Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
From Called To Communion: Understanding the Church Today
Editor's note: This is the second half of a chapter titled "The Primacy of Peter and Unity of the Church." The first half examines the status of Peter in the New Testament and the commission logion contained in Matthew 16:17-19.
The principle of succession in general
That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.
The real difficulty arises when we come to the second question: Can the idea of a Petrine succession be justified? Even more difficult is the third question that is bound up with it: Can the Petrine succession of Rome be credibly substantiated?
Concerning the first question, we must first of all note that there is no explicit statement regarding the Petrine succession in the New Testament. This is not surprising, since neither the Gospels nor the chief Pauline epistles address the problem of a postapostolic Church—which, by the way, must be mentioned as a sign of the Gospels' fidelity to tradition. Indirectly, however, this problem can be detected in the Gospels once we admit the principle of form critical method according to which only what was considered in the respective spheres of tradition as somehow meaningful for the present was preserved in writing as such. This would mean, for example, that toward the end of the first century, when Peter was long dead, John regarded the former's primacy, not as a thing of the past, but as a present reality for the Church.
For many even believe—though perhaps with a little too much imagination—that they have good grounds for interpreting the "competition" between Peter and the beloved disciple as an echo of the tensions between Rome's claim to primacy and the sense of dignity possessed by the Churches of Asia Minor. This would certainly be a very early and, in addition, inner-biblical proof that Rome was seen as continuing the Petrine line; but we should in no case rely on such uncertain hypotheses. The fundamental idea, however, does seem to me correct, namely, that the traditions of the New Testament never reflect an interest of purely historical curiosity but are bearers of present reality and in that sense constantly rescue things from the mere past, without blurring the special status of the origin.
Moreover, even scholars who deny the principle itself have propounded hypotheses of succession. 0. Cullmann, for example, objects in a very clear-cut fashion to the idea of succession, yet he believes that he can Show that Peter was replaced by James and that this latter assumed the primacy of the erstwhile first apostle. Bultmann believes that he is correct in concluding from the mention of the three pillars in Galatians 2:9 that the course of development led away from a personal to a collegial leadership and that a college entered upon the succession of Peter. [1]
We have no need to discuss these hypotheses and others like them; their foundation is weak enough. Nevertheless, they do show that it is impossible to avoid the idea of succession once the word transmitted in Scripture is considered to be a sphere open to the future. In those writings of the New Testament that stand on the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it-especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Letters—the principle of succession does in fact take on concrete shape.
The Protestant notion that the "succession" consists solely in the word as such, but not in any "structures", is proved to be anachronistic in light of what in actual fact is the form of tradition in the New Testament. The word is tied to the witness, who guarantees it an unambiguous sense, which it does not possess as a mere word floating in isolation. But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a wit ness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as "flesh and blood" but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ. For the Paraclete does not speak of himself, but he takes from "what is his" (that is, from what is Christ's: Jn 16: 13).
This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-"not of himself, but what he hears" -is called "sacrament" in the language of the Church. Sacrament designates a threefold knot-word, witness, Holy Spirit and Christ-which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty from the testimony of the Pastoral Letters and of the Acts of the Apostles that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.
The Petrine succession in Rome
In opposition to the New Testament pattern of succession described above, which withdraws the word from human manipulation precisely by binding witnesses into its service, there arose very early on an intellectual and anti-institutional model known historically by the name of Gnosis, which made the free interpretation and speculative development of the word its principle. Before long the appeal to individual witnesses no longer sufficed to counter the intellectual claim advanced by this tendency. It became necessary to have fixed points by which to orient the testimony itself, and these were found in the so-called apostolic sees, that is, in those where the apostles had been active. The apostolic sees became the reference point of true communio. But among these sees there was in turn–quite clearly in Irenaeus of Lyons–a decisive criterion that recapitulated all others: the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole.
Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter's martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. [2]
This leads us to a very fundamental observation. [3] The Roman primacy, or, rather, the acknowledgement of Rome as the criterion of the right apostolic faith, is older than the canon of the New Testament, than "Scripture".
We must be on our guard here against an almost inevitable illusion. "Scripture" is more recent than "the scriptures" of which it is composed. It was still a long time before the existence of the individual writings resulted in the "New Testament" as Scripture, as the Bible. The assembling of the writings into a single Scripture is more properly speaking the work of tradition, a work that began in the second century but came to a kind of conclusion only in the fourth or fifth century. Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roman bias, has remarked in this regard that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the "books of the New Testament" won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches also gradually subscribed "for the sake of its intrinsic value and on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church".
We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through the tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas–the preeminent original authority–of the Roman see as a constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form-apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so that we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other. Furthermore, we have seen that in Rome the traditional series of bishops was from the very beginning recorded as a line of successors.
We can add that Rome and Antioch were conscious of succeeding to the mission of Peter and that early on Alexandria was admitted into the circle of Petrine sees as the city where Peter's disciple Mark had been active. Having said all that, the site of Peter's martyrdom nonetheless appears clearly as the chief bearer of his supreme authority and plays a preeminent role in the formation of tradition which is constitutive of the Church-and thus in the genesis of the New Testament as Bible; Rome is one of the indispensable internal and external- conditions of its possibility. It would be exciting to trace the influence on this process of the idea that the mission of Jerusalem had passed over to Rome, which explains why at first Jerusalem was not only not a "patriarchal see" but not even a metropolis: Jerusalem was now located in Rome, and since Peter's departure from that city, its primacy had been transferred to the capital of the pagan world. [4]
But to consider this in detail would lead us too far afield for the moment. The essential point, in my opinion, has already become plain: the martyrdom of Peter in Rome fixes the place where his function continues. The awareness of this fact can be detected as early as the first century in the Letter of Clement, even though it developed but slowly in all its particulars.
Concluding reflections
We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.
But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure. It does not merely furnish proof texts, it is a permanent criterion and task. It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man's capacity and God's sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.
If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite. The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.
The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of God's power. Every single biblical logion about the primacy thus remains from generation to generation a signpost and a norm, to which we must ceaselessly resubmit ourselves. When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.
For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.
When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .
Endnotes:
[1] Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (198 1), 147- 51; cf. Gnilka, 56.
[2] For an exhaustive account of this point, see V. Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos (Münster, 1982).
[3] It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future I will have the opportunity to develop and substantiate in greater detail the view of the succession that I attempt to indicate in an extremely condensed form in what follows. I owe important suggestions to several works by 0. Karrer, especially: Um die Einheit der Christen. Die Petrusfrage (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1953); "Apostolische Nachfolge und Primat", in: Feiner, Trütsch and Böckle, Fragen in der Theologie heute (Freiburg im.Breisgau, 1957), 175-206; "Das Petrusamt in der Frühkirche", in Festgabe J. Lortz (Baden-Baden, 1958), 507-25; "Die biblische und altkirchliche Grundlage des Papsttums", in: Lebendiges Zeugnis (1958), 3-24. Also of importance are some of the papers in the festschrift for 0. Karrer: Begegnung der Christen, ed. by Roesle-Cullmann (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1959); in particular, K. Hofstetter, "Das Petrusamt in der Kirche des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts", 361-72.
[4] Cf. Hofstetter.
It is very interesting that both Protestnts and Catholics immediately jump to the dietary laws when they discover a Christian follows God's Holy Law. Nobody ever says that adultery, theft, murder, honoring parents, or coveting are no longer sins.
A8: You are the one who brought in 1 Tim 5:19 in response to my answer to your original question at the beginning of this dialogue.
Yes, I brought up the sripture. Praying for someone is always a good idea. But why can't you tell me if you can accuse your clergy and kick them out of the church or not?
Why do you think that 1 Peter 5:1 nullifies Matt 16:18? Peter is indeed a fellow elder (and a fellow Apostle), but he also has a unique authority as shown more specifically in Matt 16:18, both as the rock on which the Church is built, and as the possessor of the keys.
Following your logic, Peter is Satan as well as the foundation of the church.
Mat 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's."
Now, are you telling me that Jesus put Satan in charge of the church?
You can. Why do you think you can't?
Ok, so what happens when laity accuse clergy of sin in the Catholic Church? Here is your answer.
It is a moot point because the Old Covenant context and the New Covenant context are distinct. Now we have a Magesterium gifted with the "charism of truth" (to quote from Irenaeus). If we assume that that we must on our own as individuals (apart from the Magesterium) figure out who is 'anointed' or 'divinely inspired', we are loading a false claim into our methodology, namely, the false claim that "there is no Magesterium graced with the charism of truth".
Where is the term Magesterium found in scripture? What scripture, what command of God tells us this? Who is Iraneus? Can you really tell me the sum of the scriptures is "trust the church, not the Word of God"?
Catholicism believes and teaches all of this. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
1679 years of Church history.
#1450 Bump
I do not claim that spiritual blessing is exclusive to Catholicism. I was raised Pentecostal, trained at a Presbyterian seminary, and then became Anglican, before recently becoming Catholic. In each of these traditions I have been enriched and strengthened in unique ways.
But I always wondered, how long does a Eucharist last???How long can you go between Eucharists before you need to get 'refueled'???
The Eucharist is not quantifiable. It cannot be measured, like gasoline. So the question is misguided. The question is not "How long can you go between Eucharists?", but "When may I again receive the Eucharist?"
Every Catholic I talked to (you are the exception) says you guys can not possibly have assurance of being raised up with Christ...
Having been a Calvinist during one period of my life, it seems clear to me that there are different senses of "assurance". One sense of 'assurance' is an infallible present knowledge of a future event (i.e. one's permanent entrance into heaven at the Final Judgment). Another sense of 'assurance' is a deep awareness of one's present relation to God, but without any infallible knowledge of one's future salvific condition. The former is what I as a Calvinist [thought I] had. The latter is what I now as a Catholic have.
-A8
A8: Do you follow the Old Testament dietary laws? (No pork, shrimp, clams, oysters, lobster, etc.) (Leviticus 11)
KSUA: It is very interesting that both Protestnts and Catholics immediately jump to the dietary laws when they discover a Christian follows God's Holy Law. Nobody ever says that adultery, theft, murder, honoring parents, or coveting are no longer sins.
Notice that you didn't answer the question. You claimed that the law of God is "100% moral", and then you evaded the question when asked whether you consider the OT dietary law to be normative today. If you don't believe we should keep the OT dietary laws, then there is a contradiction in your theology between your notion that we don't need to keep the OT dietary laws, and your claims that "the Law of God is 100% moral" and "There is only one Law of God" (#1323).
-A8
I didn't answer the question because I don't need to go down this road. We just did this for over 2 weeks on two previous threads. For the record, I do not eat unclean foods as a rule, but respect people who do.
I was reading over your post 1463 and can empathize with your walk. I was Catholic from birth to about 24. The way I see it, there are only two ways to go. Either you believe in the Catholic Church and Apostolic Succession or you join a Sabbatarian Church. Have you ever heard a Protestant Minister try to condemn homosexuality while simultaneously saying he is not under the law? It is dizzying.
WHat is a Sabbatarian church?
A church that keeps the 4th Commandment, as well as the other 9 or course.
Qx: And certainly insufficient anything to build such an incredibly granitized, fossilized, tyrannical RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE and organization/institution of so much abusiveness to so many individuals over so many centuries!
A8: As I have pointed out above, the precise length of Peter's bishopric in Rome is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.
Qx: Lots of folks point out lots of things in lots of ways that I hold to be untrue.
Qx: In some respects, I agree, Peter way back then doesn't have much relevance to the legitimacy of the Roman group at this point in time. The anointing has probably been gone in a generic organizational sense for a very long time.
A8: Almost all scholars (Protestants included) agree that Peter was in Rome and that he was martyred in Rome.
Qx: Sometimes a majority of scholars signifies truth, sometimes not. A majority felt that the sun rotated around the earth at one time.
A8: Archaeologists in the 1940s discovered what appears to be the tomb of Peter under the foundation of Old St. Peter's cathedral in the Vatican. The ancient graffiti said, "Peter is here". The skeleton inside is missing its feet, as if the feet were chopped off. That would make sense, since presumably the easiest way to remove from a cross the body of a man crucified upside down would be to chop off his feet.
Qx: Yeah, I was at the Vatican. I toured such sites. Still didn't impress me a lot. I certainly do not construe Peter has having been any sort of 'lording it over' other Bishops sort of Bishop of anything--and certainly not the Christian church universal.
Qx: Well before Peter appeared in Rome, IF, he did, Holy Spirit was the one in charge of and leading clusters of Christians. Wherever the Christians went on and did their own thing apart from Holy Spirit's leading, certainly the anointing left or at a minimum was greatly diminished to relatively no impact.
Qx: In a lot of respects . . . EVEN IF--though I'm utterly convinced that Christ did not--but EVEN IF Christ appointed Peter as the Romans construe it . . . What has happened since is very UnBiblical and out of Character with Christ and with what Christ did and was doing with Peter . . . and with the New Testament model of Holy Spirit being in charge of meetings.
Qx: Study the Welsh revival of what--the 1700's? I forget. when the I Cor 14 sorts of meetings with Holy Spirit in charge eventually transformed into structured meetings with leadership which immediately began to do THEIR own thing instead of Holy Spirit's thing . . . then Holy Spirit withdrew and the miracles and conversions stopped, decreased to essentially nothing.
Qx: The same has gone on with the Roman group perhaps from even before it was formally declared such.
Qx: Certainly it's gone on with many other groups before and since.
.
That doesn't help me much.
Do you worship on Saturday or Sunday?
Saturday is the Sabbath. I worship on Saturday.
Are there other "Sabbatarian" churches besides Seventh Day Adventists?
There are Seventh Day Baptists
SDA
United Church of God
Independent Churches of God
Messianic Jew
And there are a whole lot of people that keep the Sabbath and worship in their homes and in small congregations with no affiliation at all. These guys fall into that category
Qx: OK, here goes. Thanks tons for your kind and wise post. Comments follow:
Quix,
IQ: Thank you for your thoughtful response. You've expressed some very reasonable concerns about institutions and authority.
Qx: Thanks for the kindness of your saying so.
IQ: If you were addressing your concerns to a bishop's conference, I'm sure a lot of the bishops would be nodding their heads in agreement with many of your sentiments. Here and elsewhere, you have said some very good things about the relationship of the individual to God, and your comments about problems in Church organization would serve well as a nucleus for discussion about the current state of the Christian Church.
Qx: Praise God for whatever degree of His truth may have resided in my humble words. Thanks for your comments.
IQ: In that, we are on the same page. Nonetheless, we are left with a question of authority. Is every individual the ultimate authority as to what is and is not legitimate Christian doctrine and dogma?
Qx: ESSENTIALLY, YES. EVEN IN THE ROMAN GROUP. Each individual must comprehend and relate to the whole of reality confronting his senses. This includes pontifications from whatever leaders, traditions etc. Each individual has to evaluate whether such are fitting, Biblical, fruitful, anointed, Spirit led; Christian, kosher, kind, loving, Godly, life giving . . . whatever.
Qx: And THEN, they have to adjust their behaviors, beliefs, expectations, associations accordingly. That's what it means to be human. Organizations of all sorts, of all ages, complexities, orthodoxy or not . . . are merely external stimuli at some level. Many make all manner of claims. But God still holds each individual accountable for measuring things by His Word and by His current voice to the individual.
Qx: When we get to Heaven, claiming that Oh, Lord, it was THAT CHURCH that told me this or that--such WILL NOT DO. God will merely point to His Written Word and/or what Holy Spirit had told the individual about the situation and the consequence will still be effected; the humiliation still be experienced. AUTHORITY TOLD ME TO will not wash for any Roman Believer then any more than it did for Hitler's underlings.
IQ: Is every denomination the ultimate authority? I think you and I would answer both of these questions in the negative.
Qx: NO. HOLY SPIRIT IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY and came to reside WITHIN EACH BELIEVER AND TO LEAD EACH BELIEVER INTO ALL TRUTH . . . actually . . . in a way which requires other believers to add their awareness of Holy Spirit led truth such that we all need each other to arrive at the whole counsel of God in situation after situation.
Qx: The track record of any organization; any leadership . . . maintaining an anointed leadership beyond some months, if that . . . is wholesale missing. Talk about an argument from silence, that's a big one.
IQ As for the article at the head of this thread, its point is not to disparage Protestant Christians. No one is asking you to fly to Rome and kiss Pope Benedict's ring or renounce your personal opinions. Rather, this is a call for a mature dialog with sincere Christians of differing view points, and you've brought some very reasonable concerns to the table.
Qx: Thanks much. I enjoy dialogue with all who truly Love Jesus and seek to grow in their relationship with Him; in their Biblical understanding and in their walk with Holy Spirit's guidance.
IQ: We have problems in the Church. Some of those are very understandable and expected. The Church is a hospital for ailing souls, and problems of individual sin are inevitable in a Church whose mission is to sinners, both inside and outside its ranks.
Qx: True.
IQ: However, we also have a tremendous scandal of a divided Church. This runs completely against Christ's prayer that we all be one, hampers evangelization, and allows for dangerous heresies to exist among sincere and well intentioned Christians, side by side with orthodox Christian teaching.
Qx: There's a very huge amount of evidence that such occurred well within the confines of the Roman group for centuries without such external goings on. Certainly the Roman hierarchy participated in such . . . at times . . . seemingly willy nilly as has happened in plenty of other groups of significant age.
Qx: IOW, the existence of the Roman group was not only unable to prevent the horrors you mentioned--it perpetuated plenty of them plenty of historical times. How could we expect less--the hierarchy is made up of flawed human beings.
Qx: That's where I Cor 12-14 comes in again. We are all to submit ONE TO ANOTHER. We are all to exhort ONE ANOTHER. We are all to CONFESS one to another. We are all to warn each other in Love when we see a brother headed for the ditch. etc. etc.
Qx: I have NEVER seen any hierarchical, organized authority prevent the horrors you outline more than occasionally in this or that life but never wholesale in the organization beyond some months to a few years and then only in selected narrow ways, topics.
Qx: So, the reason postulated for the essentialness of the Roman group, from my reading of history and current era observations is that IT TOO FAILS UTTERLY--100% in terms of the raison d'etra for it's existence as postulated hereon--i.e. protecting orthodoxy. Doesn't work.
Qx: It never worked in the Old Testament. Christ made it abundantly clear it didn't work in his earthly era. Paul made clear that Holy Spirit working amongst those submitted to HIM--TO HOLY SPIRIT IN DAILY DIALOGUE AND HUMILITY--AND SUBMITTED ONE TO ANOTHER in local groups meeting together submitted to Holy Spirit--that was the only likely insurance against such.
Qx: Sure, the Pastors etc. were to help, assist, lead in a list of ways . . . But I find no where in the NT any remotely clear outline or expectation that Paul expected such leadership to succeed apart from I Cor 12-14 operations led by Holy Spirit. I believe that Paul saw human leadership as merely assisting Holy Spirit's supreme leadership of each meeting.
IQ: We've all felt the frustration of trying to sort out the serious and competing claims made by different groups. Which group(s) are correct? You and I have also both seen Christians forcefully mis-represet repugnant views as being foundational to the Christian message.
Qx: Certainly. But the Roman hierarchy, customs, traditions, polilcies, laws etc. have proven repeatedly over the centuries to be utter failures at improving that situation. As has every other group of any significant age. It just won't wash.
Qx: As Billy Graham has taught about the related Scriptures--we each must seek to be refilled with Holy Spirit daily. The cares of the world cause a lot of leakage. And that's true for hierarchical leaders as well as for sheep. Apart from that, there is no LEADING INTO ALL TRUTH of any lasting substance or amount. With that, the need for the hierarchical leadership is minimized more toward waiting tables and seeing after the widows and orphans.
IQ: Fundamentally, the opening piece serves to move the conversation about authority out of a very unproductive rut. How is the authority of God manifested in His Church?
Qx: I Corinthians 12-14 answers that question conclusively for all time in the Church age. The New Testament offers no better description of God's solution for that; God's plan and design for that.
IQ: We live in a fallen world, and we human beings have fallen natures. As you alluded, this leads to problems with human organizations. It also leads, however, to severe problems with individuals as well, and this includes the attempts by individuals to arrogate to themselves absolute authority to determine what is and is not authentic Christian morality and doctrine.
Qx: I despair of communicating more effectively on this issue. It appears that no amount nor quality of my poor words will do very effectively.
Qx: INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE AUTHORITIES UNTO THEMSELVES IN THE I COR 12-14 MODEL!!!
Qx: They are first of all, submitted authentically, serioiusly, truly, functionally, practically . . . in all ways to greater or lesser degree to HOLY SPIRIT. HE IS EQUAL TO THE CHALLENGE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL. Sooner or later as each earnest individual cooperates with Him, HE WILL BE THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S FAITH SUCH THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WILL BE PRESENTED BY CHRIST BLAMELESS BEFORE THE FATHER.
Qx: NO HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY CAN MANAGE THAT. ONLY HOLY SPIRIT CAN MANAGE THAT.
Qx: Sure individuals wander off the beam--WHETHER THEY ARE HIERARCHICAL LEADERS OR 'LOWER" SHEEP. ONLY HOLY SPIRIT CAN correct the problem at the heart/spirit/mind level within such individuals.
Qx: IF ANYTHING, hierarchical organizations tend to make such flaws worse; tend to institutionalize them as idolized idiosyncracies; tend to defend them; cover them over; white-wash them; polish them as examples of good organizational orthodoxy because all the organizational externals and hoops were done well . . . etc. etc. etc.
IQ: We are not saying that the Christian Church can substitute for the individuals relationship with God.
Qx: PERHAPS not . . . ideally. But I have heard plenty implying even sounding like that was a cardinal doctrine of Romanism. WORSE, THE SHEEP TALK THAT WAY. THEY MAKE CHOICES THAT WAY. THEY REVERE THAT WAY. THEY OOOOH AND AHHHH AND BOW AND SCRAPE THAT WAY. They walk like that duck; float like that duck; fly like that duck; quack like that duck . . . so as a 59 year observer . . . I'm extremely unconvinced of that assertion. The evidence is virtually ALL on the other side--except for a few isolated Spirit-FILLED AND LED little groups here and there that I've come across.
IQ: What we are saying, however, is that Christ did indeed found an organization, a Church, and that as an organization, the Church, plays a crucial role in the divine plan of salvation. This includes a role in which the Church exercises authority in teaching doctrine and morality.
Qx: The Church Universal has a role to play. And, generally, it's botched it repeatedly and horribly. It's a mystery to me how and when God is going to clean up Christ's Church. But He will--FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILLING TO FOLLOW HIS OVERHAUL EFFORTS IN THOROUGH GOING SPIRIT LED SUBMISSION AND COOPERATION.
Qx: But it won't be the hierarchical leaders leading the way. It will be the folks in the pews--as it has been for decades now in all denominational groups, including the Roman one.
IQ: What then is the relationship between the individual and the Church? The individual does not determine doctrine.
Qx: HOLY SPIRIT DETERMINES DOCTRINE. INDIVIDUALS GIVE ASSENT OR NOT. They follow the assent with acctions accordingly or not. THIS IS TRUE WHETHER HIERARCHICAL leaders are involved, OR NOT.
Qx: As badly as pharisaical leaders have wished for it and tried to behave as though they had it--LEADERS DO NOT HAVE ROBOTIZING POWER OVER FOLLOWERS--EVEN IN THE ROMAN GROUP. God made each follower more than sufficiently blessed with choice sufficiently to have to determine, SEEK GOD AND DISCERN BY HIS SPIRIT, OR NOT whether something was of God, or not.
Qx: In my experience, it has been as it was in the Welsh revival . . . leaders polluted the Spirit's message far more than furthered or affirmed it. I have known very rare exceptions of that.
IQ The Church has been entrusted with the Apostolic deposit of faith,
Qx: Depends on what one means by that but I can probably assent to that wholesale enough if one means THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL and not merely the Roman group. But my meaning of the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH is THOSE INDIVIDUALS BIBLICALLY STUDYING THE WRITTEN WORD; FELLOWSHIPPING TOGETHER; GROWING TOGETHER AS IRON SHARPENS IRON UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Qx: leadership in a given locale can help make some things more reasonable and orderly but the hazard that seems to effect in virtually every case . . . is that if the leadership starts taking responsibility for church life--then they feel compelled to compell the sheep to do it THE LEADERS' WAY instead of Holy Spirit's way. So, as in the Welsh revival . . . Holy Spirit backs away and leaves it to em. And the dry husk continues. The whited sepulchars continue slathering the white wash on. and pretend Holy Spirit is blessing HUMAN junk.
IQ: and it falls to the Church to determine whether or not a particular doctrine is consistent with or opposed to the Apostolic faith.
Qx: Yes and no. Mostly no. The church is individuals. Even a hierarchical leadership is individuals. GOD DID NOT SAVE ORGANIZATIONS. GOD DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS FOR ORGANIZATIONS. ORGANIZATIONS ARE CHAFF OR WORSE.
Qx: It is individuals who are to be in Holy Spirit dialogue with God, daily, moment by moment. In my experience, the best of organizations sooner or later only or mostly hinder that process, that dialogue instead of facilitate and bless it.
Qx: Different specific leaders of great humility and Spirit led-ness have been a blessing in my walk with God. Probably 95% of the spiritual/religious leaders I've had contact with have been enormously destructive. The same is true for those I've watched in other congregations. Roman leaders I've observed has been as destructive to dialogue with God as any others I've observed.
Qx: That's not a great way to affirm anything God's doing whether it's doctrine or how to love a widow in a Christ-like way.
IQ: To the believer falls the choice of dissent or assent. In this the Catholic Church teaches that the individual must follow a well-formed conscience.
Qx: imho, the Roman church has helped SOME MINORITY of it's members to have healthy consciences. A small minority. But it has been almost in spite of the leadership and the structure, the organization.
Qx: HOLY SPIRIT IS THE ONLY ONE WITH ACCESS TO THE INNER MAN. HE IS THE ONLY ONE CAPABLE OF THAT KIND OF INNER OVERHAUL AS WELL AS HIGH QUALITY INNER TRAINING OF CONSCIENCE AND ALL ELSE HUMAN.
IQ: The Christian Faith has been handed down through the Church. It was our predecessors who received the faith from the Christ through the Apostles, and who have passed their understanding of the faith down to us.
Qx: PLEASE GET AND READ SOONISH: ETERNITY IN THEIR HEARTS. It's by a Christian anthropologist . . . who discovered tribal case after tribal case WHERE GOD ALMIGHTY VIA HIS SPIRIT BLESSED DIFFERENT TRIBES WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOSPEL--SOMETIMES VERY SOVEREIGNLY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF ALL OTHER AGENTS.
Qx: NO organization was invovled in some cases. Certainly NO ROMAN organiation or group was invovled. Evidently God disagrees with the perceived Romon monopoly on such things.
IQ: We Catholics believe that the Church had an Apostolic and hierarchical structure, and we believe that this Church has existed since the time of Christ.
Qx: And most of us on my side believe that the historical record is entirely otherwise.
Qx: But at some point it doesn't matter--once Holy Spirit withdraws the anointing, all the tradition, history, lineage, etc. one could muster . . . the pharisees of Jesus' day had the best such--didn't wash. Didn't matter . . . was a liability as Christ made most forcefully and loudly clear.
IQ: We are presenting views here which we think are quite reasonable, as we feel they are consistent with Scripture, and with our historical understanding of the history of Christianity. There is still plenty of room for discussion and sincere disagreement within this framework.
Qx: I have understood your perspective on that score from the beginning. It is not my construction on reality at all. Disagreement is one thing. Mangling the historical record to fit biases is another.
IQ: For the purposes of sincere Christian dialog, it would be helpful if the reasonableness of our views was acknowledged, even if you do not agree with them.
Qx: I have no problem acknowledging reasonableness where it appears and feels fitting. Not everything on your side does. I'm sure the same could be at least postulated for our side.
IQ: It is also helpful to have our partners in dialog give a frank assessment of their own positions, and it is important that we both be willing to move away from slogans which do not reflect reality.
Qx: That's problematic. I agree but am not sure how practical it is ongoingly. I have tried to tighten up on such. But sometimes, the stark forceful truth requires some stark statements to communicate the essentials and their import . . . imho.
IQ: I think you have gone a long way toward accomplishing this in several of your critical posts, and you have also made an important call to not lose sight of the individual's relationship to God when Christian authority is discussed.
Qx: thanks for that affirmation and for noticing that. Only by God's Grace. Praise God for His faithfulness. I merely try in my humble, poor way to do what feeble things I can.
IQ: I'm glad to see you voicing your opinions on this thread. I've seen enough of your posts to realize that you do have something very important to say.
Qx: I don't think so. I do think, hope, pray God has some important things to say through me.
IQ: If this conversation is making you feel that we Catholics are being condescending to you our Christian brother, then we have failed in some sense.
Qx: Yes, that's a recurring problem but I expect it and am not overly upset by that, per se. Only when it gets haughty and shrill in a reallllllllllllly super redundant way does it get particularly annoying.
Qx: I'm also not seeking any such attitude, tone etc. toward any Roman believers. I do have no compunctions about being forceful about BELIEFS etc. which I find unBiblical and destructive to intimacy with God, however.
IQ: If this is the case, perhaps you could suggest how we might do better in the future.
Qx: Only : LOVE GOD WHOLLY AND OTHERS AS YOURSELF; Let us all work more earnestly to "do unto others . . . "
Qx: THANKS TONS AND TONS FOR YOUR REASONABLE AND WISE WRODS. Have been blessed by them and by your character. Smells a bit like Jesus. Love that.
And I don't think we can achieve unity without agreeing about authority.
= = =
Not as it is seemingly construed by the Romans hereon.
I have pondered this unity thing hard and long.
I do not believe God is going to solve it ANY of our expected ways along any organizational or trumped up or jury rigged or man manipulated or man oganized ways. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Yet, Christ will have a unified church.
I think some glimpse at it MAY be observed watching diversities of backgrounds at a Charismatic prayer/worship service.
THERE IS DEEP UNITY OF SPIRIT UNDER THE FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SPIRIT AND AS BLOOD BROTHERS IN HIS BLOOD.
I think that's the "only" unity that's going to count or be effected and certainly that's going to be effective.
= = = = = =
GOD'A PATTERN . . . GOD'S CHOSEN, ORDAINED PATTERN IS EVIDENT THROUGH SCRIPTURE . . .
The daily walks in the Garden--intimate dialogue.
God tried to set it up again in the wilderness . . . at the Tent of Meeting . . . any individual was invited to come and dialogue with God Almighty . . . they would have none of it.
THEY INSISTED ON AN ORGANIZATION WITH MOSES DOING IT FOR THEM. Thankfully Moses was humble and pure in his role.
The New Testament era arrives . . . Holy Spirit is given to each Believer to indwell and manage the dialogue with God directly individual to God . . . humans flee the opportunity and WANT, DEMAND, ENGINEERE
ORGANIZATIONS TO SUBSTITUTE.
GOD IS SHOWING INCREASING IMPATIENCE AND INTOLERANCE WITH THAT.
Leaders have begun to be disciiplined sternly. Sheep will also in due course.
LEADING SHEEP DEEPER INTO GOD is a leader's duty.
GETTING IN THE WAY BETWEEN SHEEP AND GOD is a leader's cursed downfall.
The Welsh revival is very telling the more I consider it. When individuals started trying to organize it and manage the meetings, God left. God left the meetings to them. The miracles stopped.
This is a matter of the historical record. It happens to match the Biblical pattern.
Not crank it up a notch . . .
provoke unto love and good works but particularly toward a more intimate relationship, dance with God.
for those for whom the focus is truly on Christ . . . praise God.
They are, in my experience . . . a minority. BTW, my step-mother was Roman as well as her children.
On the contrary, the only reason Pliny had to say that was because of the rumors that believers engaged in cannibalism, rumors that arose from the early Christian undertanding of the Eucharist. The Church fathers are unanimous in their understanding that the Eucharist truly becomes the body and blood of Christ.
-A8
And I do agree with you about boldfacing, supersizing, colors and caps - I tend to not read posts which have a lot of visual emphasis and thus miss whatever point was being made.
= = = =
I think you know I've been torn about that issue for years. Have not failed to prayerfully ponder it extensively.
And it grieves me that we are on different sides on this issue.
But I have had no peace in my heart, mind, spirit when I've worked hard to comply.
Just didn't ring true as my brief, somehow. Logically, you should be simply right and I should be simply wrong and I should simply comply as an easy thing and that should be the end of it. That just doesn't fit, somehow. I don't know how else to explain it than I have.
Certainly in class, I use about everything I can legally and morally get away with to communicate impactfully to my students.
Are some overloaded? yeah, especially initially. But I try to scare the terminally shy away the first session. Those who are shy but want to change praise me at the end of the class for their enormous progress on that score.
The rest think all my antics and modes of communication are interesting and memorable. Is it the same as what we are talking about on threads . . . yes and no.
I just know, I can't fit in the straight jacket everyone prefers for me to fit in on this and a lot of other scores. Just doesn't fly. Doesn't fly in my spirit and doesn't fly practically.
Are people turned off. Sure. Are more turned off than aided? I hope not. I pray not.
I just know, I have no peace about fitting in that straight jacket. Sorry.
These are not worldviews, since a worldview is a *comprehensive* view of the world, and these are very limited and specific claims.
= = = =
Methinks that A-G is not well known or her words are not well comprehended by that perspective. She chooses her words well. They are accurate. Whether individual readers recognize that, or not . . . is a different issue.
posters we can kind of "look up" to see where the best conversations are from day-to-day.
IOW, Free Republic seems to have something for everyone.
= = = =
AMEN TO THAT! AND PRAISE GOD AND THANKS TO JIMROB and all the tireless volunteers in so many roles.
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.