numbers present, congregations represented and regions represented. Whatever binding aspect followed the Jerusalem Council’s decision was the result IMHO of the presence of apostolic authority…and in that regard, I don’t believe that such authority survived the apostles.

That legitimacy rests on behavior ( our issue ) does not appear to be the command by Jesus about legitimate religious authorities. It is IMHO by interpreting Matthew 23 through the particular reading you are giving to the lists to Tim and Titus that you are somehow avoiding this conclusion.

…and my objection is that you keep imposing
a) a pre-church era form of leadership (which may or may not have had provision for the dismissal of corrupt leaders…we don’t know) which possessed
b) a ruling style of leadership expressly rejected by Christ
…as the type of leadership that served as the template for the leadership that Christ established for the church (being a form of leadership that you hold would not allow for the dismissal (“unordaining”) of a leader). I don’t think this follows at all from (a) and/or (b).

I appreciate that you dropped the “rebel against those who look reproachable to you” , since this is the real issue we’re dealing with. Unless …you just mean the longer speech implies the dropped clause.

as indicated before, I see immorality leading to illegitimacy and the dismissal of an illegitimate leader as not being an act of rebellion.

.Allow me a consideration here. IMHO we can choose to read the Gospel in a “normalized” way, according to some version of common sense… Or we can choose to accept amazing scandalizing aspects which are the core. If we reduce our relationship to legitimate authority to a continuous assessment of their behaviours, while ready to rebellion…that is not the amazing scandalizing Gospel IMHO. That is business as usual.

…and I would categorize the continued ruling of God’s children from a Pharisee style office as “business as usual”

The same goes if I accept from a legitimate leader just more or less what I’d say myself, making the plain scriptural command to obey him more or less void.

an individual can not act alone in dismissing an elder…it has to be an act by the bulk of the congregation and so it can’t come down to “just more or less what I’d say myself”. Please keep in mind that it is my position that Tim and Titus would have passed on the instructions (that they received from Paul) to the congregation. Those instructions include the method of accusing and rebuking an elder and make it impossible for a person to act alone against an elder.

That is a fundamental dilemma: either religion shapes me, or i shape religion.

the religion that should shape me is to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.(NIV) I shouldn’t shape Christianity and corrupt leaders shouldn’t shape Christianity (neither should be allowed).

What I rather defend is “ immorality not OK, rebellion not OK”.

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

My main difficulty on your proposal is to a particular reading of “must”, where the “An X must be Y” becomes
“X is no more a ( legitimate ) X unless he is Y”

understood

Where you could well read “ Y is an important quality of a good X”, or several other
meanings.

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

 

[Radical]

I am pretty sure we normally do not apply that reading in real life….

kinda a parent must so and so, a daughter must so and so, a husband must so and so… otherwise, systematically, no more legitimate parent, daughter, husband…

As soon as I am not able to love my wife in the same way as Christ loved the Church, am I no longer a legitimate husband ? I really hope that is not the case.

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

And Saint Francis was so far from rebelling and preaching rebellion. He would openly defend the legitimacy of supposedly corrupt priests.

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

And, IMHO, he would preach the Gospel his way both to potential rebels and corrupt ministers.
I am inclined to think he would act more Christ-like than both of those.

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

You know not only that Paul , probably together with other ministers, ordained Tim .

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

We have to imagine that Tim, the time coming, do not instruct the first fruits of his work on ordaining the further generation, but tells them
. “ You know, I ordained you, having been ordained by the Apostle myself.
But from now that’s over.
That will be up to the congregations. They will ordain, they will deliver legitimacy to the future generations of leaders.”

I think it would have went more like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Radical]

Serving is an endeavour, while being ordained is a permanent status. Therefore you can be forbidden through due discipline from exercising ministry.

In my (non-Catholic) world, being forbidden from exercising ministry is equal to being ousted.

The Church does not consider to have the power to unordain the ordained, or to “unconfer” grace. ( which can help IMHO in seeing that grace is not a sort of commodity for the CC )

It does and it doesn’t…tis like feeding someone an apple…once eaten, it can’t be taken back. We don’t have a counterpart to this. Is the grace conferred = the sacred power?

(It is quite known who was the righteous between Moses and Korah according to Scriptures). To be sure you do not sin gravely you have to be certain your theory is strictly correct, and your assessment about the pastor’s guilt is correct as well.

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

The fact is both Tim and Titus received those instructions. No congregation did in the corpus paulinum.
As for the counter-argument about Eucharist, we have one letter dealing with it, out of 13

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

Paul is IMHO precisely somehow affirming in Galatians his apostolic authority, which was possibly not given for granted, since he didn’t know the earthly Christ and had persecuted Him ( aka His Church ).

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

from the CCC…
Tim sanctifies through his hands. 1 Tim 5.17
… but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power"

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

I hope this can help.

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

The difference IMHO is that the congregation would know who their bishop was, no reason to test them whether they are true bishops. A very different case than when a nice guy comes to them saying : “You know, I am a prophet”. Then, if he asks money and food, (or honors, leadership … ) for himself , suspicions about the nature of his prophecies are to be raised.

IMHO this doesn’t explain 15.2

OTOH the concept of “body” expresses, as such, an organic togetherness.

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

And I do believe Christ is there when you go to your denomination ( or one of your denominations, that is not very clear to me ).

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

The day you and I meet and say together the Our Father, I do hope Christ would be with us.

that would be something to look forward to.

Do you believe Christ would be present in a supposed congregation of wicked guys as in any other congregation ?

no I do not…it’s the gathered “in my name” bit…I don’t think that a congregation of wicked fellows could be said to be gathering in Christ’s name.

Do you believe a congregation of wicked guys has the full authority of Christ and can therefore unordain its reproachable pastor because he is reproachable ?

whatever wicked people do to or with one another is not properly called an action of the body of Christ.

It would seem, either I consider the authority of the congregation independent and unaffected by the behavioral dimension ,or together with assessing the behavior of the pastor supposedly to be ousted, I must assess the authority of the congregation to do so.

that is pretty much the way it is…God ultimately determines who was acting in accordance with his instructions…I would expect that the congregation of 10s or 100s would possess the greater likelihood of acting correctly if the congregation is on one side and a lone pastor is on the other…

 

[Radical]

Not being partner with a corrupt pastor does not mean rebelling against him, as I had already pointed out.

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

Was Saint Francis partner of any corrupt minister because he did not want any rebellion at all ?

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

IMHO such a reading would become ultimately “Break and break the Body of Christ with rebellions, no matter how gravely and how many times, for ye have a supreme duty to keep the leadership pure”.

Casting out a wicked leader does not break the body, it removes a cancer from the body. Any disunity that results would be due to the wrongful support of the wicked. The hierarchy should not be the vehicle for unity. Bishops should not be the umbilical cords connecting and unifying the various bodies of Christ.

If we have instead to say that his legitimacy rests on the Spirit, on him having the Spirit, no matter what earthly authority appoints him, then I must nevertheless confess I have no “pneumometre” to get objective measurements.

alas, life and faith are subjective endeavours

Now, if it can be difficult assessing the pure state of the pastor’s heart, it becomes by far more difficult assessing the state of the individual hearts within the congregation and the “pure “nature of the congregation itself.

this doesn’t need to be as hard as you make it out. If there is a question of the pastor’s purity, let two or three witnesses bring sound evidence…if the evidence is good, let him be rebuked and repent and if he doesn’t, let him step down. The legal systems of our countries require this sort of assessment all the time…surely a Christian “court” should be able to do the job as well. If there are strong questions about a pastor’s impurity (from a good portion of the congregation) it would seem that that his ability to serve is greatly compromised…I would suggest that such a pastor should voluntarily step down for the good of the body. It shouldn’t be that hard a thing for a humble servant to do…particularly if not doing so would lead to division. It would seem that attaching more power and prestige to the office, would make it harder to give up.

The Gospels do not describe the Twelve themselves, other than the Iscariot, as above reproach.

The qualifications (blameless and above reproach) of an overseer listed in Tim and Titus are not understood to mean “sinless” and “error free”…at least by me.

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, …1 Clement, ch. 1.

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

This ousting, or “detestable sedition”, is built on division and builds division.

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

In order not to create in myself false illusions, this is a full exposition from the CCC
.…Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”… The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

so that you can check whether, or to what degree, that sounds acceptable.

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

Unless we have to believe , that the end of Revelation was ( or should have been ) the end of Christian reflection as well. Which I cannot.

agreed…we are thinking beings and thinking beings will reflect

The other great ensuing issue is whether this reflection, and the related unfolding comprehension of the revealed datum within the pauline mirror, is somehow somewhere protected from major grave misinterpretations

well said

 

[Radical]

I could add that my reconstructing power can attain negative certainties, namely that some tenets believed and definitely taught by the CC are false or xompletely added. But this does IMHO in part beg the question, since to build my negation of a doctrinal reflection by the CC, I have to assert truths ( eg that the eucharist is not and never was the Body of Christ in any sense compatible with the Church’s teaching, that Mary was virgin – at most - only ante partum, to name but two cases you are extremely well trained on ) which I can confidently use as sticks to beat the Magisterium.

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

Then, either I can trust at the highest level my reconstructing capabilities, at the very leat on these issues, or else I approach the whole case for the CC’s supposed faithful teaching through the millennia with a so called “hermeneutic of suspicion” .

I might add that with respect to efforts at reconstruction, much hinges on what one comes to understand as the core rule of faith. The reconstruction is a much easier and confident undertaking when the core is viewed as being rather brief.

During two millennia the contradictions within even the most authoritative teachings would be so many and blatant
( even if I can imagine that something for you is blatant in the contradictions of Magisterium ), so complete, I’d expect, in a merely human institution, that it would be impossible even addressing them for any apologist. Or rather, we’d simply find no apologist at all.
What we do have is not precisely that

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

How can I accept P2 ( ie being unable to eventually get some definitive answers) AND wondering why anything was not already expressed in explicit perspicuous teaching by the Apostles ( which would mean we don’t even need answering questions) ?

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

May God bless you

 

[pneuma07]

I don’t think that the Spirit ever stopped speaking through such “councils”…nor do I think that the Spirit ever stopped speaking through members of the laity. I don’t think that the result of such speaking (in either case) was always infallible decisions. Please also note that I would describe the Jerusalem Council as a meeting between the representatives of two churches (with a few apostles present). It was far from being a meeting that involved all the apostles and far from being a meeting that involved representatives from all the churches/regions of the empire. It was a meeting that most any modern denomination could easily exceed in numbers present, congregations represented and regions represented. Whatever binding aspect followed the Jerusalem Council’s decision was the result IMHO of the presence of apostolic authority…and in that regard, I don’t believe that such authority survived the apostles.

The validity of that council was for sure universal. The Spirit had spoken, Who cannot contradict Himself.
The numbers involved are not the substantive part. If several denominations keep assemblies on a single matter, coming out with mutually incompatible views, I suppose the Spirit did not speak in all those places.
I’m with you that the binding diecision was “the result of the presence of apostolic authority”. I am puzzled by imagining, after the apostolic generation, the Spirit speaking everywhere …and binding decisions being made nowhere, because there was no longer any sort of apostolic authority.

…

and my objection is that you keep imposing
a) a pre-church era form of leadership (which may or may not have had provision for the dismissal of corrupt leaders…we don’t know) which possessed
b) a ruling style of leadership expressly rejected by Christ
…as the type of leadership that served as the template for the leadership that Christ established for the church (being a form of leadership that you hold would not allow for the dismissal (“unordaining”) of a leader). I don’t think this follows at all from (a) and/or (b).

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

as indicated before, I see immorality leading to illegitimacy and the dismissal of an illegitimate leader as not being an act of rebellion.

understood

…and I would categorize the continued ruling of God’s children from a Pharisee style office as “business as usual”

As a disclaimer, I need to say that we should not abuse the Pharisees collectively, and I am sure we share they were highly commendable people among them. But I understand what you mean.
I differ on the “business as usual” view here. That is not applied so much to external relationships.
We have to pay the tribute to Caesar. Slavery is not ruled out in itself in the NT. …
It is IMHO about interior dispositions, attitudes, that nothing is or should be any more as usual. IMHO categorizing a pastor , or any brother
(which is a temptation I sometimes feel in different contexts), as a cancer sounds as “business as usual”.