I feel left out. First off, I haven't been following your blogs as closely as I should. Then, when I do go and check, you are talking about things near and dear to my heart. They are 14 religion posts and even a post on infidelity!
I'm going to start this by saying that I don't generally jump into religious discussions with y'all. I read them all, and am very interested, but theology is not my strong suit. So I cannot generally speak to the level that many of you do, which is why I need some clarification.
I don't want to add more fuel to the fire, but I do want to understand the subject of "authority". In the posts I see, many SEEM to believe that authority is subjective. Catholics obviously trace their Church back to the apostles, which is an important part of why we are Catholic. Other Christians do not see this as something that matters.
When you read the early writings, however, it seems to be something important. The Apostles laid hands on the early bishops, and this continued to the present. The laying on of hands and current authority choosing other authority seems to be important in the early church.
Therese recently shook up the family by pointing out that Catholicism is not the only religion that contains this apostolic succession. The Orthodox churches, also originally founded by apostles, and who originally were in harmony with the Catholic church, can also claim this. The discussion then comes to the point of Peter being the head of the Apostles and who had authority and who split with whom, and all that stuff.
But to most of you, that is all neither here nor there, because this succession and authority isn’t really important. So my question, then, to you all is, when there is a disagreement on what the Bible means, where do you look for the answer? Do you believe that having an authoritative answer is important, or is it merely your intentions and heart that ultimately matter?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Everyone is doing it...
Posted by Recovering Soul at 8:13 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Well, it's hardly new news that Orthodoxy has the Apostolic Succession. And since Paul VI and Athenagoras lifted the mutual excommunications, the question of who split with whom is less germane. It all boils down to the pope, and the 'filioque'. Which I've had some pretty passionate discussions about, with some Orthodox. . .
And it wasn't that long ago that the whole question of whether or not Anglican bishops were in the Apostolic Succession was still an open one. . .
As to your question, obviously I want an 'authoritative' answer, since I don't trust my own feelings or intentions, and having a check on my own sinfulness in reading the Scriptures is key. Even so, the Scriptures are meaningful on multiple levels, and admit to a rich variety of readings, even taken from the Apostolic Tradition. And the Holy Spirit still needs to make it come alive for me, and in my life, even properly understood. . .
I hate to see so many of these discussions become arguments as they have. It's odd the directions things have taken after I first wrote what I did.
I see nothing inherently wrong with authority, no, although I'm admittedly skeptical of it, depending upon WHO has the authority. That's mostly due to past experiences, however. I truly believe that some are meant to be leaders, as some have those gifts. I see the problem with "apostolic succession" as you state it, as this: Mainly that it has to assume that every single successor, every single pope, every single bishop, every single whatever, was the absolute, Godly, RIGHT choice. If you always rely on your leaders to choose your next leaders, and you say that you (and all others) must follow whatever those leaders say as "matters of authority"... then we presume our leaders to be practically infallible in their choices.
Of the thousands of people in authority over 2000 years, all it takes is one to choose the 'wrong' person, and the curtain falls. Then, the church evolves into something it shouldn't. Way back in Constantine's time, they were appointing bishops like nobles, as essentially a political appointment.
I agree that right and wrong are not subjective. What's of God and what's NOT of God are not subjective. Of course.
But I'm not sure that history can attest that there has never once been a breakdown in that succession. Humans being fallible, and all. I'm not sure anyone here would deny that all authority figures, no matter how high up, are fallible and prone to bad decisions.
I just think that to say the orthodox or Catholic churches are still exactly in harmony with the apostles' teachings, after 2000 years, and that they have been for that ENTIRE time, is baseless.
Us = fallible. Popes, bishops, and the apostles = fallible. Jesus = not fallible.
As for the questions in your last paragraph, I would ask you: Do you believe that the authorities in the Catholic church have been absolutely correct in every authoritative decision they've made over the last 2000 years?
Yeah, FTN, it is a bit odd the way your little 'community' post morphed into this massive, rolling debate, crossing something like five separate blogs. . .
I don't really view it as an 'argument'; at least, not in the sense of 'a fight'. Maybe in the sense of a 'conversation', or even a 'debate'; altho various folks seem a little more intent on 'winning'. For my part, I just enjoy getting all the 'issues' out on the table, so we can see them, and understand where each other are coming from. There are so many different perspectives, and yet all of us are Christian, and, as Vatican II said, "in a certain, though imperfect, communion with each other."
None of what I say next should be construed as picking a fight with you, OK? Because I think I can say pretty definitely that we disagree, and I'm not at all certain that we can say things in a way that the other would find completely palatable. I'm gonna shoot for 'understandable' more than 'palatable', so bear that in mind. . .
Of course, the Apostolic Succession doesn't depend on an unbroken chain of saintly bishops. I mean, the empirical evidence alone would tell you that that couldn't be the case. Because it hasn't been the case. I won't recite the list of medieval popes (to say nothing of 'lesser' bishops) who were the bastard sons of former popes by which of their several mistresses. . .
At bottom, Catholics trust the Church as an outgrowth of our faith in Christ, who told us, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against [my church]." (Matt. 16:18)
So, fallible popes, fallible bishops, fallible us, all that. Yup. But ultimately, we trust that Christ Himself will keep His Church from error; it's His Church, and He's got a stake in her well-being.
Is that naive? I suppose it could be thought so. But ultimately, our faith rests on Christ, just as you say.
And to answer your question - yeah, insofar as those doctrines/dogmas that are 'constitutive of Christian faith' are concerned (if I can say it that way), I think that what the Catholic Church teaches me today is 'continuous' with what she taught from the time of the Apostles. . .
I guess every time I see the word "church" written here, I'm still taking it to mean US. You, me, and our brothers and sisters. And I also quoted Matthew 16:18 in a comment about the church... um... somewhere among these 4-5 blog posts. We're HIS Church, as you wrote, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against us.
So, having said all of that, if I'm part of the church just as much as any other child of God, he's got a stake in my well-being. It would seem odd to think that if he's going to keep his church from error, he would do so for the Catholic one (given the empirical evidence of which you wrote) and not for the "lesser" ones (me, I guess).
It would seem God is a bit bigger than all that.
So I suppose if we wanted to get nit-picky (and I don't, to be honest), it would come down to what exactly the "doctrines/dogmas that are 'constitutive of Christian faith'" are. The ones that I might go to an authoritative figure concerning. The problem I suppose is that one or two of us around here have a different idea of what the "essentials" are in the old saying, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity."
To get back to RS's question re: authority... I believe people earn a position of authority by demonstrating they are worthy of it, over time, and they've displayed the Godly traits that make it obvious. I'm sure you all feel that way too. You all trust that the Catholic church has a process to choose authoritative figures after they've displayed that worthiness over time. That's understandable, and I very much respect people in those positions. I probably even agree with most of those people over the vast majority of God-issues. As for who I would go to with a question, it would be someone in a position of authority -- a pastor or teacher that has shown and displayed over time that he or she has the gifts that make a leader or "pastor."
If that sounds like I'm being subjective, then I ask you this: If your church appointed someone to your local parish to counsel you, and that person was an absolute jerk, ogled your wife, and you couldn't even talk with him without getting a bitter taste in your mouth... Would you continue to develop a relationship with him and let him "counsel" you on important matters? Or would you pray and trust that God has given you discernment to find someone else, someone that already has shown in a relationship with you that they have the gifts to do that?
For me, I know I don't know everything concerning the Bible and that some think they do. And that's ok. I'm only accountable for myself. Thank God!
This is really getting kinda hilarious, you and I having this discussion in RS's comment-space. . . I mean, he's not even giving us beer, or anything. . .
One of the things that has often come up when we have these discussions is that, instictively, our minds go to different things when we hear the word 'church'. When Catholics hear the word 'church', they instinctively think of 'The Church' - the institution - and they think of themselves as plugged into it through their parish, their priest, their bishop, and the pope. Of course, the Church is more than just the hierarchy - it really is 'us' - but Catholics instinctively think of the institutional hierarchy, and doctrines, and teachings, and pious practices, etc, etc.
And you don't think that way. So, there's a certain degree of 'talking past each other' that happens, just because we instinctively think of different things when we hear the word 'church'.
Now, there's another aspect to the Catholic self-understanding that I think can't help coming across as arrogant to non-Catholics, and that's that Catholics see the Church as integral to salvation. 'No salvation outside the church' is the 'classical' way it was said, and what's meant by that is that Christianity is not a 'me-n-Jesus' thing - part of being a Christian 'in full' (if I can say it that way) is being a part of the church (or, as Catholics think of it, The Church) (and I apologoze if I'm not terribly consistent with when I do/don't capitalize 'church').
And yeah, you're right - in the fullest sense, 'the church' is bigger than just what's identified as The Roman Catholic Church. As I alluded above, Vatican II said (and it's hard to overstate the importance of this, for what it means for our relationships as fellow-Christians) that all baptized Christians are in 'certain but imperfect communion' with each other. But as it sits, our communion with each other isn't perfect, because (metaphorically speaking) the Body of Christ is broken. If we were all in one Church together, in full communion with each other (and that term has specific meaning for Catholics that I'm not really prepared to expound in detail), then, so to speak, 'The Church' and 'The Catholic Church' would be identical (not so much to say 'everybody has to join the Catholic Church' as simply to say, the distinction wouldn't exist). Organizational unity, yes, but that would only be the most mundane aspect of it - at bottom, it would entail a 'spiritual' unity of common sacraments, common worship, common teaching, common life, etc, etc. Not 'identical'; the Catholic church does a pretty good job of accommodating 'diversity-in-unity'.
Anyway, suffice it to say that, full, final Christian unity, when it comes (and I'm hopeful enough in Christ to say 'when it comes'), will manifestly be the work of the Holy Spirit, because it is beyond our human capacity. . .
I know that I'm rambling around pretty good here, and I apologoze for that. I also know that a lot of what I'm saying here just doesn't compute for you. Some of it is that our 'paradigms' (sorry) of 'church' are so different. Some of it is that I'm not smart enough to make it clearer.
And, to answer your last question. . . I probably wouldn't pursue a 'pastoral relationship' with him. I might talk to the bishop about my concerns with his character. I might tune out on his sermons. Worst case, I'd start attending another parish. altho that just 'goes against the Catholic grain'. But, the Church being what it is, I could still receive the sacraments from him. Which is kind of a 'minimalist Catholic life', but sometimes it's the best you can do. . .
To be clear, it wasn't that I only just realized that the orthodox have apostolic succession. I always knew that. It was more along the lines of the implications of that for the modern church and ways the church has perpetuated the schism, etc..
FTN, the question to me isn't whether or not authority has ever made mistakes, but whether we are still bound to obey them. I, personally, feel that leaders in the Church have made some really awful errors at various times in History, but also feel that their mistakes do not justify my disobedience, nor would they justify me creating schism over.
Sorry, I didn't have time to read the other commenters and really ain't got time to compose anything big here. I just wanna mention a couple things:
- When it comes to 'apostolic succession', at the basest level this is a man-made thing and not a God-made thing. Because of man's basic sinfulness God can not set something like that in place (beyond the scriptures) and rely on it for any real length of time as THE WAY of resolving scriptural diferences because, well, man (we!!) get in there and start making our own rules to 'add' to and 'improve' our belief systems far beyond what God ever intended (and often beyond basic wisdom, frankly). Think Inquisition. Think Reformation. Think Crusades. Those are the most-fun concepts but the examples abound. Um, we're terrible at staying the course and staying true to God's message, the scriptures.
- The critical concepts of scripture relating to what is required for us to be part of God's kingdom are crystal-clear. Now I'm not saying they are universally understood 'cause we each carry baggage and try to fit God's ideas within what we know rather than refining what we know by the scriptures. At face-value the free gift of God is laid out rather straight-forward.
- Where do I look for an answer when there is disagreement on what the Bible means? Seriously, how often does this happen to such an extent that I need an arbiter beyond the scriptures on matters that are of real significance such that an arbiter is really needed? Much less than would be expected because, well, all too often those disagreements are driven by someone who is attempting to shoe-horn the Bible into fitting their beliefs, wants, or selfish desires rather than fitting their own beliefs, wants, or selfish desires into the framework of what is scriptural. And far too many of the rest have to do with things that, frankly, just are not that important. To God.
Now I could kick off further wars and list a few of them thangs that we really should not be contending over but what would be the point? You're all riled up enough as it is!!
Des/FTN, thanks for running comments for me. I got busy Friday after a meeting with my boss and then was out of town.
Des/Therese, it isn't really a revelation that the Orthodox has it as well, I just hadn't thought about it. But, of course, it doesn't matter to most of the readers, it was just interesting to me.
It should come as no surprise that our evangelical and protestant friends feel it doesn't matter, and us Catholics DO feel it matters.
Just a couple of very brief comments:
FTN - I'd agree that there have been a number of people in authority who have abused it. But, outside of their personal lives, how did that affect the religious teachings of an organization? My two cents is that the very nature of what we believe causes us to view this differently. Since Catholics believe in the institution, not the individual, one person being a bad apple doesn't change it. On the other hand, one person in authority going bad would be, I would guess, a bigger deal to you.
Actually though, for the record, when a bishop is ordained such in the Catholic Church he is given a "geneology" (don't know the right word for it) of who ordained whom all the way back to the Apostles.
Lastly, I view the church as an institution. And, bear with me since I'm not a theologian, although we are all part of the church, the institution that Christ created is bigger than any one of us. So when you change the words of the gospel to state that the gates of hell shall not prevail against "us" vs. against "it", it seems strange to me. We are all part of it, but we are part of something greater.
Phyllis - you are only accountable for yourself? I think you are actually in a position of authority. What about being a wife and mother? Do you not have some responsibility for your husband and children?
I think the great thing about being married is that I can count on Therese to help me, I don't have to do it alone.
Of course, priests are the same way. They are responsible for their flocks, and if they mislead their flock I have to believe they will be held accountable for it. It is a great responsibility to put on those of us who marry and have kids, but one we take on willingly.
xavier - at a basest level it is man-made? Perhaps, but if we accept many things we accept from the bible, why wouldn't we accept that? It IS demonstrated in the bible, after all.
And we all agree that there can be only one interpretation of the bible, but which is right? Not all religions can be correct, especially when they teach such different things. This is the direct result of man making his own decisions and coming to his own conclusions without an authority to help guide us. I think these disagreements happen more than we would like. Look in our own blog circle and you will see a number of people who consider themselves to be Christians who have very different, base, ideas of right and wrong.
I'm really not riled up. I was truly curious about what people thought about that specific issue. I'll let you all go argue elsewhere for awhile. I wasn't surprised at the result, really, but it did confirm why there are so many Christian denominations.
It is in this very matter that the divergence begins. My belief is that the church was built upon the Rock, Jesus, as opposed to the stone, who is Peter. And if I am incorrect on this issue there will be no sleep lost over it because, well, there are more basic truths that we can share that are of greater importance.
In short, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the Godly authority that is to guide my understanding and interpretation of the scriptures though I also recognize that God has given authority to Earthly leaders as well. However, scripturally it seems as though it takes quite a leap to support the succession belief as it does not appear to me to be clearly set forth.
I'm not one to hold that the Apostolic succession imparts a special grace that no one else can have -- I don't see that in scripture or the early church tradition. The succession WAS important (and still is), but as the handing over of teaching office from one trusted person to another. Guided by the Spirit, of course, as it is Christ who chooses the leaders of the church -- Ephesians 2.
And that sort of succession IS something we see in scripture. Beginning of II Tim 2.
As far as the Holy Spirit guiding your understanding and interpretation, THAT is something that is never found in scripture. The opposite is seen. Both in scripture and in history. Because if the Holy Spirit was guiding people's understanding in that manner then we wouldn't have 30,000 Christian denominations.
RS, thank you for stating up front that you are NOT wanting to get in the middle of the current argument and fights about religion. And by doing so...here you are!
Where would I go to fill in some gap or to settle some conflict within scripture?
Funnily enough, I would probably go to an elder. In the end, I have to choose which way to go, tho. Yes, authority does mean some real different things to different people. And I will leave it there.
D.
Xavier, you are correct - this IS where the divergence begins. The locus of authority, and the nature of the Church. Truly, everything else that comes between Catholics and Protestants derives from this.
And you are also correct that "there are more basic truths that we can share that are of even greater importance." And I think the Second Vatican Council would agree with you. . .
Post a Comment