Catholicity key to Church Unity

[Jude]

I don't see where 'passing Popes', or better, the continuation of the office of Bishop is against Scripture. When a Bishop violates the teachings of the Church (which he pledges to maintain, and is shown to receive, liturgically, by the laying on of hands), when he violates Scripture in what he teaches or does, he may be apostate. At the very least, he is accountable to other Bishops, and should be under their discipline until he repents. Churches that lack the office of Bishop violate Scripture and Tradition, and lack the authority, within it's structure, to maintain discipline, and lack oversight necessary for sound teaching, etc. This is the big weakness in many Protestant churches, but especially in the 'non-denom's', who have very-little oversight.
Having a Bishop, the guardian of the faith once received, is also a critical element in Church unity.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Jude:
Churches that lack the office of Bishop violate Scripture and Tradition, and lack the authority, within it's structure, to maintain discipline, and lack oversight necessary for sound teaching, etc.

Christ instituted one office of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments. Scripture and Tradition teach that it is only by human right that the office of Bishop is distinct from the office of pastor. Apostasy can be found within both episcopal and congregational churches.

 

[BobRyan]

So "WHO" were the NT saints relying on to "interpret for them"?

1John 2
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

Hmmm. No infallible Pope appealed to in this text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The office of Bishop - or Elder is common to all.

What is "missing" is the idea of magic sacrament.

An idea that evolved over time according to the RCC.

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church"
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
pg 49
"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the OT priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule..for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
Ibid Pg 50 “The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with its features borrowed from Paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage”

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The office of Bishop - or Elder is common to all.

What is "missing" is the idea of magic sacrament.

An idea that evolved over time according to the RCC.

The pope or Antichrist certainly did pervert the one office of bishop, priest, pastor, or elder (which ever term you prefer) from an office of service to multiple offices of power over men. However, it was Christ that instituted the office of steward of the mysteries(if you prefer that term to "sacraments"). And the church is bound to observe this one office until the Lord returns.

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 1 Cor. 4:1.2

If churches wish to form higher tier organizations, they may do so. As long as it is understood that the people appointed to higher tier positions have no spiritual authority over the parish pastor.

[ April 18, 2004, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
So "WHO" were the NT saints relying on to "interpret for them"?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 1John 2
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

Hmmm. No infallible Pope appealed to in this text.
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't deny that the Holy Spirit teaches the church. Yet, the problem is, we STILL have a divided church, and the division is largely doctrinal. Again, how do we measure the doctrines that we hold dear? By Scripture? Yes, BUT, we ALL do that. And the divisions remain. Because of certain abuses by the RCC you can cynically use the phrase 'infallible Pope', but the truth is, we need an infallible guide (and the bishop was historically the one who had -to use a phrase from O'Reilly- 'the last word'.) The Holy Spirit did make Jesus present ("I will be with you always...")to the Church, and guided it through it's development and it's understanding of Scripture and the person and work of God. That's why, IMHO, it's crucial to understand what the early church fathers received/taught. This understanding will lay the foundation for Church unity...

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb]
What is "missing" is the idea of magic sacrament.
An idea that evolved over time according to the RCC.

Actually, your response betrays your bias and lack of knowledge of the early church. The sacraments are not 'magic', they are holy means of grace. Instead of using 'evolved' you should have used the word 'devolved', for that is what you believe. So did Joseph Smith...(think about it)

If churches wish to form higher tier organizations, they may do so. As long as it is understood that the people appointed to higher tier positions have no spiritual authority over the parish pastor.

Ah, 'rugged individualism' rears it's ugly head! Your view has no basis in church history--at least til the days of the Reformation. And this is why we're in the mess we're in. Because there were apostate Popes, you're willing to 'through out the baby with the bathwater'.

And, BTW, how many Pastors really have spiritual authority anyway? Aren't many of them under the control of the 'deacons'?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Jude:
I don't deny that the Holy Spirit teaches the church. Yet, the problem is, we STILL have a divided church, and the division is largely doctrinal. Again, how do we measure the doctrines that we hold dear? By Scripture? Yes, BUT, we ALL do that. And the divisions remain. Because of certain abuses by the RCC you can cynically use the phrase 'infallible Pope', but the truth is, we need an infallible guide

I could not agree more. Hence - God the Holy Spirit - our "infallible Guide". If He is "insufficient" or "not good enough" -- we have a huge problem.

Recall that the Jews of Christ's day were very much tied to "a leader" in the church and very much "divided" between Sadducee and Pharisee when it came to doctrine.

Jude said --
(and the bishop was historically the one who had -to use a phrase from O'Reilly- 'the last word'.)

It is hard to believe that there is anyone alive that does not know that no matter what Christian denomination you belong to - there is ALWAYS a group of leaders at the top telling everyone else what they "think" on every single doctrinal issue.

That is what all groups hold "in common". Just like the Catholics have their bishops and popes telling them that the Protestants are wrong (and telling them why the Eastern Orthodox church is wrong - BTW) - so also each non-Catholic church has it's leaders telling them that the Catholic church is in doctinal error as well as spelling out the differences for every other group as well.

Jude said --
The Holy Spirit did make Jesus present ("I will be with you always...")to the Church, and guided it through it's development

Indeed "even unto the ends of the Earth" - for all time - The Spirit of Christ continues to build up the Church and "lead into all truth".

As the text of 1John 2 so explicitly states.

Jude said That's why, IMHO, it's crucial to understand what the early church fathers received/taught. This understanding will lay the foundation for Church unity...

Indeed - begining with early fathers like Moses and moving on down through church history to Paul and Peter and Matthew - we find the teaching is clear and unity is just as easy for us today as it was for the people reading and listening to Paul in the first century. They did not need to wait a century or two to be "in unity".

But did that mean there were no "divisions" in the first century? We see division in 1Cor 3 - but the cure was to keep coming back to the Bible and the words of Paul.

So it is today.

Having each church simply listen to its own magesterium - does not promote denominational "unity" across churches.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

It is hard to believe that there is anyone alive that does not know that no matter what Christian denomination you belong to - there is ALWAYS a group of leaders at the top telling everyone else what they "think" on every single doctrinal issue.

Bob

Ah! again 'rugged individualism' rears it's ugly head...BEWARE OF MIND CONTROL!!!!!

God gave -through Bishops- the responsibility to guard and proclaim the 'Catholic' faith. They indeed told people, or the church, 'what to think'. In our own baptismal liturgy/confirmation liturgy, we affirm/re-affirm the Nicene Creed. We are told that we must 'think', or rather believe in these things if we are to be a part of the Church, if we are to be saved.

If we don't have this authority, if we don't have someone (a Bishop)telling us 'what to think', then, armed with a Bible, every man will interpret it in his own eyes. And therefore, chaos. And therefore, denominationalism.

 

[Jude]

BTW, 'being told what to think' is not just the practice of one 'denomination'. Aren't, for example, all Baptist ministers 'told what to think'? I mean, would they continue to be Baptist ministers if they believed in infant baptism, and sacraments as a means of grace? I know, for example, in the Assembly of God, a minister must be pre-millenial in view, or he cannot be ordained. He too, is 'told what to think'.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:

If churches wish to form higher tier organizations, they may do so. As long as it is understood that the people appointed to higher tier positions have no spiritual authority over the parish pastor.

Originally posted by Jude:
Ah, 'rugged individualism' rears it's ugly head! Your view has no basis in church history--at least til the days of the Reformation. And this is why we're in the mess we're in. Because there were apostate Popes, you're willing to 'through out the baby with the bathwater'.

And, BTW, how many Pastors really have spiritual authority anyway? Aren't many of them under the control of the 'deacons'?

I agree that many Protestant churches have erred by placing pastors under the spiritual control of deacons or voters assemblies. But the situation is not without precedent. Popes erred by placing priests under the control of bishops.

Bishops, deacons, and voters have useful roles to play in advising and even removing pastors for just cause. But men who been appointed to human offices have no spiritual authority over men who have been called by Christ to preach, baptize, absolve, administer communion, and excommunicate (Office of the Keys). The local pastor or priest is the highest office in the church.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Jude,

You said, 'I don't see where 'passing Popes', or better, the continuation of the office of
Bishop is against Scripture.'

In Revelation chapters one through three, we do not see a Pope ruling over the seven churches of Asia. Each church was autonomous with its own pastor/elder. The Apostle Paul speaks of himself as being an apostle of Jesus Christ, but not like the human, machinations of an ecclesiastical body who invented an earthly pope.

The Apostle Paul made three missionary journeys in establishing and revisiting said churches, but he never proclaimed himself the first pope. Paul the Apostle calls himself a 'servant.' [Romans 1:1]

We have no pattern or example to follow that we should exalt a human man, to be the Vicar of Christ. Pastors/Elders should prefer one another, in love and humility, in the Presence of God and among other Christians. Extending the hand to be kissed is utter foolishness and marks that kind of person as welcoming veneration and some might even say worship.

There is no Scriptural pattern in the Bible that would suggest this kind of undue reverence. God is to be worshiped and not a flesh and blood man or woman.

The office of a bishop is Scriptural. [I Timothy 3:1-4] The office of Pope is what is unBiblical.
The Lord knows all of his pastors and people; there is no purpose to the office of a supreme Pontiff.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:


In Revelation chapters one through three, we do not see a Pope ruling over the seven churches of Asia. Each church was autonomous with its own pastor/elder. The Apostle Paul speaks of himself as being an apostle of Jesus Christ, but not like the human, machinations of an ecclesiastical body who invented an earthly pope...
The office of a bishop is Scriptural. [I Timothy 3:1-4] The office of Pope is what is unBiblical.
The Lord knows all of his pastors and people; there is no purpose to the office of a supreme Pontiff.

Of course, in the development of the Church to that point, elder/bishop was synonomous. Only when the Church grew to unmanageable proportions to the office of Bishop develop in what we have today. I would agree about the "Pope" in the sense that, in my view, he is Bishop of the Roman Church, not the 'Supreme' head of all the Churches. That's one of the things the RCC will have to repent of if unity is to come...

 

[Eric B]

God gave -through Bishops- the responsibility to guard and proclaim the 'Catholic' faith. They indeed told people, or the church, 'what to think'. In our own baptismal liturgy/confirmation liturgy, we affirm/re-affirm the Nicene Creed. We are told that we must 'think', or rather believe in these things if we are to be a part of the Church, if we are to be saved.

If we don't have this authority, if we don't have someone (a Bishop)telling us 'what to think', then, armed with a Bible, every man will interpret it in his own eyes. And therefore, chaos. And therefore, denominationalism.

No, we have the written Word to tell us what to think. Bishops and other leaders were just guides (overseers) to insure that the congregations were maintaining pure doctrine, but no KINGS or other such exalted positions. They were not to make up doctrine and establich new teachings by their own authority (In Christ' name), but that is what we see they began doing, in practice. I you insist on just following what a leader tells you, then what if that leader himself goes corrupt. Well, then, there would be other equal overseers to check that. But with what you seem to be suggesting, and what happened in progress, is if the leader changes or addes new doctrine and practice, then we must assume God changed or added it. (Or God added it all along, but chose not to write it down. NOW how can we know what is truth?) Yeah, the RCC may have maintained somewhat of an institutional homogeneity for a while, but they are really the ones who got the ball of doctrinal confusion with multiple interpretations of scripture rolling.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Jude:
Of course, in the development of the Church to that point, elder/bishop was synonomous. Only when the Church grew to unmanageable proportions to the office of Bishop develop in what we have today. I would agree about the "Pope" in the sense that, in my view, he is Bishop of the Roman Church, not the 'Supreme' head of all the Churches. That's one of the things the RCC will have to repent of if unity is to come...

Please correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall an earlier post where you said apostolic sucession was necessary for the validity of Holy Communion. If the office of Bishop is a later development of human invention, why would you say that apostolic succession is necessary for the validity of sacraments? And why would the ECUSA declare altar fellowship with the ELCA (accept their sacrament) when the ELCA does not have apostolic succession bishops and denies, in the Book of Concord, the necessity for having them?

 

[Jude]

I, and many others, never agreed with any 'altar fellowship' with ELCA. It is contrary to the Anglo-Catholicism of which I am a part. Besides, ELCA is largely apostate. "Valid" is also an interesting term. It can sound quite-snobbish. My view is this-Holy Orders (priests and deacons), ordained (through Bishops that have Apostolic Succ.) by a Bishop, are VALID. Others are 'irregular'. This doesn't mean they aren't clergy, (or aren't churches, for that matter), just 'irregular', not-following the prescribed means of ordination, not in-line with the 'one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'.

You said, "If the office of Bishop is a later development of human invention..." and by doing so, put words in my mouth. Either one believes that the Holy Spirit guided this 'development' or not. I choose to believe so.

Eric also alluded to bishops "... mak(ing) up doctrine and establich new teachings by their own authority," which of course, according to the principles/practice of Catholicity, and the early Church, this was not possible, at least for long.
Of course, these apostate Bishops (like Arius)did do the Church ONE favor--the 'forced' the Church to formulate orthodox doctrines.

Eric also alluded to 'exalted postions'. Of course, there have been Bishops who were anything but servants of the Church. But Bishops should be, as all leaders of the Church, honored and respected.

Again, Eric seems to think that the Bible alone can 'tell us what to think'. The problem, Eric, as I've said a hundred times before, is the question of interpretation of God's inerrant Word.
That is where the magisterium comes in. That is why the notion -read the first page, where I quoted from Vincent and his notion of 'Catholicity' is utterly crucial, and where many Protestants have 'missed the boat'- of Catholicity is important (Wesley understood this, BTW).

Finally, don't confuse 'Catholicity' with being 'Roman Catholic'. The Roman Church certainly did -also- ADD to the Catholic faith (for example, the notion of purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and also the notion of her being a 'mediatrix', mandatory celibacy for clergy, indulgences, etc.), and she must also repent of these things IF the Church is to be re-united.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Jude,

Correct me if I am wrong about what I thought you were saying.

First, you exalt the Magisterium and their attempts to promote true doctrine and then you says this about their decisions.

You said, 'Finally, don't confuse 'Catholicity' with being 'Roman Catholic'. The Roman
Church certainly did -also- ADD to the Catholic faith (for example, the notion
of purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and also the notion of
her being a 'mediatrix', mandatory celibacy for clergy, indulgences, etc.), and
she must also repent of these things IF the Church is to be re-united.'

To me and other non-Roman Catholics we see this as like our Protestant straying people like Pastor Tilton, who apparently likes to talk about money more than that Jesus can forgive the sinner's sins. Pastor Hinn likes to have his crusades so he can built that multi-million dollar home by the water-side.

I am not judging their salvation. Only Almighty God knows if they are in the faith. They clearly seem to have their minds on the checks rather than the Christ.

I see Roman Catholicism's add on theology through the ages as creating great confusion in the people of God who are trying to figure this all out so they have a wise theological understanding. This is why we must always return to the Bible, God's Word, as our only source of authority rather than some contented old men sitting in their 'ivory towers' thinking about some new idea to spawn on the naive and respecting people of God.

In Protestantism the people have the freedom to go to a denomination that they believe has their truth correct and where they can have peace of mind and heart.

Do you believe all of the doctrines and concepts that you wrote above in your paragraph?

Regards . . .

 

[Eric B]

Eric also alluded to bishops "... mak(ing) up doctrine and establich new teachings by their own authority," which of course, according to the principles/practice of Catholicity, and the early Church, this was not possible, at least for long.
Of course, these apostate Bishops (like Arius)did do the Church ONE favor--the 'forced' the Church to formulate orthodox doctrines.

Finally, don't confuse 'Catholicity' with being 'Roman Catholic'. The Roman Church certainly did -also- ADD to the Catholic faith (for example, the notion of purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and also the notion of her being a 'mediatrix', mandatory celibacy for clergy, indulgences, etc.), and she must also repent of these things IF the Church is to be re-united.

I wasn't talking about Arius, but rather the ones whose teachings were accepted as official. But then you don't agree with the RCC on doctrines like the ones you just mentioned, but that is what I had more in mind.

Again, Eric seems to think that the Bible alone can 'tell us what to think'. The problem, Eric, as I've said a hundred times before, is the question of interpretation of God's inerrant Word.
That is where the magisterium comes in.

If we can't agree on God's perfect Word, then how much better will we do with the word of some man, who is fallible, regardless of what anyone says. There are still different branches of the Catholic church (such as Gibson's branch, which rejects the current popes, all the nominals who think they can practice how ever much they want and still be "good" Catholics, etc), and the fact that you acknowledge the the RCC has these wrong doctrines they need to repent of proves that this magisterium is quite fallible and becomes a stumblingblock to the truth when it is exalted as the authority, and not the Bible alone. How are we going to remove these doctrines then, unless they admit thay are fallible interpreters who made a mistake, just like everyone else; including all those hundreds of Protestant bodies.

 

[Jude]

The RCC magisterium has -obviously- departed, in some ways, from the 'Catholic' faith. All I'm saying is that, in order to have visible unity on this earth -and don't say, "well, let's just forget our differences and just worship the Lord"-
every Christian Church needs to re-examine it's practices/doctrines. Somebody IS wrong. Probably we all are. Perhaps also, this is where the Orthodox could be of help...they've been around a LONG time...

 

[Jude]

Q: In your typical local Baptist Church, who has the last word regarding Scripture interpretation, doctrinal matters, or matters of Church polity?
If a member of the staff disagrees with the Pastor regarding any of the above, and uses Scripture to do so, whose interpretation is final? Is their, in fact, a magesterium in the Baptist Church?