Democracy in the Church

[LittleLes]

To control any dissent, some like to claim that "The Church isn't a democracy." This is basically true today; the Church is a monarchy. But originally that was not the case, nor was it the intent of ithe Church's founders.

Mark 10: 42-43: "So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant,"

Luke 22:25-26: "But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves."

While this originally represented the thinking of the early Church, it was basically Pope Leo I (c 400 A.D.), who had been a jurist, who set this approach aside and set up instead a model of the Chruch based on the Roman imperial court. This model continues to this day.

The "shepherds" (or handlers) are at one end of the spectrum and the "sheep" (or paying Church) is at the other. The shepherds control the sacraments and the jobs within the Church.

But that was not originally so. The New Testament does not evidence the existence of a monarchial hierarchy intended by Christ or the Church's founders. The Church was essentially a discipleship of equals. But the laity lost control. Now their role is to "pray, pay, and obey." Of course, accepting this role does offer the advantage of eliminating the need for Church members to think for themselves.

But should that be the case?

[dspen2005]

your scriptural citations do not suggest a democratic governance of the church. but merely point to humility. As evidenced by JPII, we can say that he modeled those citations, yet held to papal primacy.

Edited July 10, 2005 by dspen2005

[Apotheoun]

The following is an excerpt of an essay written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger entitled [i]The Ecclesiology of the Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, "Lumen Gentium"[/i], and which appeared in the Vatican's newspaper back in 2001:

[quote]As regards the ecclesioiogy of [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], certain key words continue to be kept in mind: the idea of the People of God, the collegiality of the bishops as a reappraisal of the bishops' ministry in relation to the primacy of the Pope, the reappraisal of the local Churches in relation to the universal Church, the ecumenical openness of the concept of Church and openness to other religions, lastly, the question of the specific position of the Catholic Church, expressed in the formula which holds that the Church, defined in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, [i]subsistit in Ecclesia catholica[/i]. For now I will leave the famous formula untranslated, because—as was foreseen—it has received the most contradictory explanations—which range from the idea that it expresses the uniqueness of the Catholic Church united to the Pope to the idea that it expresses the equivalency of the other Christian Churches with the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church has given up her claim of being distinctive. In the early stages of the reception of the Council, the concept of "People of God" predominated together with the theme of collegiality; the term "people" was understood in terms of ordinary political usage; later in the context of liberation theology it was understood in terms of the Marxist use of the term [i]people[/i] as opposed to the dominating classes, and even more widely, in the sense of the sovereignty of the people, which would now finally be applied to the Church. This in turn gave rise to broad discussions about her structures, in which [i]People of God[/i] was interpreted, according to the situation, either in a more Western way as "democratization," or in the Eastern European way as "popular democracy." Gradually these "verbal fireworks" around the concept of [i]People of God[/i] burned out, on the one hand, and above all because the power games became empty and had to make room for ordinary work in parish councils, and, on the other, because sound theological work has incontrovertibly shown that the politicization of a concept that comes from a totally different context cannot be supported. As a result of his careful exegetic analyses, the exegete of Bocum, Werner Berg, to take one example, states: "Despite the small number of passages that contain the expression [i]People of God[/i], from this point of view [i]People of God[/i] is a rare biblical expression, but nevertheless a common idea emerges: the phrase [i]People of God[/i] expresses [i]kinship[/i] with God, a relationship with God, the link between God and what is designated as [i]People of God[/i], hence a [i]vertical orientation[/i]. The expression lends itself less to describe the hierarchical structure of this community, especially if the [i]People of God[/i] is described as a [i]counterpart[/i] to the ministers . . . .  Nor, starting with its biblical significance, does the expression lend itself to a cry of protest against the ministers: [i]We are the People of God[/i]." Josef Meyer zu Schlotern, the professor of fundamental theology of Paderborn, concludes the examination of the discussion about the concept of [i]People of God[/i] by observing that the [i]Constitution on the Church[/i] of the Second Vatican Council ends the pertinent chapter in such a way as "to outline the Trinitarian structure as the foundation of the ultimate definition of the Church . . . ." Thus the discussion is led back to the essential point: the Church does not exist for herself, but must be God's instrument, in order to gather man to Himself to prepare for the moment when "God will be all in all." (I Cor 15,28)  It was the concept of God that lost out in the "fireworks" sparked by the expression, and in this way the expression, [i]People of God[/i], lost its meaning. In fact, a Church that exists for herself alone is superfluous. And people notice it immediately. The crisis of the Church as it is reflected in the concept of [i]People of God[/i], is a "crisis of God"; it is the consequence of abandoning the essential. What remains is merely a struggle for power, there is enough of this elsewhere in the world, there is no need of the Church for this. [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [i]The Ecclesiology of the Constitution on the Church, Vatican II, "Lumen Gentium"[/i], [u]L'Osservatore Romano[/u], 19 September, 2001][/quote]

[avemaria40]

In the Epistles though, it does point out that bishops and deacons and presbyters (priests) were needed b/c so many ppl were becoming Christians and they needed ppl to lead them b/c otherwise it would be unorganized. and the Letter of St. James points out that there were elders in the church

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 10 2005, 05:25 AM']While this originally represented the thinking of the early Church, it was basically  Pope Leo I (c 400 A.D.), who had been a jurist, who set this approach aside and set up instead a model of the Chruch based on the Roman imperial court.[right][snapback]638222[/snapback][/right][/quote]
prove it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 10 2005, 06:25 AM']To control any dissent, some like to claim that  "The Church isn't a democracy."  This is basically true today; the Church is a monarchy. But originally that was not the case, nor was it the intent of ithe Church's founders.

Mark 10: 42-43:  "So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant,"

Luke 22:25-26:  "But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves."

While this originally represented the thinking of the early Church, it was basically  Pope Leo I (c 400 A.D.), who had been a jurist, who set this approach aside and set up instead a model of the Chruch based on the Roman imperial court. This model continues to this day.

The "shepherds"  (or handlers) are at one end of the spectrum and the "sheep" (or paying Church) is at the other. The shepherds control the sacraments and the jobs within the Church.

But that was not originally so. The New Testament does not evidence the existence of a monarchial hierarchy intended by Christ or the Church's founders. The Church was essentially a discipleship of equals. But the laity lost control.  Now their role is to "pray, pay, and obey."  Of course, accepting this role does offer the advantage of eliminating the need for Church members to think for themselves.

But should that be the case?
[right][snapback]638222[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[qfnol31]

LittleLes, you seem to say that truth was first decided by a majority vote. If that's the case, God wins, as His vote counts for more.

If you should like to reason with me, let's. You say the early Church was a democracy. Well, whence did this idea spring? It didn't grow out of the Greek culture, which was the only major culture of the time to have democracy (not to mention that died out almost 350 years earlier). Rather, the Church sprang from the Jews, which I might add, was not a democracy. Well, they were at one point, but they ended up worshiping a golden calf....

Edited July 10, 2005 by qfnol31

[LittleLes]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Jul 10 2005, 06:04 AM']your scriptural citations do not suggest a democratic governance of the church. but merely point to humility.  As evidenced by JPII, we can say that he modeled those citations, yet held to papal primacy.
[right][snapback]638227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. More than humility is being described here. The early Christian communities founded by Paul were organized on the local level. Discernment of gifts determined various ministries within the community. There was no central church authority. Each Christian community was autonomous.

1 Cor 12:28-30 "Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

1 Rom 12: 6 - 8 "Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them: 4 if prophecy, in proportion to the faith;
if ministry, in ministering; if one is a teacher, in teaching; if one exhorts, in exhortation; if one contributes, in generosity; if one is over others, with diligence; if one does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Note the emphasis on charisms, not authority.

Eph 2: 19-21 "19
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. "

As one writer summed up the situation in the first communities:

"So, for many years the leadership of the congregation would have had to have been under the guidance of the Apostles. They, including Paul, were the "sent ones." There is no scriptural evidence nor any reliable historical evidence that there were any monarchical bishops over the New Covenant Congregation in the times of the Apostles. There was no authority given by the Apostles for there to be one after their departure. Is this shocking? This also will be shocking to many people. There was no such thing as a threefold ministry with a bishop having authority to rule over one or more congregations by delegating authority to the elders and the elders delegating authority to the deacons! A bishop (overseer) is an elder serving a function in the congregation. A bishop is not a title or office of exalted lordship as it soon became after the demise of the Apostles! Peter, one of the founders of the Congregation, made that point clear."

[qfnol31]

What about the Johannine form of a Church? That's the one that won out. The reason why? It's better against heresies.

[qfnol31]

By the way, LittleLes, you are just using apologetic verses. I personally don't care much for apologetices, whether Catholic or not, because it lacks some part of the truth in it.

Edited July 10, 2005 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 10 2005, 08:50 AM']RESPONSE:

No. More than humility is being described here.  The early Christian communities founded by Paul were organized on the local level. Discernment of gifts determined various ministries within the community. There was no central church authority. Each Christian community was autonomous.

1 Cor 12:28-30  "Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

1 Rom 12: 6 - 8 "Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them: 4 if prophecy, in proportion to the faith;
if ministry, in ministering; if one is a teacher, in teaching; if one exhorts, in exhortation; if one contributes, in generosity; if one is over others,  with diligence; if one does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Note the emphasis on charisms, not authority.[/quote]

Actually, there is less of an emphasis on that, but more on the idea that all can be found in the "higher way." In other words, what I'm saying is that St. Paul was emphasising that there was one way, but many different ways to approach it:

[quote name='I Corinthians 12:31']31: But earnestly desire the higher gifts. [b]And I will show you a still more excellent way.[/b][/quote]

Also note that St. Paul isn't telling them to vote on it, but rather HE will teach them.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 10 2005, 08:16 AM']prove it.
[right][snapback]638286[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lengthy biography on Pope Leo I the Great.

This is from "Saints Alive", a biogrpahy of Pope Leo I by Fr. Robert McNamara.

" History has attached the adjective to only three popes. The first of them was St. Leo I, Father and Doctor of the Church. Leo's early background is obscure. When we first encounter him as a cleric of the papal court in the early fifth century, he is already an influential theologian, administrator and diplomat. In the year 440 Leo was sent to Gaul by Pope Sixtus III to reconcile two Roman generals. While he was on this mission Sixtus died, and Leo was elected to succeed him."

" In dealing with church administration, Pope Leo was firm and decisive: he had the duty to supervise all the churches, East and West. (In fact, it was Leo the Great who first developed clearly the theology of the primacy that the bishops of Rome exercise throughout Christianity.)" NOTE!

And as Vladimir Suloviev noted: "Believing as he did that true supreme authority of Peter resided permanently in the Roman Church, St. Leo could not regard himself otherwise than as 'the ruler of the Christian world' responsible for the peace and good order of all the Churches. (The designation given him in the Constitution of the Emperor Valentinian III, v. Works I, 637). Constant attention to this huge task was for him a religious obligation. "

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.

--St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book III, Chapter III
   Circa AD 175[/quote]

Gotta love that second century early Church democracy.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 10 2005, 09:31 AM']LittleLes, you seem to say that truth was first decided by a majority vote.  If that's the case, God wins, as His vote counts for more. 

If you should like to reason with me, let's.  You say the early Church was  a democracy.  Well, whence did this idea spring?  It didn't grow out of the Greek culture, which was the only major culture of the time to have democracy (not to mention that died out almost 350 years earlier).  Rather, the Church sprang from the Jews, which I might add, was not a democracy.  Well, they were at one point, but they ended up worshiping a golden calf....
[right][snapback]638333[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The idea seems to have been Paul's, the founder of what is termed Pauline Christianity which succeed Jewish Christianity. See his Epistles, some of which were already cited.

You might also enjoy, "The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, "Raymond Brown, Paulist Press, 1984

[qfnol31]

Actually, I believe Johannine may have been the one to win out. Or then again, I may have them backwards.