Back to Purgatory Pt. 1
Many interesting uncountered points have been left in the depths of the post titled "A Purgatorial Debate" so I'll bring a few to the surface, in separate posts, to make the discussion a bit more transparent.
Regarding my assertion of the commonly held evangelical belief that the Church of God is "invisible" i.e. bigger than any specific organization, Binx wrote: "But, the startling historical and biblical fact remains that this is a distinction that was never posited before Calvin. There is no such distinction in the New Testament, in fact the very opposite emerges clearly. Jesus founded one visible church led by the Apostles."
Would it be tacky of me to add that the idea of individual rights was also not posited in the first century and scripture was used to defend slavery until the 19th century? Yet the Bible, in the hands of social reformers, served as a powerful tool of liberation and today the church remains a bastion of liberty for the oppressed and the helpless. I would suggest that the modern church owes much to the early church for refining and protecting the canon (under God’s direction and protection, I might add) and the early church owes much to the modern church for never being satisfied with the edicts of men, either to limit or to expand the scripture, but have become “workmen approved, rightly dividing the word of God.” Ultimately God is in charge of the process, not the church. The church IS the process.
As for the unity of the first century church, the book of Acts lays out a different scenario, with disputes arising between Paul and Silas. And during Jesus's earthly ministry, when the disciples discovered others, not of their group, casting out demons in Christ's name, Jesus basically said, "It's cool." In 1st Cor. 12 Paul famously describes the church and the distribution of gifts within it as a body of parts, with each part performing a role and some parts more "honored" than others. This seems like a fairly vivid description of the nature of the modern "splintered" church. The problem cited by Paul is not the distinctions between parts, but rather the rivalry or dismissal between them. I suppose these verses could be seen to indicate the need for a number of different types of gifted person within each church. But the analogy also suggests that development of the Body of Christ would transform the homogenous infantile body parts into much more clearly defined, task-oriented parts. In this view, the nailing of Luther's 95 theses to the Wittenberg Cathedral door could be the ecclesiastical equivalent to puberty. Calvin may have simply been stating what had become obvious to him and others.
Another image often used in the Bible to describe the relationship between God and man is a family. Perhaps the modern church is a bit like the Prodigal Son and the grand Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are like the faithful son who resented the father’s easy reacceptance of such a wastrel. The Catholic Church underwent a reformation (like it or not) and the Protestant church is probably due one as well. Some say that's what the evangelical movement is all about.
Regarding my assertion of the commonly held evangelical belief that the Church of God is "invisible" i.e. bigger than any specific organization, Binx wrote: "But, the startling historical and biblical fact remains that this is a distinction that was never posited before Calvin. There is no such distinction in the New Testament, in fact the very opposite emerges clearly. Jesus founded one visible church led by the Apostles."
Would it be tacky of me to add that the idea of individual rights was also not posited in the first century and scripture was used to defend slavery until the 19th century? Yet the Bible, in the hands of social reformers, served as a powerful tool of liberation and today the church remains a bastion of liberty for the oppressed and the helpless. I would suggest that the modern church owes much to the early church for refining and protecting the canon (under God’s direction and protection, I might add) and the early church owes much to the modern church for never being satisfied with the edicts of men, either to limit or to expand the scripture, but have become “workmen approved, rightly dividing the word of God.” Ultimately God is in charge of the process, not the church. The church IS the process.
As for the unity of the first century church, the book of Acts lays out a different scenario, with disputes arising between Paul and Silas. And during Jesus's earthly ministry, when the disciples discovered others, not of their group, casting out demons in Christ's name, Jesus basically said, "It's cool." In 1st Cor. 12 Paul famously describes the church and the distribution of gifts within it as a body of parts, with each part performing a role and some parts more "honored" than others. This seems like a fairly vivid description of the nature of the modern "splintered" church. The problem cited by Paul is not the distinctions between parts, but rather the rivalry or dismissal between them. I suppose these verses could be seen to indicate the need for a number of different types of gifted person within each church. But the analogy also suggests that development of the Body of Christ would transform the homogenous infantile body parts into much more clearly defined, task-oriented parts. In this view, the nailing of Luther's 95 theses to the Wittenberg Cathedral door could be the ecclesiastical equivalent to puberty. Calvin may have simply been stating what had become obvious to him and others.
Another image often used in the Bible to describe the relationship between God and man is a family. Perhaps the modern church is a bit like the Prodigal Son and the grand Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions are like the faithful son who resented the father’s easy reacceptance of such a wastrel. The Catholic Church underwent a reformation (like it or not) and the Protestant church is probably due one as well. Some say that's what the evangelical movement is all about.
posted by Rick Broussard at 9:54 AM
4 Comments:
"Ultimately God is in charge of the process, not the church. The church IS the process"...I love these words. It's about time we woke up to that fact...........
Rick, I don't disagree (exactly) with much of what you say above.
The Roman Catholic Church defines the overall concept of Christ's "church" as three distinct but "inseparable" concepts: the liturgical assembly, the local community and the "whole universal community of believers." The document Sacrosanctum concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1963) says: "The Church is both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and the this present world to the city yet to come, the object of our quest."
The dispute over what Church is and isn't, often seems to me a roundabout way to get at (or avoid, or set up a straw man to whack at) the heart of the contention -- which is teaching authority and the preservation of the faith as Jesus taught it to his apostles.
Rick:
Yes it would be tacky. The fact that the writings that make up the New Testament are silent regarding slavery speaks absolutely zero regarding the nature of the church.
There is no doubt that the Christian concept of the equality of men before God is the basis for the eventual end of slavery in the west, but that is totally beside the point.
The question is: Did Jesus found one Church and what does he intend for that Church?
The fact that there are disagreements between individual believers also has nothing to do with the unity of the Church. Paul and Silas may have disagreed but neither one separated from the Church and founded his own sect!
The better examples that pertain directly to the issue at hand are Pual's harsh criticisms of the sectarian tendencies in Corinth and the unifying decision of the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Acts. 1 Corinthians 3 is unconditional in its condemnation of sectarianism. You could just as easily replace 'I follow Paul" and "I follow Apollos" with "I follow Luther" and "I follow Calvin".
The Council of Jerusalem is a perfect example of the heirarchical nature of the Leadership of the Church that the Lord intended in order to secure unity. The 'apostles and elders' gathered and rendered a decision that was binding for all the Church for all time. The Council of Nicea is a continuation of the exercise of that same leadership. A divinely instituted leadership.
It seems to me that you continue to put forth scenarios that might be plausible but just don't face what really happened and what is really true, which is all that matters. One is tempted to ask if the truth is compelling for you?
Do you really think that the Lord founded more than one Church? or that he intends for their to be the manifest disunity among those who claim to be Christian? The Church existed as one for ten centuries after Christ ascended. It maintained a form that was organically consistent with the primitive church. How can one simply abandon that Church and put in it's place the creation of men?
Is the Holy Spirit that Author is sectarianism? of the founding of churches in opposition to the One Church, the Body of Christ? (for you must understand this term as Paul would have meant it and as the church for over a thousand years understood it, not as a 20th century denizen who accepts the plurality of the church as normal would take it to mean)
Rick, I must say, I had to struggle through all of these issues, but I realized I wanted to know the truth and that I had to face all of this with a just disposition. I really don't want to just argue, if you really aren't fundamentally open to the Catholic Church being right and trying to determine whether that might be true, then I will surely quietly disappear.
Warmest Regards
Binx, a couple of thoughts on your response to Rick... While I'm guessing we agree theologically on this issue, I'm struck by when you said this: "One is tempted to ask if the truth is compelling for you?" This seems to imply that one can make an apologetic argument and the person on the other side will, if they are sincere, do some sort of metaphysical math problem and automatically come to the same conclusion as you have. Peter Kreeft points out in his book on the subject that apologetics is more like fencing than dropping bombs: the weapon (argument) is an extension of the wielder, not an independent agent that can be turned loose for guaranteed results. I'm not sure that questioning somebody's integrity when they don't accept our arguments is a charitable or useful apologetic tactic...
Later you said: "I really don't want to just argue, if you really aren't fundamentally open to the Catholic Church being right and trying to determine whether that might be true, then I will surely quietly disappear."
If our only intention in ecumenical discussion is conversion of the other party, it seems to me we miss the opportunity to deepen our own faith through the explanation and defense of it, and through the perspectives offered by deeply faithful Christians of other traditions. If we as Catholics believe (and the Catechism says we do) that there is truth in other traditions, and other faiths entirely, then we must believe that dialogue with people from those traditions has things to offer us beyond a conversion.
And finally, can we honestly expect many people from other traditions (other than those seeking change to begin with) to join in ecumenical discussions if our prerequisite is that they be willing to change their beliefs while we remain steadfast in ours? I wouldn't agree to that criteria...
Respectfully,
Ernesto
Post a Comment
<< Home