Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholic; petrinesuccession; primacyofpeter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,801-1,8201,821-1,8401,841-1,860 ... 2,081-2,092 next last
To: Marysecretary

I wholeheartedly believe that denominations will fall as our world begins to crumble. Man will see how fruitless it is to fight and argue amongst ourselves when our very lives are threatened. The time is coming, sooner than we think, and people will HAVE to turn to God and God alone. Unity comes when all else fails.
= = =

Exactly.

Does the other person in the lifeboat agree that Jesus came in the flesh . . . born of a virgin; died on a cross for me; rose the 3rd day.

Major in majors; minor in minors. When the major is survival and unity OF SPIRIT UNDER HIS BLOOD IS REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL . . .

all kinds of prissy theological cobwebs and hogwash will be burned out, cleaned out wholesale.

AND PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!

Though the cost will be significant in terms of what folks will have to turn and forsake with NOT A LOOK BACK.


1,821 posted on 10/28/2006 8:43:34 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1812 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
So, if a person already has salvation, then why does he need sanctification?

-A8

1,822 posted on 10/28/2006 8:44:22 PM PDT by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1816 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

To perform the good works recognized as good by divine standards foreordained by the Father. Even after rebirth of our spirit in regeneration, we still have an old sin nature, or the natural man within us. We are still scarred in our thinking and in our body from that sin. The work of the Holy Spirit renews our thinking , then our spirit and manifest from our heart in our work.

A major function of the church is to foster evangelism or communication of the Gospel to unbelievers and communication of His Word as written faith, a more comprehensive or deeper faith, as frequently translated as doctrine, which is performed by the work of Pastor-Teachers to their local congregations.
In this effort, the RCC has enormous resources available to promote the contionous teaching of Bible doctrine to all believers throughout the earth.

My statement of the work of salvation not being directly attributable to the Church is directed to emphasize salvation is technically the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. There are at least forty things which happen to the believer at salvation, all assoicated with the believer's relationship with God. The Church or body of believers do have many rewards pending the feast, but no human regenerates the spirit.


1,823 posted on 10/28/2006 8:58:36 PM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1822 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I have a project for you dear Brother.
Prove to all of us that the Eucharist is not Jesus truly present?


1,824 posted on 10/28/2006 9:00:31 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1820 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

He dwells at the right hand of the Father. Also the Holy Spirit provides the temple in the body of the believer for the indwelling of the Son and the Father in each believer during the Church Age.

Rather than attempting to bring Christ down to man, let's lift ourselves up by being presentable to Him through faith in Christ and studying those doctrines. They may help in discerning the doctrines of indwelling and discernment between body, soul and spirit in the reborn believer.


1,825 posted on 10/28/2006 9:04:49 PM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1824 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Catholicism offers some outstanding doctrines which many other branches of the church have not fully promoted and taught. For example, perhaps our Catholic brethren coul assist in teaching more about the doctrine of Kenosis which many reformed brethrenn haven't fully studied.


1,826 posted on 10/28/2006 9:07:45 PM PDT by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1824 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Rather than attempting to bring Christ down to man, let's lift ourselves up by being presentable to Him through faith in Christ and studying those doctrines. They may help in discerning the doctrines of indwelling and discernment between body, soul and spirit in the reborn believer.

Agreed. But we cannot be afraid to challenge for the sake of truth.

1,827 posted on 10/28/2006 9:15:12 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1825 | View Replies]

To: InterestedQuestioner; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; JockoManning; Uncle Chip; MamaDearest; ...
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough post. I enjoyed your post, and will take time to reflect upon what you have written. I think you have a very interesting perspective, and I’d like to learn more about that. I hope we will have time in future conversations to discuss your views.

Thanks for your kind and humbling words. I enjoyed your post as well. If I'm not mistaken, I think I smell the fragbrance of The Breath of The Holy Spirit on your breath and words--At least a spirit and attitude that remind me of Him. God's best to you and yours.

I think a very important point is implied in your posts--theology and personal belief need to match up with the individuals experience of reality. If I understand you correctly, you’re pointing out the importance of being honest with ones self, of avoiding self-deception and hypocrisy.

YES! Those are priorities that I think are quite important for navigating reality in this time/space dimension as well as connecting meaningfully and fruitfully with God moment by moment as we live out our life and ministry here as well as the "working out our own Salvation with fear and tremblilng," as the KJV says.

I agree, if our spiritual beliefs do not match up with what is true, we have a problem. The call to faith contains within it a call to personal honesty.

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

Your perspective on the need for the Holy Spirit to lead the Church is also very important one, and I think you raise some obvious concerns about how Church organization and hierarchy function. I think that’s an area where dialog is very important. One of the reasons why we need unity within the Church is to ensure that such dialog takes place.

Thanks. Yes, I think it's difficult to impossible to overestimate the importance of insuring that hierarchy and organization are humbly submissive to Holy Spirit and that the tail never even remotely begins to think it can get away with wagging the dog,so to speak. However, I think that's difficult to impossible practically speaking in any human organizations unless and until the majority of the leaders in a given local and certainly over the whole organization are thoroughly,

THOROUGHLY, THOROUGHLY HUMBLE AND SUBMITTED TO THE LORDSHIP OF JESUS THE CHRIST AND THE GUIDANCE OF HIS SPIRIT, MOMENT BY MOMENT, DAY BY DAY.

OTHERWISE, the typical thing will happen as has happened for near 2,000 years . . . and as the pharisees demonstrated so vividly . . . finite humans will presume roles and perogatives exclusively intended for Holy Spirit in managing individuals and clusters of Believers. Then the rot has set in and the enemy is pleased to be running around managing congregations in white washed robes of presumed righteousness as deadly as can be.

If I understand you correctly, you have a commitment to a Charismatic understanding of the Church, one that is consistent with St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12-14. These Scriptures contain an extraordinary teaching about the primacy of love in the Christian life, and in the life of the Church. They also describe the gifts of the spirit, including gifts such as prophesy and speaking in tongues. Views related to these gifts are often lacking and perhaps overlooked within the broader Church. One reason that unity is important is it creates the opportunity for collaboration and dialog among Christians with strong understandings of particular parts of Revelation. It’s a problem when the Church is segregated so that each faction is only describing one part of the Elephant to itself.

That's an interesting point. I think God is exceedingly grieved about all the disunity and fractional junk and factionalism; grandstanding in the name of organizations and human offices . . . even human presumptions about Scriptural offices.

Nevertheless, I do NOT believe that God would be remotely pleased to submit HIs Spirit nor His Church Universal to the strong-armed gerry manding; pontificating presumptions; parochial prissy-ness; monopolistic hogwash of ANY human organization--even IF He originally started such an organization--which I do not believe He did, at all. I believe He infected Believers with Himself and set them loose to be fruitful and multiply led most wholesale BY HIS SPIRIT. And that when humans attempt any other model than to loosely support one another in that--all manner of hellish fruit results--and virtually all of it stinks.

“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.”

Yes, I still feel quite confident that's a true statement.

It sounds like what is being described in 1 Cor 12-14 contains many elements that one would expect to find in many Charismatic or Pentecostal Communities. Clearly there is a Biblical precedent for the style of worship. I’m not familiar with such communities, and would like to learn more about them, and am looking forward to hearing your views.

Thanks for your kind words. HOWEVER, Even in the groups, clusters, organizations which have typically BEST MANIFESTED SUCH--doing it by THE MANUAL seems to be a very fleeting thing. It seems to require earnest prayer and fasting and very earnest application of Scripture and Holy Spirit's leading to insure that the Anointing of God Almighty continues to flow in and through a given congregation or group.

And, EVEN IN THE RARE CASES WHERE the believers are willing to pay that price--a very rare thing, indeed--even then, God still seems to lead said congregation through dry spells where He is testing to see if the believers will SEEK HIM AND FOLLOW HIM instead of His Gifts and demonstrations of His Power and Majesty.

I think it's somewhat like a parent and earthly offspring. The parent loves Christmas probably more than the kids for the kids responses. But if the kids only light up for the gifts the parent gives and never for the parents themselves and for and because of who the parents are . . . then something is dreadfully wrong.

In my reading of Scripture; study of Christ's life; Paul's life; and observations of the best of congregational life in our era . . . as well as extensive prayerful pondering, I do NOT think that there are any pat answers.

But that's logical. Scripture and history are full of examples where the minute folks thought they'd seized on a pat theological answer, God had to mess it all ukp to require them TO AGAIN SEEK HIM AND HIM ALONE.

HE WANTS RELATIONSHIP--NOT A VENDING MACHINE; ROBOTIZED, COMPUTERIZED; FLOW-CHARTED--PLUGH THIS ACTION, RITUAL ETC. IN AND GET THIS BLESSING, THIS INDULGENCE ETC. OUT. Simple. And deadly. There's no life in such. It is RELIGION but it is NOT righteousness. It is not true spirituality. It is not LIFE. And it is certainly NOT JESUS CHRIST'S RESURRECTION LIFE ETERNAL. And that doesn't matter what organizational name the mothers of all presumptions are managed, acted out in.

It is also important to recognize, however, that these practices occur in a hierarchical organization, and it is an organization in which leaders use the charism of leadership to benefit and guide the community.

True. Though I think the best one I've ever known or observed--John Wimber--succeeded way above average because:

1. He was exceedingly and truly humble.
2. He truly sought to merely read Scripture; teach Scripture--
3. take it for what it said--AND
4. DO SCRIPTURE. Then--to
5. TRUST GOD to produce the results.

He was not greatly into organization and resisted wholesale pressures to make of THE VINEYARD a denomination. I think they eventually flirted briefly with such but then abandoned it evidently for good. And even now, the loose association of congragations still markedly bear the sweet fragrance of Wimber's original Holy Spirit humility.

Thankfully, God produced results uncommon any longer in a long list of traditional Pentecostal congregations and even a large number of more recent Charismatic congregations.

The rot has alaready set in though the Charismatic groups are not that old in historical terms.

The Epistles are instructions written by authorities to communities under their charge. For example, Paul admonishes the Corinthians in 1 Cor rather strongly, and it includes instructions to excommunicate two Christians living in an incestuous relationship. There is a also a biblically mandated imperative to obey rightfully established leaders. The discussion of the Church in 1 Corinthians 12-14 includes a description of the role of the gifts of the Spirit within the Church. It also important to recognize that it contains a description of the Eucharist immediately prior to this description in 1 Cor 11; 23-32. St Paul also instructs the Corinthians to maintain the traditions which he has passed on to them, either orally or in previous correspondence which we no longer have “Be imitators of me, even as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11: 1,2.)

Sorry, I much prefer more journalistic paragraphing.

You said: "St Paul also instructs the Corinthians to maintain the traditions which he has passed on to them, either orally or in previous correspondence which we no longer have " I suspect God had HIS REASONS for insuring that correspondence was lost. God seems to be more than a little schizophrenic in a sense, about traditions.

Mostly, He seems to be against them, in wholesale terms. Those He seems to reserve for positive sanction are few and far between, in my reading of Scripture. And, the bulk of the renewed expression of said traditions seems to be reserved for after Armageddon or some such--in Heaven, the New Jerusalem etc.

Sure, we can call Baptism; The Lord's Supper etc. traditions . . . but I think of traditions as enough of a dirty word generally in God's eyes, that I don't usually call the sacraments a tradition.

EVEDN WHERE A TRADITIOIN was established, in a sense, by Holy Spirit--MAN'S OPERATIONS OF THE TRADITION QUICKLY TEND TO TAKE ON THE ROBES AND FLAVORS OF

A TRADITION OF MAN. And God will not share such glory with man--even in a formerly Godly tradition. So, I think that's one reason that God is mostly averse to traditions. And organizations ought to be very careful and even harsh about new traditions springing up and taking root. Because then, in short order, folks who kowtow to the tradition instead of submitting to GOD ALONE will presume themselves rightous by virtue of the traditions hoop jumping instead of by VIRTUE OF CHRIST'S BLOOD ALONE.

Now in your post you point out that leaders have often failed their flocks. No argument there, the authors of Scripture took great pains to point out that the Apostles failed the Church on numerous occasions. Nonetheless, there is still a Church, and the Apostles were still the rightful leaders of the Church. We cannot dismiss the authority given to the Church by Christ because of the failings of individual leaders anymore than we can dismiss the mission of the individuals within the Church because of failures on the part of those individuals who call themselves Christians.

Yes, the freedom to fail is a great Grace of Salvation in The Lord Jesus, The Christ.

However, The Church Universal, as I read Scripture and reflect on history, IS NOT TO BE a hierarchical, remotely authoritarian nor even sternly authoritative multi-layered pontifical edifice that makes, BY PRESUMED "VIRTUES" OF THE ORGANIZATION all the leaders and sheep kosher, safe, perfect enough to avoid making waves and especially to avoid causing the organization undue trouble.

Christ was quite a paradox on that score. He had due respect for proper authority--yet shredded all human authorities' hypocrisies; presumptions; interjecting themselves INAPPROPRIATELY between individuals and God etc. etc. etc. Nowadays, I think He mostly has tended to just walk off and take Holy Spirit with Him--leaving the leaders and organizations invovled to build up stinking piles of chaff as mountains of unglory to themselves.

Christ established a Church with the authority to determine what is and what is not authentic Christian belief.

No, I don't believe that. Christ left Holy Spirit to manage that--largely. Yeah, He called local congregations to make such anointed, prayerful, discerning, Holy Spirit led determinations . . . and with collective input . . . particularly from submitting one to another; confessing one to another and calling the most lowly wise old codgers to give their judgment.

But that's enormously different from a huge traditional fossilized human organizational edifice making pronouncements from towering intelelctual, pontifical, eccleastical heights to be condescendingly thrown down to and more often on top of the sheep at "the bottom." Christ died to abolish such RELIGIOSITY once and for all, imho. He came to grant direct access to God and to all that direct access implied--without any meddling on the part of anyone else and certainly on the part of any MAN'S TRADITIONS ORGANIZATION.

In fact, in my long experiences . . . the longest and most horrendous long dark nights of the soul in my spiritual walks have tended to result in large part because I presumed to meedle in the relationship between another believer and God. SURE, I PRESUMED I WAS GOD ORDAINED HELPING THE OTHER BELIEVER. But, in fact, I'd taken on some aspect of GOD ALONE'S ROLE. And He was very good at singing my tail feathers accordingly.

That is a prerogative that we see exercised repeatedly and emphatically in the New Testament. The Church of the New Testament also possesses and exercises the authority to excommunicate, to establish moral standards and church practice, and has a Sacramental function.

I disagree. A HUMAN ORGANIZATION WAS NOT GRANTED SUCH GOD-POWERS in the sense of an organization spanning across great geographies etc. LOCAL CONGREGATIONS WERE given such powers.

As to establishing moral standards, Scripture does that. Scripture also establishes more than sufficient sacramental functions. All else by any man; any group of men; any leadership or hierarchy are arrogant presumptions layering on top of WHAT GOD HAS DONE AND CALLED SUFFICIENT--CHAFF--HUMAN, FLAWED, CORRUPT, EXCESS, EXTRA, CHAFF. Wood, hay, stubble.

You bring very important points to the discussion with regards to the individual’s relationship to God, the necessity of love within the Church, and the necessity for the Church to submit to the Will of God.

Thanks. Only by God's Grace is anything I say of ahy fruitfulness, at all.

These are consistent with an organized and unified Church community, not opposed to it,

That depends . . . as follows.

since Christ himself founded a visible, cohesive and hierarchical Church.

No, I do not believe He did, at all in the sense that Romanists seem to construe it.

Any hierarchy described by Christ is extremely minimal. Certainly not umpteen layers deep. Further,

CHRIST TAKES GREAT PERSISTENT PAINS TO EMPHASIZE A LACK OF HEIRARCHY--SUBMITTING ONE TO ANOTHER; confessing sins one to another; exhorting one another daily; washing one another;s feet; . . . the list is rather extensive. Compared to the remotely hierarchical inferences possible from Christ's words, the NON-HIERARCHICAL EXHORTATIONS WIN HANDS DOWN. Clearly CHRIST HIMSELF minimized one and emphasized the other.

As St. Paul says “Now you are the Body of Christ, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, and speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all Apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess the gift of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.” (1 Cor 12: 27-30)

Wonderful Scripture . . . what was the point of it? That we are all members of one Body. And, that Holy Spirit distributes such giftings and offices AS HE WILL. That we are not to lord it over one another . . . That we are not to envy one another; That we are not to seek to have another's role but to walk confidently, humbly in our own role submitted earnestly to HOLY SPIRIT AS WE SERVE ONE ANOTHER! Doesn't sound like a multi-layered hierarchical edifice, to me, at all.

Thanks much for your kind tone. I hesitate to call it a teachable spirit because I'm not sure that's true. But it comes across similar to one, if not actually being one. And I appreciate that a lot. In any case, i respect you as a fellow believer in our Lord Jesus The Christ. God's best to you and your family. I'm blessed to dialogue with you.

1,828 posted on 10/28/2006 9:52:32 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1707 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

Certainly I'm interested. And will keenly attend to Angel-Gal's response.

For myself, The Scriptural descriptions are adequate.

I wait a lot in such matters to see WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF CONFIRM.

What GOD HIMSELF DIRECTLY AND OVERTLY CONFIRMS, I can treat as from God Himself. That which He has not yet confirmed may yet be confirmed; may be hogwash, may be a human error, may be an evil counterfeit.

IF it's important to my mission from God's perspective for me to know which of those a given thing or person is, then I expect Him to clue me in. He tends to be very faithful to do so though My ears are not always faithfully 'clean' in hearing Him.


1,829 posted on 10/28/2006 9:56:14 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

What do you mean by "the spiritually ....less than transfigured"?
= = = =

I thought of putting "Spiritually transmorgified" in honor of Calvin and Hobbes.

And I thought of putting "translated" as in Enoch. But, I let it be with what I put.

I suppose I could have said--those less than adequately spiritually mature sufficient to walk on water.


1,830 posted on 10/28/2006 9:57:59 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1804 | View Replies]

To: InterestedQuestioner

Thanks for your blessing, likewise.

Now if I can get all those bowls trimmed; glazed and fired . . . and a bunch more for my own use in time for the Christmas sale . . .

as well as mugs for various FR Loved ones . . . wheeeee.


1,831 posted on 10/28/2006 9:59:05 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1805 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings

PTL.

Thanks for your kind words.


1,832 posted on 10/28/2006 10:01:03 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1818 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Sorry.

I decline that project.

It is not an issue that is central to my Salvation nor my walk with God.

I find it unnecessarily devisive.

I tend to have a pretty strong policy taht where there are Scriptures which can be logically taken 2 or more ways, they are probably not about issues which God will expect us to divide company over.

I prefer to love and respect Protestants and Roman Believers on both sides of that issue.

Personally, I REMEMBER Christ in The Lord's Supper. That seemed to be HIS FOCUS. Whether He was speaking in metaphorical terms or literalist terms, I cannot absolutely insist for certain. I believe they were metaphorical terms.

However, I do partake in an attitude and a revererance akin to the awe and respect I'd have were transubstantiation a fact.

I do believe that Christ is greatly grieved over the devisiveness of the issue--probably more so than He cares that much which interpretation is taken.

I THINK IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT that each OF US members of HIS BODY relate to ONE ANOTHER AS MEMBERS OF THE SAME BODY IN LOVE AND HUMBLE SERVICE, SUBMISSION, ONE TO ANOTHER AS HOLY SPIRIT LEADS.

I thinik that's greatly more importan a set of issues.


1,833 posted on 10/28/2006 10:06:23 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1824 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; HarleyD; Star Chamber
Thank you for your reply!

If you reject the authority of men re God's Word, revelations, etc. who and how would you personally define a "prophet" or perhaps a "prophetess?"

The indwelling Spirit authenticates the Scriptures to me by bringing them alive within as my eyes pass over the words. Therefore I know the law and the prophets, the gospels and the epistles are truth.

Likewise, if there is a thing to be treasured in what another says, or in another ancient manuscript, the indwelling Spirit authenticates it to me, within. And conversely, if it is anathema, He raises an alarm within (I call it "Holy Spirit radar" LOL!)

Not everything a person or prophet says in his life is of God obviously. But when it is truth, we can and must rely on the Spirit to confirm it. (Romans 8)

We must not resist the Spirit.

And yet, it sure seems to me that many people have long wanted a "formula" for God, a surpassing sense of God their minds could obtain through reason - or a "god" that could be in some way touched, physically, so that he would be "real" to their physical senses. They wanted a "small god" not God who is spirit (John 4).

Stephen was filled of the Holy Spirit when he raised that very point, and just after he did, they stoned him to sleep:

But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.

Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it]. - Acts 7:47-53

It occurs to me that some Christians these days may also be resisting the Spirit.

1,834 posted on 10/28/2006 10:38:15 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1802 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Very, very excellent points.

So blessed to benefit from your exhortations and teachings.

Praise God for His faithfulness through you.

Color me humbled and blessed persistently by you to great benefit spiritually, emotionally and intellectually.


1,835 posted on 10/28/2006 10:41:27 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1834 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Whatever all this means, I'm sure that none of us are as adequate as we should be.

Blessed are the poor in spirit.


1,836 posted on 10/28/2006 10:53:00 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1830 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Praise God!!! That is great news, saradippity! Loving God absolutely should be our continual goal.
1,837 posted on 10/28/2006 11:05:37 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1800 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

QUITE SO. QUITE SO.

Thanks.


1,838 posted on 10/28/2006 11:11:25 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1836 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements!

I came back to this thread to respond to your earlier post, but it dawns on me that I already have with the post to the other thread. LOL!

1,839 posted on 10/28/2006 11:32:55 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1835 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Quix; Dr. Eckleburg; Star Chamber
It occurs to me that some Christians these days may also be resisting the Spirit.

I don't think so and this is why: the stiffnecked people mentioned in Acts are unconverted Jews. Whenever the HS came to them, He was external and it was for but a short while.

Christians actually receive the Spirit who proceeds to complete a work in them. They can now grieve the HS, literally make him sorrow, but they cannot resist Him.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

So this idea of "resisting" the Holy Spirit is untenable. Unless of course, one isn't resisting Him, but the Truth of what He teaches. Then perhaps comes the itching ears and the desire for

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Simon Magus asked for the Holy Spirit, but not to pursue the truth of Jesus alone with it, (Acts 8)and from other accounts not found in the bible, we learn where he was led.

Now without being flip or contentious, it seems to me that if you are saying that you can use the Holy Spirit something like the Ummin and the Thummin, that this not biblical, unless of course you can show me that it is. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this, it's always enjoyable to touch on the deeper things of scripture.

1,840 posted on 10/29/2006 12:05:41 AM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1834 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,801-1,8201,821-1,8401,841-1,860 ... 2,081-2,092 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson