I am not, as I reiterate x4, a pacifist nor arguing for pacifism. I am, however, arguing for the legitimate development of doctrine. The Church has the right and the duty ot do this.
True, sound Christian faith and morals, true prayer, preaching and practice, are not confined to what is explicitly mandate, or even described, or even plainly anticipated, in the written pages of the NT.
Some here at FR--- I will mention no names -- seem to take it as axiomatic that if the Church wasn't commanded to do such-and-such in the NT, it ain't to be done; or if it was not at least exampled in Acts and the Epistles, it is not permissible.
Some say that; but none of us, and none of our churches, faith groups and fellowships, actually conducts themselves thus in practice. Our divergences from the written ipsissimi verbi are wide and many. Sometimes this constitutes infidelity, defection and decay. But sometimes it does not.
To take just the question of armed defense: something didn't happen in the NT that was widely expected to have happened: the very prompt return of Jesus with power after his Ascension into heaven. And something did happen which practically nobody anticipated: the Roman Empire collapsed, and civil peace of some sort had to be kept, by armed force if necessary, if human communities were to survive.
This led to a gradual re-evaluation of the question of the right use of the sword. Augustine lived in the era when Rome had lost its control of the world and was quickly falling to other powers. The question of moral values in war were immanent for him. Augustine identified two aspects of war that required moral justification and guidelines:
He, as Catholic Bishop of Hippo in North Africa, made the first significant theological/moral development of doctrine of doing justice in war (the so-called Just War Theory.)
All this is perfectly legit, as far as I can see. The Church spent 300 years non-resisting, in conformity to both the precepts and practice of the Lord Jesus. Exactly what they needed to do. But then circumstances changed, and they were no longer subjects of an empire from which they could expect a rough sort of Pax Romana: they were on their own facing the fire and sword of the barbarian, with no prince to save them. They had to furnish their own princely services. Hence, a new role: protector of the civic peace. And a new paradigm: Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello.
Wise. Authoritative. Providential.
The Church.
I'm OK with that.
Got it. Still doesn’t answer the lead question posed by the thread’s first article; the headline.
We differ on whether the RCC is the one true and only Church founded by Jesus Christ.
I still vote...nay.
My stand is close to the broad statement here.
Instead of 'ain't to be done' I say it's UNNECESSARY to be done.
Many Catholics on this thread (do we need to name them?) are adamant that if the Church says to do it; even if it is NOT found in Scripture; then by GOD! they NEED to be done.
The Church.
I'm OK with that.
The Bereans were more noble than....
I am OK with that.