Posted on 03/28/2008 1:40:20 PM PDT by NYer
My conversion to the Catholic faith began in the world of Protestant fundamentalism. After being brought up in an independent Bible church, I attended the fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there I became an Anglican; later, I went to England to become an Anglican priest.
My pilgrimage of faith came to a crisis in the early 1990s as the Anglican Church struggled over the question of the ordination of women. By instinct I was against the innovation, but I wanted to be positive and affirm new ideas rather than reject them just because they were new. I decided to put my prejudices to one side and listen as openly as possible to both sides of the debate.
As I listened I realized that from a human point of view, both the people in favor of women’s ordination and those against it had some good arguments. Both sides argued from Scripture, tradition, and reason. Both sides argued from practicality, compassion and justice. Both sides honestly considered their arguments to be persuasive. Furthermore, both sides were composed of prayerful, church-going, sincere Christians who genuinely believed the Holy Spirit was directing them. How could both be right?
From a human point of view, both arguments could be sustained. This led me to a real consideration of the question of authority in the Church. I realized that the divisions over women’s ordination in the Anglican Church were no different, in essence, than every other debate that has divided the thousands of Protestant denominations.
Some groups split over women’s ordination; others split over whether women should wear hats to church. Some split over doctrinal issues; others split over moral issues. Whatever the issue and whatever the split, the basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, who decides?
Wobbly Three-Legged Stool
Evangelical Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority. They eventually split because they can’t agree about what the Bible actually teaches. I had moved away from the Protestant understanding that Scripture is the only authority, and as an Anglican, believed that authority rested in Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Anglicans call this the "three-legged stool." By turning to Scripture, tradition, and human reason they hope to have a secure teaching authority. I came to realize, however, that this solution also begs the question. Just as we have to ask the Protestant who believes in sola scriptura, "Whose interpretation of Scripture?," we have to ask the Anglican, "Whose reason and whose tradition?" In the debate over women’s ordination (and now in the debate over homosexuality), both sides appeal to human reason, Scripture and tradition, and they come up with wildly different conclusions.
In the end, the Anglican appeal to a three-legged stool relies on individual interpretation, just as the Protestant appeals to sola scriptura. The three-legged stool turns out to be a theological pogo stick.
A Son of Benedict Speaks
About this time I had a conversation with the Abbot of Quarr Abbey (a Catholic Benedictine monastery on the Isle of Wight). He listened to my situation with compassion and interest. I explained that I did not want to deny women’s ordination. I wanted to affirm all things that were good, and I could see some good arguments in favor of women’s ordination. He admired this desire to affirm all things but he said something that set me thinking further:
Sometimes we have to deny some lesser good in order to affirm the greater good. I think you have to deny women’s ordination in order to affirm the apostolic ministry. If the apostolic authority says no to women’s ordination, then to affirm the greater good of apostolic authority you will have to deny the lesser good of women’s ordination. Because if we deny the greater good, then eventually we will lose the lesser good as well.He hit the nail on the head. His words led me to explore the basis for authority in the Catholic Church. I already had read and pretty much accepted the Scriptural support for the Petrine ministry in the Church. I also had come to understand and value the four-fold marks of the True Church—that it is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." As I studied and pondered the matter further, however, I saw twelve other traits of the church’s authority.
It Is Rooted in History . . .
What are the twelve traits of authority, and how do they work? We have to ask what a group of Christians who were deliberating a difficult matter would need to make their decision.
First of all, it seems clear that their decision would have to be made from a historical perspective. It was not good enough to decide complex moral, social, or doctrinal issues based on popularity polls or yesterday’s newspaper. To decide difficult questions, a valid authority has to be historical.
By this I mean not only does it has to have an understanding of history, but itself must be rooted in history. In addition, the authority has to show a real continuity with the historical experience of Christianity. The churches that have existed for four or five hundred years can demonstrate this to a degree, but only the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Church has a living link with history that goes back to Roman times—and then, through Judaism, back to the beginning of human history.
. . . and Adaptable
The historical link is essential, but on its own is not sufficient. Historical authority has to be balanced with the ability to be up to date. An authority that is only historical becomes ossified. It never changes. An authority that cannot be up to date is not only rooted in history, it is bound by history. A valid authority structure needs to be flexible and adaptable. Christians face complex modern moral and doctrinal dilemmas. A valid authority system draws on the wisdom of the past to rule properly on the questions of the present.
It Is Objective . . .
A third quality of a valid authority system is that it needs to be objective. By this I mean it needs to be independent of any one person’s or group’s agenda, ideology, philosophy or self-interest. A valid authority transcends all political, economic, and cultural pressures. The objective quality of this authority system also allows it to make decisions that are unpopular or that go against the spirit of the times and majority opinion.
An objective authority is based on certain universal basic assumptions, immutable principles, and observable and undeniable premises. From these objective criteria the valid authority system builds its teaching.
. . . and Flexible
For the authority to be valid, however, it cannot rely on abstract principles and objective criteria alone. The valid authority is suitably subjective in applying objective principles. In other words, it understands that the complexities of real life and the pastoral exigencies of helping real people demand a flexible, practical, and down-to-earth application. The Catholic authority system does just that. Throughout the Code of Canon Law, for example, we are reminded that the law is there to serve the people of God in their quest for salvation.
Individual Christians, or particular Christian groups, often fall into one side of this pair or the other. The rigorists or legalists want everything to be objective and "black and white" all the time, while the liberals or sentimentalists want every decision to be relative, open-ended, and flexible according to the pastoral needs. Only the Catholic system can hold the two in tension, because only the Catholic system has an infallible authority which can keep the two sides balanced.
It Is Universal . . .
An authority that can speak to all situations can only do so if it comes from a universal source. This source of authority needs to be universal not only geographically, but also chronologically. In other words, it transcends national agendas and limitations, but it also transcends the cultural trends and intellectual fashions of any particular time. Every church or ecclesial structure other than the Catholic Church is limited, either by its historical foundations or by its cultural and national identity.
For example, the Eastern Orthodox find it very hard to transcend their national identity, while the churches of the Reformed tradition struggle to transcend the particular cultural issues that surround their foundation. The national, cultural, and chronological identities of other ecclesial bodies limit their ability to speak with a universal voice. When they do move away from their foundations they usually find themselves at sea amidst the fashions and trends of the present day. They also find that they lose their distinctive identities when they drift from their foundations. A universal authority system, on the other hand, transcends both chronological and geographical limitations.
. . . and Local
However, this universal authority needs to be applied in a particular and local way. An authority that is only universal remains vague, abstract, and disincarnate. For a universal authority system to be valid, it also must be expressed locally. Catholicism speaks with a universal voice, but it is also as local as St. Patrick’s Church and Fr. Magee on the corner of Chestnut Street. Not only does the universal Church have a local outlet, but that outlet has a certain autonomy which allows it to be flexible in its application of the universal authority. Catholicism travels well, and because of the universal authority structure, it can allow far more varieties of enculturation at the local level than churches which are more bound by the time and place of their foundations.
It Is Intellectually Challenging . . .
The fourth pair of characteristics that demonstrate the validity of the Catholic authority system include its intellectual satisfaction and its accessibility. If an authority system is to speak to the complexities of the human situation, then it must be able to hold its own with the philosophical and intellectual experts in every field of human endeavor. What other ecclesial system can marshal experts from every area of human expertise to speak authoritatively in matters of faith and morals? Time and again, the Catholic Church has been able to speak with authority about the spiritual dimension of economics, ethics, politics, diplomacy, the arts, and philosophy.
This authority must not only be able to hold its own with the intellectual experts in all fields, but it must be intellectually satisfying and coherent within itself. A unified and complete intellectual system must be able to explain the world as it is. Furthermore, this intellectual system must continually develop and be re-expressed—always interpreting ageless truth in a way that is accessible for the age in which it lives. This intellectual system must be an integral and vital part of the religion, while also being large enough to self-criticize. Only the Catholic faith has such an all-encompassing, impressive system of teaching.
. . . and Accessible to the Uneducated
Nonetheless, while the authority system must be intellectually top notch, the religious system must also be accessible to peasants and the illiterate. A religious system that is only intellectual or appeals merely to the literate can speak only for the intellectuals and literate.
Some denominations appeal to the simple and unlearned, but have trouble keeping the top minds. Others appeal to the educated elite, but lose the masses. Catholicism, on the other hand, is a religion of the greatest minds of history and the religion of ignorant peasants. It is a religion that is complex enough for St. Thomas Aquinas and simple enough for St. Joseph Cupertino. It has room at the manger for both the magi and the shepherds.
It Is Visible . . .
As a Protestant I was taught that the Church was invisible. That is, it consisted of all people everywhere who believed in Jesus, and that the true members of the Church were known to God alone. This is true, but there is more to it than that. Invisibility and visibility make up the fifth paired set of characteristics that mark the truly authoritative church.
The Church is made up of all people everywhere who trust in Christ. However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they go to doesn’t really matter.
. . . and Invisible
The Catholic system of authority recognizes both the invisible dimension of the Church and the visible. The Church is greater than what we can observe, but the church we observe is also greater than we think. The invisible Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and while you may not be able to identify the extent of the invisible Church, you can with certainty point to the Catholic Church and say, "There is the Body of Christ."
A few small Protestant denominations claim that their visible church is the true church, but their claims are ludicrous because they have none of the other twelve traits of true authority. Because it has all these traits, only the Catholic Church can claim to be the living, historical embodiment of the Body of Christ on earth.
It is Both Human and Divine
Finally, for the church to speak with authority it must be both human and divine. An authority that speaks only with a divine voice lacks the authenticity that comes with human experience. So Islam and Mormonism, which are both based on a book supposedly dictated by angels, are unsatisfactory because their authority is supernaturally imposed on the human condition.
On the other hand, a religion that is purely a construct of the human condition is merely a system of good works, religious techniques, or good ideas. Christian Science or Unitarianism, for example, is developed from human understandings and natural goodness. As such, both lack a supernatural voice of authority.
The Judeo-Christian story, however, is both human and divine. The voice of authority is always expressed through human experience and human history. Divine inspiration in the Judeo-Christian tradition is God’s word spoken through human words. This incarnated form of authority finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who hands on his totally incarnated authority to Peter and his successors.
Built upon the Rock
Some Churches may exercise some of the twelve traits, but only the Catholic Church is able to field all twelve as a foundation for decision-making. When the Catholic Church pronounces on any difficult question, the response is historical, but up to date. It is based on objective principles but applies to specific needs. The Church’s authority transcends space and time, but it is relevant to a particular place and time. The response will be intellectually profound, but expressed in a way that is simple enough for anyone to apply. Finally, it will express truths that are embedded in the human experience, but spring from divine inspiration.
This authority works infallibly through the active ministry of the whole Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of his infallibility to his body, the Church. That infallibility is worked out through these twelve traits, but it is expressed most majestically and fully through Christ’s minister of infallibility: one person—the Rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors.
Sorry to disappoint you, but as Catholics, we need to look at the facts.
I respect your right to your opinions but none of that means anything to non-Catholics.
I repeat, to God we are all as important as the Pope.
**I respect your right to your opinions but none of that means anything to non-Catholics. **
It will someday.
Pray for peace.
The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Now, take a look at the scene. Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Who says they haven't? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Each one is entitled to a trial. Those priests found guilty are defrocked. What's your point?
As my father has often said, God made one perfect man and they crucified him. No one is perfect, not the priests, bishops, cardinals or the pope. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
The Catholic Church holds true to Christ's teachings, which is not necessarily so with other professed christian Churches. According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).
I don't know what point you and Alex are trying to make but ...
Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year
.... let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.
That's not accurate. I realize a few Catholics on this forum would like to down play it, but most Catholics here are the harshest critics of the bad Bishops and Cardinals. Of course some of the most outspoken Catholics were the traditional Catholics, and many of those people were banned from FR during the last reign of terror.
Unfortunately their presuppositions cannot allow that possibility to even be brought up. The authority cannot even be questioned.
This is not accurate either. Although defined doctrine, and the authority to define doctrine cannot be questioned, sinful, negligent, unjust and evil behavior of church men most certainly can be questioned and is questioned.
I doubt it.
The Pope-mobile will be parked OUTSIDE the Pearly Gates and Popes will walk through like the rest of us.
I have been to the Vatican---"When in Rome...".
“It is scary that no one on this forum that is Catholic even says anything about it. It is their children. Instead they keep quiet about it, and like sheep allow this to continue.”
Oh Pleeze. This is a central address of every parish and every church at this time.
Going back to my own "sent" box, that first line you deleted was as I wrote;
I guess I overestimated the depth & breadth of your own faith. I'll not make that same mistake twice.
Excuse me, but your post #16 addressed to myself and one other, was an attempt on your part to proselytize me to the RCC, was it not?
Your gleeful giggling here concerning my private reply to you, is extremely rude.
My answer to your spamology method of either;
As you wrote;
No brother, not me. For I’ve encountered the Lord more directly. He does indeed live.
I assume those people who went to the RCC, either “back” or from some non-Catholic church setting, went because they were not finding the Spirit, either in their church, their fellow members, their pastors, or in their own practices and life experiences?
I’m fortunate enough, to have not suffered any of those lacks, though I can think back on some pretty dry spaces or spells.
Christ lives, and His Spirit does move, outside of the narrowly defined confines of Papal authority, at least those confines as they are understood or defined by many. I bear witness, as do millions of others to that [that the Lord lives, and His Spirit moves among mankind].
I doubt He wants me to go there [to the RCC]. I could never preach or be at peace with, those few aspects, here and there in and amongst the various claims made by those of the RCC, that I KNOW even from first hand DIRECT EXPERIENCE with the Lord, just aint right.
In much that various voices from among the RCC proclaim the RCC to be God’s truth, and God’s only truth; There is far too much mixture of man’s doings, thinkings or understandings, bundled up with the Spirit, served up as “pure Lord”. It makes me sick. I can’t [spiritually] eat of it.
I’m not having to depend upon doctrine with this. Or Scripture. Or teachings. Or what any claiming “authority” told or spoke to me. For in some regards and aspects, I have the authority from having been in His presence directly. You know, sort of like the first apostles did?
Our Lord is a Spirit. Those whom worship Him must worship Him in Spirit, and in truth. I most certainly have the “authority” to bear witness of those things I have received and experienced of Him...outside, so to speak, the RCC.
The RCC would forbid me to worship, save but in the manner they are accustomed to, and demand I submit all to them, and their authority over all things relating to my own relationship with the Lord.
How could I do such a thing? I’ve already a relationship with Him, arising outside of their “Church”.
(yeah, I know, there are many among the RCC’s whom will claim that isn’t possible. They’ll say, “he has a devil” smugly, while smirking along with their fellows. hey, I saw that, just yesterday, on another FR thread ——don’t try to tell me it doesn’t happen.)
Well then, how many demons have the priesthood cast out recently? healed the sick? raised the dead? shoot, I’ve had a dead bird come to life, right in my hands! how many of ‘em have done all those things???.
Some of them may have. Yet they would forbid me to even speak of such things. And forbid me to in anyway challenge doctrines which even by the admission of the RCC are not scripturally based. If I persisted, they’d punish me with “excommunication”, and threats of damnation earned for having the temerity to openly question them, not buying or accepting their “story”.
Sorry, though I don’t know everything, I do know too much. So I couldn’t join the RCC, or stay very long. Not honestly.
For they’ve already forbidden my sort. I understand why, and forgive them. It’s too easy for one to misuse spiritual freedom, or authority. Many will, if given a taste of it. Seeing such things occur down through history, they decided it best to not allow the spirit to “move”, but under the strict confines of their own managerial authority. And so they built up doctrines to support the idea.
It’s not all bad, I guess. It works for them. I guess.
But not for me. I KNOW. Not “think” or believe, or imagine, but know, with this being born out also, by long personal experience. I am not alone in this, either.
Many others bear witness, experiencing much the same, as the Word supports also, shall occur among those the Lord makes and allows to be His own.
This three-fold cord [contained above] shall not be broken. Not easily, not quickly, nor of the Lord’s first level desire, as I understand it.
As Christ said to his disciples, when they encountered a man casting demons out of a person,
but that man would not follow the disciples, when they told him that he should follow them;
Christ told his disciples;
“forbid him not”
“he that is not against us is for us”
“I have sheep you know not of”
I do wish those in the RCC well. That they would be lead, and comforted by His Spirit.
That they be of help and real comfort to one another, as is one of the beautiful parts of the tradition.
Without the efforts of the [RC]Church to safeguard the Word, in it’s texts and meanings, then where would we be?
I honestly say this, even though I simply don’t buy into SOME things plainly arising from RCC “tradition”
which either lack or have only a gauze of actual scriptural textual basis.
But I do thank them, anyway. And I look forward to checking in upon such things as are not so much RCC-centric,
but may be of good teaching, doctrine, or practice in a more general Christian sense. If there be any.
For such things as may be disagreeable, looking towards the history of the RCC, it’s traditions and practices, and how those arose,
then one can always look to the how and why of what occurred, even if it is but to see what things to avoid (typical human nature, will come up with the same or similar problems, over and over...)
...for that Church, the RCC has gone through a lot!
Going through all that they have, is part of how they came up with so much goofy and weird practices.
I’m sorry if that part offends you, but there it is.
I know, I know, there will be folks come along and tell me that RCC “TRadition” is all pure Spirit of the Lord,
or derived COMPLETELY from and by the Spirit (or some similar tale)
but to those of us whom have otherwise drank
from the fountain of the pure goodness of His Spirit -— that assertion,
no matter how many times or ways it is repeated, will simply never convince.
What is about people who tell what we believe and they have it wrong!
I can’t imagine the utter hubris!
Vicious lies.
It wasn't hatemail. Nor was it "cowardly". In all actuality, I was desiring to make myself clearly understood to the freeper whom calls himself "Salvation", since he did address a post to me. I replied to him politely but honestly, hoping to not unduly trouble others.
Besides, how could you have made such determinations ("hate" & "cowardice") at the time which you stated such a thing? You most certainly missed, on the "cowardice" portion, and as to "hate", that most certainly wasn't what I deliberately had in mind when replying to him privately.
If there be "expressed love" in your own comments, it does seem well hidden.
You'll not "save" very many of the un-found with that method. To turn the meaning of your own words, right back around at you, if you don't mind...
Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere. You obviously haven't read my posts on countless threads regarding the priest abuse crisis, the associated homosexuality and the evil it represents. And good Catholics don't keep quiet about it. The bright light of truth is what is needed on this and multiple other topics, including those concerning dogma and doctrine.
Besides, how could you have made such determinations ("hate" & "cowardice") at the time which you stated such a thing?
How could you determine I was referring to you when you made that post?
Since after my private reply to him, and his comeing here bragging about how he deleted it after reading the first line, AND there was made mention by another, that replies are best made publicly, and you seemed to be under the impression the one who replied to him was as you described, I posted the letter he gleefully deleted, it showing up this thread as post #48.
You may have the last word, sir, if you'd like, but if you would prefer, and actually desire a reply or conversation, a calm and decent reply here from you to me, will net you the same in return.
I posted a generality. I did not refer to you, unless you think you posted a cowardly anti-Catholic hate letter.
Are you trying to turn over a new leaf? That would be admirable.
I can’t recall ever hearing of it, but it’s interesting how little has changed in so many years.
I would just say this in defense of my Catholic faith:
All of the “failings” of the Church that are noted here are failings of the human beings entrusted with the Church on Earth.
Human beings do fail.
None of those failings necessarily means that God did not intend for this to be His one true Church.
Salvation is a woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.