Ecclesiadicy
Sep 6, 2012
Leroy Huizenga
Bad Bishops have been blasted throughout Christian history. St. John Chrysostom is supposed to have said, “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops” (though he never used the precise phrase). In the Middle Ages in Germany near Bingen am Rhein, a legend arose about Bishop Hatto. Having summoned the poor to buy bread from him at prohibitive prices, he instead locked them in a barn, informed them they would die like rats, and set the barn alight. Hatto awoke in the night to find his portrait devoured by rodents, upon which a servant informed him a great mischief of mice was fast on the way to the palace. In terror Hatto saddled his steed, rode to the river, boarded a boat, and rowed to a redoubt, a stone tower. The rats remained undeterred. They devoured the Bishop’s horse, swam the river, besieged the tower, gnawed through doors and windows, and gorged themselves on the Bishop’s corpulent flesh. To this day the tower is thus called the Mäuseturm, the Mouse Tower, in memory of the demise of a most wicked bishop.
Bishop Hatto, chroniclers and historians agree, was falsely maligned. But the legend reflects medieval discontent with the episcopacy. In our own times, the misjudgment and malfeasance of many bishops is not legendary but all too real. Much criticism is justified; the pedophilia and ephebophilia scandals of the last decade are the obvious example here. Some is not, as when critics excoriate Cardinal Dolan for inviting both presidential candidates to the Al Smith dinner.
For while many bishops are rightly famous for their incompetence, ineptitude, and infidelity, many more are not. Many have led quotidian, quiet lives of prayer and management, minding their dioceses and attempting to lead lives of Christian fidelity and charity. Just as we never hear about planes that take off and land safely, we are never confronted with news of bishops who fulfill their offices with quiet honor. All too often, however, real scandal erupts, whether a sin against good morals, a crime against others, or a failure to teach the Faith.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is episcopal in structure; on earth it is marked out by bishops standing in succession going back to the apostles and Jesus who chose them, and thus to God himself, incarnate in Jesus. (Other churches also hold this ecclesiology.) It’s an ancient idea found in the first century in Pope St. Clement’s First Letter to the Corinthians. Catholic ecclesiology is much more than apostolic succession, of course: It’s also the Church triumphant and baptized Christians outside the bounds of the Roman communion. But the Catholic Church does hold fast to apostolic succession.
Apostolic succession is something I had to think about deeply when I was considering conversion to Catholicism. If the Church is marked out by bishops, shouldn’t bishops be better? A fortiori I had to ask, if the Pope of Rome is the supreme head of the Church on earth, the vicar of Christ himself, what do I do with the Borgias? It’s a bit embarrassing when the papacy becomes effectively a dynasty. Many friends I talk to are interested in Catholicism to some degree but claim (I think honestly) that bad bishops hold them back. One person who’s part of an email list with me recently wrote something to the effect of, “If more bishops acted with a spine like Bishop X, then I could become Catholic.”
I’m an Augustinian at heart, since I first read parts of The City of God as a youth, and was raised Lutheran, so nothing produced from the darkness of human nature in Christian or pagan man surprises me, whether grave sin or major omission or simple misjudgment. Hurts, yes; angers, yes; disappoints, yes; frustrates, yes; but scandalizes? No. Bishops are human, and will err and sin in all sorts of ways. And unless one is going to dispense with organized Christianity altogether—an option neither Jesus nor the New Testament leave open for us—someone has to mess up administrating a church. It may be a Baptist congregation that votes wrongly on something of import. It may be a presbytery or a General Assembly affirming heresy and immorality with eager ebullience. It may be a congregation’s church council covering up crimes.
The ultimate issue for those who take seriously the question of which Christian communion they should belong to, I think, is not which ecclesial structure evinces the most holiness yesterday and today. Rather, the proper question is this: What structure has God willed? For me, I came to believe that God through Christ willed the episcopal structure with the bishop of Rome at its head, though others will of course come to different conclusions. I would thus affirm apologist Frank Sheed’s sober words:
We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope (John Paul II), but even if I criticized him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the church, although I might well wish that they would leave.
The issue of sin in the historic hierarchy is a matter of what I’d call ecclesiadicy (a most cumbersome term indeed). By it I mean an attempt to justify the concept of apostolic succession in light of episcopal sin in the same way theodicy concerns attempt to justify an all-good, all-loving God in the face of profound human suffering. Put another way, if one can believe in God after Auschwitz, one could also believe in the Church after whatever scandal. It’s not so simple, of course, for those who have experienced real trauma at the hands of hierarchs or for others who are rightly enraged thereby. There we have an existential issue, and may God grant them peace.
Leroy Huizenga is Director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota. His personal website is LeroyHuizenga.com. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.6.2012 | 3:50am
Russell Belding says:
Thanks Leroy for the friendly way you have presented this topic. I worship at a Baptist church. I have seen Christians from several groups making mistakes. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Anglicans I can think of easily. So have I.
"What structure has God willed?" I will dispense with your context as I think it is secondary. God wills that we love each other and manage relations between our groups well, so as to reflect our Lord's love for us.
"What structure has God willed?" I will dispense with your context as I think it is secondary. God wills that we love each other and manage relations between our groups well, so as to reflect our Lord's love for us.
9.6.2012 | 9:05am
patricksarsfield says:
The author asks the wrong question when he poses the Ecclesiology question as: "What structure has God willed?" As though Christ founded a bunch of churches and said to them: "talk amongst yourselves and try to guess which structure I will you to have."
The Bible is clear that Christ founded only one Church and did it in the First Century AD. So, our task is a far simpler matter of History: What Church was founded BY God in the First Century AD and how has it structured itself? BTW, the answer to "how it structured itself" cannot be found sola scriptura because the Church has been around for the past 1990 or so years and it has had to adapt itself to a lot of changes and a lot of attacks by the ever grasping states in which it finds itself.
Scripture does provide some insight into the early structuring of the Church, though. Matt. 28:18-20 and Acts 15 show it was a universal church, in which the central authority exercised during Peter's long period of exile once he escaped Herod's jail nevertheless controlled doctrine applicable not just to Jerusalem or Antioch but to all churches that received the decrees of the central authority (see Acts 16:1-5).
And the Church has chosen to define as Scripture a writing that shows that it has had a structure of bishops ordained by the apostles and entrusted with the preaching mission and the duty to pass on the deposit of faith to others who would preach the same message right from the start. That structure is clearly shown in Paul's instructions to his suffragan bishop Timothy at the very dawn of the Age of the Church (2 Tim. 1: 5-7; 13-14; 2:1-2).
The Bible is clear that Christ founded only one Church and did it in the First Century AD. So, our task is a far simpler matter of History: What Church was founded BY God in the First Century AD and how has it structured itself? BTW, the answer to "how it structured itself" cannot be found sola scriptura because the Church has been around for the past 1990 or so years and it has had to adapt itself to a lot of changes and a lot of attacks by the ever grasping states in which it finds itself.
Scripture does provide some insight into the early structuring of the Church, though. Matt. 28:18-20 and Acts 15 show it was a universal church, in which the central authority exercised during Peter's long period of exile once he escaped Herod's jail nevertheless controlled doctrine applicable not just to Jerusalem or Antioch but to all churches that received the decrees of the central authority (see Acts 16:1-5).
And the Church has chosen to define as Scripture a writing that shows that it has had a structure of bishops ordained by the apostles and entrusted with the preaching mission and the duty to pass on the deposit of faith to others who would preach the same message right from the start. That structure is clearly shown in Paul's instructions to his suffragan bishop Timothy at the very dawn of the Age of the Church (2 Tim. 1: 5-7; 13-14; 2:1-2).
9.6.2012 | 9:45am
J. Bob says:
Great article. It brings home the fact that the Church has a human element, with it's faults. Just look at the first Pope.
However like most things, the "squeaking wheel gets the press, while the ones who continue to quietly work, day in & day out, get little notice.
However like most things, the "squeaking wheel gets the press, while the ones who continue to quietly work, day in & day out, get little notice.
9.6.2012 | 10:07am
euphemos says:
@Michael Liccione - This argument was instrumental in my own reconciliation with the Church, but I didn't realize the source. Thank you for pointing out Cardinal Consalvi!
@patricksarsfield - I don't think the author asks the wrong question at all. His point is exactly your point. There is only one structure Christ instituted, and wasn't it good of him to select the repentant denier Peter as his first Vicar in order to set the example that we are, as Mr. Belding points out, called to manage relations as Christ did, with love that is patient with the faults of others, kind in correcting them, and covers a multitude of sins.
@Russell Belding - Is managing relations the same as love? Equivalent to unity? I would propose that love is intended to be neither amicable separation nor divorce, but unity. This morning I misspoke during a conversation with my wife, but when I offered a correction, she was surprised, as she "knew what I meant" and hadn't even heard the misstatement. That's the kind of love we need, not the kind that says "We still love one another, but we just can't live together."
@patricksarsfield - I don't think the author asks the wrong question at all. His point is exactly your point. There is only one structure Christ instituted, and wasn't it good of him to select the repentant denier Peter as his first Vicar in order to set the example that we are, as Mr. Belding points out, called to manage relations as Christ did, with love that is patient with the faults of others, kind in correcting them, and covers a multitude of sins.
@Russell Belding - Is managing relations the same as love? Equivalent to unity? I would propose that love is intended to be neither amicable separation nor divorce, but unity. This morning I misspoke during a conversation with my wife, but when I offered a correction, she was surprised, as she "knew what I meant" and hadn't even heard the misstatement. That's the kind of love we need, not the kind that says "We still love one another, but we just can't live together."
9.6.2012 | 11:38am
David M says:
This is a very good read. I love the tone of the article: very honest. It is unfortunately very true that sin has stood the test of time. As Christians, it's up to us to perfect ourselves through the many virtues. This is why it's difficult to cope with the imperfections of our spiritual leaders, because they not only teach us about virtue, but are supposed to be able to practice through the knowledge of its effects. We hold them to a high standard, and I think rightly. One expects the expert to live like an expert.
9.6.2012 | 12:15pm
Thomas Murray says:
A Church that was able to survive the rioting pro- and against Arianism, as well as the machinations against Athanasius, will be able to weather the present storms.
9.6.2012 | 12:54pm
arty says:
Would that everyone could muster up the unblinking certainty partickarsfield's comment illustrates. Then, there would be no need for Huizenga's article at all, and I could be free of my tendency to wonder whether or not the presence of the Borgia popes (for instance) implies some deeper structural problem, or whether this is simply a rotten apple inside a structurally sound barrel. Count me skeptical as to the proposition that Christ intended to found a particular structure, when all of them have any number of theoretical advantages and practical disadvantages, and all of which tend to cancel each other out. God doesn't just make arbitrary decrees-and if one structural model is God-ordained, then there ought to be clearly visible signs that that structure produces superior states of belief/practice among its adherents.
Not seeing it, myself, but then I guess I wouldn't, not having been blessed with the grace of 100 % certainty.
Not seeing it, myself, but then I guess I wouldn't, not having been blessed with the grace of 100 % certainty.
9.6.2012 | 12:57pm
Hen says:
If in the hypothetical circumstance where we wouldn't have bishops, isn't it safe to say that the role of the average priest would take on a greater measure of enchancement? The workings of such priest's self image itself might be a very big plus. There just are not that many RJ Neuhaus's out there at the moment, though many do have the potential.
9.6.2012 | 1:10pm
Adam Baum says:
"I’m an Augustinian at heart, since I first read parts of The City of God as a youth, and was raised Lutheran, so nothing produced from the darkness of human nature in Christian or pagan man surprises me, whether grave sin or major omission or simple misjudgment. Hurts, yes; angers, yes; disappoints, yes; frustrates, yes; but scandalizes?"
I have never understood the appeal of Luther, philosophically. In his writings, he continually posited the concept of the absolute depravity of humanity, but when confronted by clerical error and sin, his response was frenzied indignation and remarkable self delusion.
Today, we are still feeling the effects of his theological novelties-most especially his thoughts on marriage as a civil contract rather than a Sacrament ordained by God. It was this theological novelty (along with Henry the Eighth's subordination of marriage to statecraft) that allows the state to arrogate to itself a power to dissolve and deform marriage. For any Protestant- who understands this to be wrong, reflecting on Luther's position on marriage, it should give them pause when accepting his other ideas.
I have never understood the appeal of Luther, philosophically. In his writings, he continually posited the concept of the absolute depravity of humanity, but when confronted by clerical error and sin, his response was frenzied indignation and remarkable self delusion.
Today, we are still feeling the effects of his theological novelties-most especially his thoughts on marriage as a civil contract rather than a Sacrament ordained by God. It was this theological novelty (along with Henry the Eighth's subordination of marriage to statecraft) that allows the state to arrogate to itself a power to dissolve and deform marriage. For any Protestant- who understands this to be wrong, reflecting on Luther's position on marriage, it should give them pause when accepting his other ideas.
9.6.2012 | 1:38pm
Brian LeCompte says:
I find the miracles attributed to the saints of the Catholic church more compelling than the endurance of the Church as proof of the Divine Hand. As time marches on and more groups remain, the long-life of Catholicism is less impressive.
Ask yourself why the Church has miracles when other non-Christian religions do not. Do Protestant churches have miracles? I have heard of some, but they don't scientifically record them like the Catholic Church.
Ask yourself why the Church has miracles when other non-Christian religions do not. Do Protestant churches have miracles? I have heard of some, but they don't scientifically record them like the Catholic Church.
9.6.2012 | 3:19pm
Don Roberto says:
The Church, it seems to me, should be more willing to "bind," or at least to impose extraordinary penances for extraordinarily hurtful sins. Meekness is good, but in the way of Jesus and Elijah, not in the way of Neville Chamberlain and those, including some priests, who essentially think all opinions are equally valid.
arty and Russel: partickarsfield is blessed with pius faith—would that more people in this doubting age were. To your desire for a sign that the Church is what Jesus wanted, one comes to mind quickly: w/o a place for the buck to stop (the Magisterium), it's inevitable that interpretations will vary and drift will occur and pretty soon there wil be tens of thousands of churches, with often significantly conflicting beliefs. (An extreme example is that apparently Obama's church, whatever that is, thinks abortion is okay.) Seems like clear evidence of the soundness of the Sacred Edifice, of which Christ is the cornerstone, to me. †
arty and Russel: partickarsfield is blessed with pius faith—would that more people in this doubting age were. To your desire for a sign that the Church is what Jesus wanted, one comes to mind quickly: w/o a place for the buck to stop (the Magisterium), it's inevitable that interpretations will vary and drift will occur and pretty soon there wil be tens of thousands of churches, with often significantly conflicting beliefs. (An extreme example is that apparently Obama's church, whatever that is, thinks abortion is okay.) Seems like clear evidence of the soundness of the Sacred Edifice, of which Christ is the cornerstone, to me. †
9.6.2012 | 5:16pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello Euphemos - you ask about love, unity and living together as Christians. There are good and unhappy examples we both could surface asking each other for responses. I agree with you comment that love should lead to unity not an amicable divorce followed by friendship. Please consider my response. In our best dreams how would you implement a reunion of the separated Christian groups? Suppose we agree to a seven year roadmap from a beginning in 2013 to a celebration in 2020. How would the following scenario in 2012 be different in 2020?
In my North Shore or Auckland community the Baptist church welcomes any Catholic believer from St Johns Catholic from across the road, to its communion service as full participants. Should I attend Mass at St Johns I am welcome to be present but not partake.
In my North Shore or Auckland community the Baptist church welcomes any Catholic believer from St Johns Catholic from across the road, to its communion service as full participants. Should I attend Mass at St Johns I am welcome to be present but not partake.
9.6.2012 | 7:14pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello Don Roberto
I appreciate your concern about proper lines of authority in the Body of Chris, and who is responsible for what. The proliferation of groups under the protestant heading is shameful. Lets reflect a little as the implementation of a good structure might not delivery all it is supposed to deliver. You have mentioned "Obama's church" in a negative sense.
In the DNC talk by Nancy Pelosi she supported the idea of a woman being able abort her child under the noble sounding "reproductive health" banner. Would I be right in saying "Pelosi's church, whatever that is, thinks abortion is okay."?
I would not be, as the Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. Might this parallel example show your analysis needs some work? Perhaps we could ask and answer "What is the problem we are addressing?"
I appreciate your concern about proper lines of authority in the Body of Chris, and who is responsible for what. The proliferation of groups under the protestant heading is shameful. Lets reflect a little as the implementation of a good structure might not delivery all it is supposed to deliver. You have mentioned "Obama's church" in a negative sense.
In the DNC talk by Nancy Pelosi she supported the idea of a woman being able abort her child under the noble sounding "reproductive health" banner. Would I be right in saying "Pelosi's church, whatever that is, thinks abortion is okay."?
I would not be, as the Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. Might this parallel example show your analysis needs some work? Perhaps we could ask and answer "What is the problem we are addressing?"
9.6.2012 | 8:36pm
Mark VA says:
One question to consider is this:
Which ecclesiastical structure has proven itself capable of forming an effective mediating layer between the people, and a civil structure that seeks to rule, rather than serve? In other words, can a Church form a shield to protect the people, as well as guide them, when the times call for such protection?
Serious students of the twentieth century know that there is an answer to this question, and that it is affirmative. This should not be surprising, since the Founder of this Church also promised not to leave us orphaned.
On a lighter note, an army of mice devouring a tyrant who barricaded himself in a tower, is a very old European legend, with many variants. Sometimes it's a bad king (Popiel), a count (Graaf), or some other person of profound evil.
Which ecclesiastical structure has proven itself capable of forming an effective mediating layer between the people, and a civil structure that seeks to rule, rather than serve? In other words, can a Church form a shield to protect the people, as well as guide them, when the times call for such protection?
Serious students of the twentieth century know that there is an answer to this question, and that it is affirmative. This should not be surprising, since the Founder of this Church also promised not to leave us orphaned.
On a lighter note, an army of mice devouring a tyrant who barricaded himself in a tower, is a very old European legend, with many variants. Sometimes it's a bad king (Popiel), a count (Graaf), or some other person of profound evil.
9.6.2012 | 9:13pm
medchua says:
reading the main article at first things is not enough. i must read the comments as well which are as insightful as the main article. congratulations to all of you!
9.6.2012 | 9:43pm
Edwin says:
Leroy, Newman made this argument--I can't remember where, but it may have been in _Anglican Difficulties_. He says that the problem of sin in the Church is simply a subset of the bigger problem of evil.
9.6.2012 | 10:47pm
Russell Belding says:
More from the DNC today ...
At this convention Nancy Pelosi, Caroline Kennedy, and Joe Biden gave support to abortion on demand under the friendly sounding cause of a woman's "right to choose" and "reproductive health". Joe Biden was over the top in announcing "Our only truly sacred duty as a Nation ..." is to care for hurting soldiers, soon after supporting such abortion. Other Christian persons outside the Catholic church also gave support to abortion under innocuous sounding phrases. I do not support unqualified abortion. (In cases of rape and clear danger to the mother I could support abortion ... but that is another discussion.)
Those Christian persons supporting unqualified abortion might have reasons for doing so we do not understand. Having not heard from them about such reasons I am guessing they are surfing waves of popular sentiment and in a pragmatic way place their political party above any loyalty to our Lord and His desires.
From these and other examples a problem discussed here is not "What ecclesial structure am I part of" but rather the effectiveness of each of our Christian communities in help bind us to Christ. The task before us as disciples is not first promoting my team as the only good and true team but being and doing the work of Christians. We can pray and hope for visible unity as well.
At this convention Nancy Pelosi, Caroline Kennedy, and Joe Biden gave support to abortion on demand under the friendly sounding cause of a woman's "right to choose" and "reproductive health". Joe Biden was over the top in announcing "Our only truly sacred duty as a Nation ..." is to care for hurting soldiers, soon after supporting such abortion. Other Christian persons outside the Catholic church also gave support to abortion under innocuous sounding phrases. I do not support unqualified abortion. (In cases of rape and clear danger to the mother I could support abortion ... but that is another discussion.)
Those Christian persons supporting unqualified abortion might have reasons for doing so we do not understand. Having not heard from them about such reasons I am guessing they are surfing waves of popular sentiment and in a pragmatic way place their political party above any loyalty to our Lord and His desires.
From these and other examples a problem discussed here is not "What ecclesial structure am I part of" but rather the effectiveness of each of our Christian communities in help bind us to Christ. The task before us as disciples is not first promoting my team as the only good and true team but being and doing the work of Christians. We can pray and hope for visible unity as well.
9.6.2012 | 11:21pm
Adam Baum says:
"Should I attend Mass at St Johns I am welcome to be present but not partake."
And?
And?
9.7.2012 | 3:43am
Russell Belding says:
Hello Adam
There is no "and" part. I described a scenario and invited comment following the 2020 reunification ... in our best dreams.
There is no "and" part. I described a scenario and invited comment following the 2020 reunification ... in our best dreams.
9.7.2012 | 12:28pm
FW Ken says:
I think of eclesiology as evangelism to the future. What structure is likely to preserve the Church, which bears the Gospel of Christ across all places and all times?
9.7.2012 | 1:53pm
Don Roberto says:
Russell, unless I'm missing something, Nancy Pelosi, God help her, is a heretic (insofar as she has repeatedly and publicly spread false dogma, despite warnings from her bishops) and has thus Excommunicated herself; her views are certainly not those of the Church. My reference was to the actual tenets of the myriad sects that inevitably arise when anyone thinks he and his followers can establish a unique ecclesial community.
As to being unable to partake, that's too simple. Catholics who are not in a state of grace are not allowed to partake of Holy Communion, either—doing so is a mortal sin (cough, cough, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, [insert first name] Kennedy, et al—may God in His infinite mercy forgive them, though there is no reason why they should not be perfectly aware of what they do). But Jesus is present in His Word, and all can partake in the Liturgy, which, handed down from Saint Peter and the rest of the apostles through an unbroken chain of (imperfect) Vicars, is the most perfect prayer we can offer in this world. †
As to being unable to partake, that's too simple. Catholics who are not in a state of grace are not allowed to partake of Holy Communion, either—doing so is a mortal sin (cough, cough, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebelius, [insert first name] Kennedy, et al—may God in His infinite mercy forgive them, though there is no reason why they should not be perfectly aware of what they do). But Jesus is present in His Word, and all can partake in the Liturgy, which, handed down from Saint Peter and the rest of the apostles through an unbroken chain of (imperfect) Vicars, is the most perfect prayer we can offer in this world. †
9.7.2012 | 2:38pm
Lorraine says:
"Michael Liccione says:
"If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?"—Cardinal Ercole Consalvi to Napoleon Bonaparte.
To my mind, one of the better arguments for the divine origin of the Catholic Church is how she manages to survive her leadership."
And to my mind, it IS the best argument, and the one thing that has kept me in the Church. Any Church that has withstood two thousand years of leadership by human beings without collapsing, has to be Divine in nature and the one true Church.
"If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?"—Cardinal Ercole Consalvi to Napoleon Bonaparte.
To my mind, one of the better arguments for the divine origin of the Catholic Church is how she manages to survive her leadership."
And to my mind, it IS the best argument, and the one thing that has kept me in the Church. Any Church that has withstood two thousand years of leadership by human beings without collapsing, has to be Divine in nature and the one true Church.
9.7.2012 | 2:40pm
Chris Rideout says:
I am an Episcopalian who is attracted to the new ordinariates for former Anglicans. We, obviously, have had some batty bishops ourselves, again, not all, not most, but some certainly. The Roman Catholic Church claims both that there is a church that Christ, through Peter, established, and that it is that church. For a non-Roman Catholic, this is a serious claim, and not one to be either accepted easily or tossed aside carelessly. What bothers me is that so many (probably not most) bishops seem to be uninterested or unable to act in accordance with this belief. The Vatileaks documents show a fractious bureaucracy seemingly unaware of Whom they serve. If the Roman Catholic bishops cannot take its divine charter seriously, why should others?
9.7.2012 | 4:18pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello FW Ken
I suppose you have in mind the structure you prefer? We construct buildings using many structures, each suited to the purposes to be achieved. You have been in different buidings for different purposes? "Evangelism to the future" is a good phrase. Reminds me of a story about a lost lamb.
I suppose you have in mind the structure you prefer? We construct buildings using many structures, each suited to the purposes to be achieved. You have been in different buidings for different purposes? "Evangelism to the future" is a good phrase. Reminds me of a story about a lost lamb.
9.7.2012 | 6:51pm
Joseph D'Hippolito says:
Huizenga asked the wrong question. It's not whether Christ preferred or ordained a particular structure. It's whether those who hold authority in His name are faithful to their calling. For centuries, the Catholic hierarchy has acted as if it sacrificed its calling on the altar of power, wealth, secular prestige, careerist ambition, medieval theatrics and a fundamental sense of entitlement that isolates the prelates from the clergy and lower laity.
If the bishops really view themselves as successors of the apostles, then where is the holy fear and awe that should accompany such successors? I maintain that it has long been lost amid such events as the "papal pronocracy" of a millenium ago.
Neither Jesus nor His disciples modeled any of this behavior. Read John 13. When did Jesus wash their feet? After they were arguing about who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven! Why did He do it? To show them that those who hold authority in His name must be willing to renounce all personal comfort, let alone ambition, to serve others.
Tell me, which Catholic prelates embody that attitude? Given the nature of the system, can any of them?
Catholic prelates seem to mirror their counterparts in the former Soviet nomenklatura: concerned with maintaining perks, privilege and influence at the expense of the people it claimed to serve, reacting defensively to any thought of increased openness and accountability.
Most Catholics seem to believe that their prelates are beyond divine judgement. Well, read Ezekiel 34. That prophet railed against “false shepherds” long before Catholicism came on the scene. Read 1 Samuel 2: 12-36 about God’s judgement against the high priest Eli and his sons.
Read, also, about Pope Leo XIII’s vision about the satanic destruction of the Church.
Regardless of the behavior of individual priests and laymen, the Catholic ecclesiastical system is pervasively and irredeemably corrupt. Only mass repentence on the part of the leadership can save it. That repentence must include renouncing all of the unseemly traits I mentioned above.
If the bishops really view themselves as successors of the apostles, then where is the holy fear and awe that should accompany such successors? I maintain that it has long been lost amid such events as the "papal pronocracy" of a millenium ago.
Neither Jesus nor His disciples modeled any of this behavior. Read John 13. When did Jesus wash their feet? After they were arguing about who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven! Why did He do it? To show them that those who hold authority in His name must be willing to renounce all personal comfort, let alone ambition, to serve others.
Tell me, which Catholic prelates embody that attitude? Given the nature of the system, can any of them?
Catholic prelates seem to mirror their counterparts in the former Soviet nomenklatura: concerned with maintaining perks, privilege and influence at the expense of the people it claimed to serve, reacting defensively to any thought of increased openness and accountability.
Most Catholics seem to believe that their prelates are beyond divine judgement. Well, read Ezekiel 34. That prophet railed against “false shepherds” long before Catholicism came on the scene. Read 1 Samuel 2: 12-36 about God’s judgement against the high priest Eli and his sons.
Read, also, about Pope Leo XIII’s vision about the satanic destruction of the Church.
Regardless of the behavior of individual priests and laymen, the Catholic ecclesiastical system is pervasively and irredeemably corrupt. Only mass repentence on the part of the leadership can save it. That repentence must include renouncing all of the unseemly traits I mentioned above.
9.7.2012 | 9:15pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello Don Roberto
Nancy, Joe and Caroline are loved by God, an opinion forms from listening to Jesus' words. The wheat and weeds story is severe in consequences for the disobedient. What is not clear is how the Lord discerns who is what and the granularity of His discernment. How much detail does He assess? While in different Christian ecclesial structures, you Catholic and me Baptist, we have similar concerns and a common problem. How do we encourage our brothers and sisters to bind more to Christ than to their political parties? What can you say to Caroline Kennedy to request she view life beginning at conception. What can I say you Bill Clinton to in all circumstances love his wife and treat interns with respect?
Having the true ecclesial structure does not solve all problems. Demonstrating courage (rebuking?) and love (rescuing orphans) might achieve more than having a proper ecclesial framework?
Nancy, Joe and Caroline are loved by God, an opinion forms from listening to Jesus' words. The wheat and weeds story is severe in consequences for the disobedient. What is not clear is how the Lord discerns who is what and the granularity of His discernment. How much detail does He assess? While in different Christian ecclesial structures, you Catholic and me Baptist, we have similar concerns and a common problem. How do we encourage our brothers and sisters to bind more to Christ than to their political parties? What can you say to Caroline Kennedy to request she view life beginning at conception. What can I say you Bill Clinton to in all circumstances love his wife and treat interns with respect?
Having the true ecclesial structure does not solve all problems. Demonstrating courage (rebuking?) and love (rescuing orphans) might achieve more than having a proper ecclesial framework?
9.8.2012 | 3:12pm
FW Ken says:
The form of church governance that preserves the Church is the one "I prefer". Where are the Montanist,, Socinian, and Arian Churches today?
9.8.2012 | 6:29pm
patricksarsfield says:
arty writes:
"Would that everyone could muster up the unblinking certainty partickarsfield's comment illustrates. Then, there would be no need for Huizenga's article at all, and I could be free of my tendency to wonder whether or not the presence of the Borgia popes (for instance) implies some deeper structural problem, or whether this is simply a rotten apple inside a structurally sound barrel. Count me skeptical as to the proposition that Christ intended to found a particular structure"
God did not "will a structure," He "built [His] Church" and He did it in History, specifically in the First Century AD. SOURCE? Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15 et seq.; and the entireties of the Books of Acts and the Epistles. So, we can eliminate all churches (or "structures" if you prefer that nebulous term) that were not founded in the First Century AD (whoosh to Protestantism).
As to the relative handful of churches with a First Century provenance (viz., The Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Independent Churches), we need, of course, to go extra scriptura to understand their competing claims to which is Christ's Church (actually, I believe, they are all parts of Christ's Holy Catholic Church). I deem the continued schism an internecine dispute and lay the blame for continuing division primarily at the feet of the secular overlords of the Eastern Churches (most importantly, that First Sultan of Rum) who backed out of the last carefully structured reunion at the Council of Florence-Ferrara.
"Would that everyone could muster up the unblinking certainty partickarsfield's comment illustrates. Then, there would be no need for Huizenga's article at all, and I could be free of my tendency to wonder whether or not the presence of the Borgia popes (for instance) implies some deeper structural problem, or whether this is simply a rotten apple inside a structurally sound barrel. Count me skeptical as to the proposition that Christ intended to found a particular structure"
God did not "will a structure," He "built [His] Church" and He did it in History, specifically in the First Century AD. SOURCE? Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15 et seq.; and the entireties of the Books of Acts and the Epistles. So, we can eliminate all churches (or "structures" if you prefer that nebulous term) that were not founded in the First Century AD (whoosh to Protestantism).
As to the relative handful of churches with a First Century provenance (viz., The Western Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Independent Churches), we need, of course, to go extra scriptura to understand their competing claims to which is Christ's Church (actually, I believe, they are all parts of Christ's Holy Catholic Church). I deem the continued schism an internecine dispute and lay the blame for continuing division primarily at the feet of the secular overlords of the Eastern Churches (most importantly, that First Sultan of Rum) who backed out of the last carefully structured reunion at the Council of Florence-Ferrara.
9.9.2012 | 5:21pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello Joseph D
You are severe in your comments that
"...the Catholic ecclesiastical system is pervasively and irredeemably corrupt. Only mass repentence on the part of the leadership can save it. That repentence must include renouncing all of the unseemly traits I mentioned above."
It is easy for me to say your statement bites itself. Something cannot be saved out of corrutption if it is irredemably corrupt. Persons managing our church structures should, I suggest, regulary confess and repent of mistakes. As we persons made in the image of our Maker should do.
Also, when you call us to repentance, please make your charge specific, including who, when, what; not so general as "sacrificed its calling on the altar of power ...". It seems to me we are all infected with bits of these viruses.
You are severe in your comments that
"...the Catholic ecclesiastical system is pervasively and irredeemably corrupt. Only mass repentence on the part of the leadership can save it. That repentence must include renouncing all of the unseemly traits I mentioned above."
It is easy for me to say your statement bites itself. Something cannot be saved out of corrutption if it is irredemably corrupt. Persons managing our church structures should, I suggest, regulary confess and repent of mistakes. As we persons made in the image of our Maker should do.
Also, when you call us to repentance, please make your charge specific, including who, when, what; not so general as "sacrificed its calling on the altar of power ...". It seems to me we are all infected with bits of these viruses.
9.9.2012 | 6:13pm
Russell Belding says:
Hello patricksarsfield
I have used "structure" as I work daily with them in my engineering and software develoment. I often review organisational practices and distill them to a structure so I may build tools for these organisation to use to make it easy to persons to perform their organisational work. The last organistion I did this for was "Freeset", an organisation in Kolkata providing work for ladies coming out of prostitution, sometimes into new life in Christ. I build a practice managenemt software package for the Freeset nurse. After skype discussions with the nurse in Kolkata I distilled their processes enough to build software enabling them to automate some record keeping. We had to document the structure first.
I sense you are fussing because I indicate there are many ecclesial structures and you want to remind those of use outside the Catholic church that we have invalid ecclesial structures because our pastors are not in formal communion with the Bishop of Rome. You present a "quick and dirty" historical analysis of why the present "schism" has arisen. "q&d" is not derogatory among engineers, it is shorthand for saying "due to space and time limitations ...".
Like you I believe Christ willed for a united church. I read this in John's gospel. Unlike you I think this was not achieved by the early church, Christ's church has many structures.
Am I discouraged to hear from you that I am in schismatic company? I am instead reading James' (1:26,27) encouragement to both of us to do good things ... "If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is in vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
I have used "structure" as I work daily with them in my engineering and software develoment. I often review organisational practices and distill them to a structure so I may build tools for these organisation to use to make it easy to persons to perform their organisational work. The last organistion I did this for was "Freeset", an organisation in Kolkata providing work for ladies coming out of prostitution, sometimes into new life in Christ. I build a practice managenemt software package for the Freeset nurse. After skype discussions with the nurse in Kolkata I distilled their processes enough to build software enabling them to automate some record keeping. We had to document the structure first.
I sense you are fussing because I indicate there are many ecclesial structures and you want to remind those of use outside the Catholic church that we have invalid ecclesial structures because our pastors are not in formal communion with the Bishop of Rome. You present a "quick and dirty" historical analysis of why the present "schism" has arisen. "q&d" is not derogatory among engineers, it is shorthand for saying "due to space and time limitations ...".
Like you I believe Christ willed for a united church. I read this in John's gospel. Unlike you I think this was not achieved by the early church, Christ's church has many structures.
Am I discouraged to hear from you that I am in schismatic company? I am instead reading James' (1:26,27) encouragement to both of us to do good things ... "If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is in vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
9.10.2012 | 10:40am
patricksarsfield says:
Coming up with an autodidactic and "quick and dirty" view of Ecclesiology and accusing me of "fussing," R. Belding writes me:
"Like you I believe Christ willed for a united church. I read this in John's gospel. Unlike you I think this was not achieved by the early church, Christ's church has many structures. Am I discouraged to hear from you that I am in schismatic company ? I am instead reading James' (1:26,27) encouragement to both of us to do good things...."
That passage from James has nothing to do with the structure of the Church. The Church's universal structure is best described in Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 15:1-16:5 and Paul's instructions to one of his suffraggan epsicopoi Timothey (2 Tim. 1:5-6; 13-14; 2:1-2). Those passages establish that Christ called for a single universal church to go forth to all the World, baptizing and teaching with all the authority entrusted to him by his Father. Acts 15 shows that Church had a centralized structure from the beginning and 2 tim 1 shows that the bishops were ordained by the apostles and entrusted with the duty of identifying successors to teach the same deposit of Faioth received from the Apostles. The Early Church recognized Apostolic Succesion as the key to which claimed Christians werer teaching the True Faith. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3:3:2 and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History's extensive lists of the bishops in succession to the apostles shows that that was the "structure" that was used in the Early Church. And once the persecutions were over, the Church once again used Councils to define the orthodox, catholic faith of the Church. The definition of a view as "schismatic" or orthodox is not "fussing," it is the way the Church defines what is Christ's teaching and what is heterodox. IOW, the definition of something as schismatic is precisely how the Church becomes "united."
"Like you I believe Christ willed for a united church. I read this in John's gospel. Unlike you I think this was not achieved by the early church, Christ's church has many structures. Am I discouraged to hear from you that I am in schismatic company ? I am instead reading James' (1:26,27) encouragement to both of us to do good things...."
That passage from James has nothing to do with the structure of the Church. The Church's universal structure is best described in Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 15:1-16:5 and Paul's instructions to one of his suffraggan epsicopoi Timothey (2 Tim. 1:5-6; 13-14; 2:1-2). Those passages establish that Christ called for a single universal church to go forth to all the World, baptizing and teaching with all the authority entrusted to him by his Father. Acts 15 shows that Church had a centralized structure from the beginning and 2 tim 1 shows that the bishops were ordained by the apostles and entrusted with the duty of identifying successors to teach the same deposit of Faioth received from the Apostles. The Early Church recognized Apostolic Succesion as the key to which claimed Christians werer teaching the True Faith. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3:3:2 and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History's extensive lists of the bishops in succession to the apostles shows that that was the "structure" that was used in the Early Church. And once the persecutions were over, the Church once again used Councils to define the orthodox, catholic faith of the Church. The definition of a view as "schismatic" or orthodox is not "fussing," it is the way the Church defines what is Christ's teaching and what is heterodox. IOW, the definition of something as schismatic is precisely how the Church becomes "united."
To my mind, one of the better arguments for the divine origin of the Catholic Church is how she manages to survive her leadership.