Wormwood, on 29 Nov 2016 - 7:18 PM, said:
Quote
Tom,
Thank you for your response. You have a great many assumptions in your response. First, you are coming from the perspective that all these various groups are splinters from the Catholic Church whereas the Orthodox would likely see it quite to the contrary. So, you kinda have homer glasses on here I am afraid. Also, I agree with you that we are to be of one mind and unified. I certainly am not making a plea for division and discord. However, I think if you take any time reading the NT you will see that "unity" and "one mind" language has little to do with church polity and allegiance to specific leaders and much more to do with brotherly love and people of LOCAL congregations getting along with one another.
"Brotherly love and people of LOCAL congregations getting along with one another" wasn't enough to stop the Arian and Nestorian heresies, and every "bible alone" heretic down through the centuries..
Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.
The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than
a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)
The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches
back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.
After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles.
This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that
St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans
in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”
Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms
that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established.
From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.
The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the
one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
No where do we see Paul writing about the church in Corinth having "one mind" by submitting to the religious authorities in Jerusalem or Rome. Such a view is nonsense! In fact, Paul, even though he was an Apostle, does not use this position as a means to demand submission of those under his care (even though he could have).
Being submissive to apostolic authority is obedience, which is a virtue. Dominating dictatorship is a gross misrepresentation of authority.
Rather, he appeals to their local autonomy and encourages them by the mercy of Christ, and not through a domineering tone of authority based on human political systems.
The Church is not a mere political human system. She is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist. Denial of this truth is a form of Gnosticism, which is a man made Protestant tradition.
I think Jesus spoke pretty clearly that this was not the way Church would be set up. I mean, if we are going to argue for a supreme Church leader and heirarchy based on the writings of the NT, we should argue that the bishop of Jerusalem was the leader of the church, not the bishop of Rome.
see above
I mean, I don't read anywhere where it says Irenaeus was an infallible, inspired writer of Scripture in his utterings about Rome's authority. In fact, (as you likely know) there was a great deal of debate about which bishop was to be supreme between Jerusalem and Rome. It wasn't a foregone conclusion as you imply.
No one Church Father is infallible. Only Jesus is infallible who gives this gift to His Church that prevents her from teaching error.
Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all,
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
In any event, Paul is pretty clear in Galatians and elsewhere that our guidance and authority does not come from human heirarchies, but from obedience to the message of the Gospel. I mean, Paul's pretty clear that his authority came from Jesus, not from Peter and he did not consult man or need man's permission to preach the Gospel. He passes this same instruction along to people like Timothy and Titus. Their basis for leadership and appointing elders had nothing to do with papal permission, but was directly related to local church autonomy and the character and spiritual maturity of those in that local congregation. It could not be any more clear in 1 and 2nd Timothy and Titus.
Paul was always submissive to the Church.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
- In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17). (who told him to do what??? Did Jesus appear a second time???)
- He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), and
- fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
- He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
- Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
- Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
- The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
- and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from).
Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).
The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.
Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible. You can acknowledge Paul passing his office to Timothy instructing him to teach others and so on yet deny apostolic succession? (another man made Protestant tradition) It's a contradiction.
Again, I think you put entirely too much hope in human structures and authorities. I agree there is "one" holy, catholic and apostolic church. My faith is not based in doctrines founded outside the teaching of the Apostles!
There are no Catholic doctrines found outside the teaching of the Apostles. They are direct, indirect, or a development of the original truths with the essence never changing.
However, in my ecclesiology, a person belongs to that one church by faith and not by a human stamp of approval.
What human stamp of approval are you talking about???
Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.
Daniel B. Wallace Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary
Of course, that was the big rub between Luther and the Pope. Luther saw a great many wicked behaviors taking place in the church that needed reform whereas the Pope and church authorities saw this critique by Luther as an undermining of their authority and position.
That's a whole different topic.
I mean, if we allow priests to critique and question the legitimacy of church functions...and the Scriptures and faith have greater weight than the see of Christ, then the Pope's power is nullfied. The "pope's power" is not over the Scriptures, that is a man made Protestant tradition
The problem is, it shouldn't be about who has the right to be the "true" church. It should be about who is "faithful." That is what Christ desires. Do you really think those priests who bought their positions by simony were legitimate spiritual authorities in the Church simply because they had a Pope's seal of approval and the proper gown!? Just look at the book of Revelation. A church belongs to Jesus not because of the robes they wear or a Pope's decree. They belong to Jesus because they love him and are faithful to the truth. That is the whole point of Revelation! Jesus is encouraging those who are outcast and being killed that if they remain faithful, they will be pillars in the house of his God...regardless of what men think, say or do. Meanwhile, some churches that look successful and are praised are dead and will be spit out of his mouth. Men look at robes and human approval, but Jesus looks at the heart and those who abide by the truth. I think we should do the same and not be so quick to label millions of believers as agents of Satan because they do not bow to the same elder you do.
The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans but anti-Catholics never include them as martyrs for the faith. The Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic churches as Christian, sources of grace and salvation. Look what we get in return.
Only a Dave Hunt reader would bring up this nonsense about vestments. It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear 'gowns", if for no other reason because they have been liturgical practice of the true religion since ancient Israel.
God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).
Of course, you would never misrepresent Judaism the way you do Catholicism.
e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.
