Sojourning In A Strange Land

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

And no, I don't mean in the land of MTV and trying to figure the teenagers out.

As you know by now, I'm not 'hostile' but try to approach any debate here in a more academic sense. My question is, since we are, as Christians, sojourning on a strange land, we see the apostles never really making 'home' anywhere (the good ol missionary spirit - btw, do you think the Church has lost a good sense of missionary work that proclaims the Gospel with words today?), and we see schism in the ranks very early on, especially after the death of the last apostle when churches were governed first by more than one bishop, or even by a council of presbyters before they were by a monoepiscopate, how do we know that the true sense and structure of the Church in this last age was not lost early on? Apostolic integrity and orthodoxy were certainly weapons used against Gnostic heretics, but a fixed, visible widely hierarchical church seems to take some time to develop. Was this development necessary and natural, or only out of conflict and straying away from the true intention of the Apostles for the Church? Just some thoughts.

Good day.

[Jaime]

Minnesota isn't strange

[homeschoolmom]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1089649' date='Oct 11 2006, 09:59 PM']
Minnesota isn't strange
[/quote]
Um ... yes it is

[Era Might]

I'm not sure what you mean, but the Church was always hierarchical, because Apostolic Succession was the perpetuation of Apostolic authority. The Apostles had a special mission, because they were the direct vessels of Christ's revelation. For this reason, they went out and built up the local Churches individually, each in their own way. St. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, St. Peter to the Jews, St. Thomas went to India, St. James went to Spain, etc.

St. Peter and St. Paul together set their mark on the Church of Rome at the end of their lives, leaving the Bishop of Rome as the perpetual successor of St. Peter and his primacy. Bishops today do not go out on mission like the Apostles because we need Bishops for the local Churches. There are some Bishops who belong to missionary orders, of course, and many Priests. But the primary role of a Bishop is to be attached to a particular Church, and build up the people of God there. The Bishop of Rome has a unique responsibility, because he is the Pastor of the Church in Rome, and also the Pastor of the universal Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Smyrnaeans approximately 110 AD, only 20 years after St. John the Apostle died, detailing the hierarchical structure of the Church:

[quote]See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.[/quote]
Christ himself established the Apostles as a true hierarchy, and they understood their authority as such. Notice how severely St. Paul appeals for obedience:

[quote]If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

--2Thessalonians 3:14[/quote]
His authority was not up for debate. If you did not obey the Apostles, you could not be in communion with the Church. Our Lord himself referenced an authoritative Church with the ability to render judgement:

[quote]If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

--Matthew 18:17[/quote]
Who are these people in the Church that we are brought to in a dispute? Our Lord gives them the final authority, so that if we will not listen to the Church, we are cast out of communion. Someone has to be in charge to wield this authority.

Those in charge were originally the Apostles, and later their successors whom they ordained (and commanded to do likewise):

[quote]What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

--2Timothy 2:2[/quote]
St. Peter also exhorts those in authority:

[quote]So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.

Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

[b]Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders.[/b] Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you.

--1Peter 5:1-5[/quote]
The greek word for "elder" is "presbyteros", from which we get our word "Priest". The Bishops were also called the "Episkopoi", or overseers, from which we get our word "Episcopal". St. Peter exhorts them to exercise their authority with charity and humility, but also exhorts the flock to obey those who have been placed in authority.

As for the missionary spirit of the Church today, it is very strong. From Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Redemptoris Missio":

[quote]The mission of Christ the Redeemer, which is entrusted to the Church, is still very far from completion. As the second millennium after Christ's coming draws to an end, an overall view of the human race shows that this mission is still only beginning and that we must commit ourselves wholeheartedly to its service. It is the Spirit who impels us to proclaim the great works of God: "For if I preach the Gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor 9: 16)

In the name of the whole Church, I sense an urgent duty to repeat this cry of St. Paul. From the beginning of my Pontificate I have chosen to travel to the ends of the earth in order to show this missionary concern. My direct contact with peoples who do not know Christ has convinced me even more of the urgency of missionary activity, a subject to which I am devoting the present encyclical.

The Second Vatican Council sought to renew the Church's life and activity in the light of the needs of the contemporary world. The Council emphasized the Church's "missionary nature," basing it in a dynamic way on the Trinitarian mission itself. The missionary thrust therefore belongs to the very nature of the Christian life, and is also the inspiration behind ecumenism: "that they may all be one...so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (Jn 17:21).[/quote]

Edited October 12, 2006 by Era Might

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

Hi Era,

We are not as far off as you might think. As some here know I'm just a little bit familiar with the fathers and the history of the Christian Church. What is most curious about Ignatius is that he does not even write to, in another letter, that of the Romans, or acknowledge a bishop in Rome. My argument is not whether there was some sense of Petrine primacy during the life of Peter, or if the Catholic Church eventually developed the structure it has developed today (this much is obvious to even the casual reader of history). And this is not so much as even an argument as it is an observation - that in the earliest times the Church was not ruled by one bishop over one local see in one area. This did eventually develop in the Catholic Church, apparently due to the rivalry that Clement and Ignatius so often talk about, but it was not so originally. So is this then the structure, if that is how it developed, due to the peoples sin, that Christ intended? Or was the original intention that the structure would remain as it was very early on. Now there is also no denying that the Pope could not tomorrow abolish the title 'cardinal' or the title 'abbot', call them something else, or decide to run things a little differently administratively and the Church would not instantly implode, but perhaps you can glean a little more of what I mean here. The idea isn't to debate in the sense of dragging anyone out of the Catholic Church, but to notice what history has done. I'd be happy to post later some of the scholars I have studied if you have an interest in that kind of thing. It is a wide variety of Catholic, Protestant, and secular writings.

Cheers!

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1089649' date='Oct 11 2006, 11:59 PM']
Minnesota isn't strange
[/quote]



With places like Fargo, how can it not be strange?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

1. The Church has consistently maintained a good sense of missions. This is why we have the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, and numerous smaller orders. We've been doing it for 2000 years and have gotten quite efficient at it.

2. The apostolic era of the Church certainly saw traveling bishops, but the dioceses were clearly lead by individual bishops.

3. The Church certainly never fell. Christ Himself promised that this would not happen.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Jesuspaidtheprice' post='1089797' date='Oct 12 2006, 09:14 AM']


With places like Fargo, how can it not be strange?
[/quote]
You do know that Fargo is in North Dakota, right?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1089829' date='Oct 12 2006, 11:10 AM']
You do know that Fargo is in North Dakota, right?
[/quote]
It's okay, I kept thinking that Terra Haute was in Illinois for some reason last week.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1089834' date='Oct 12 2006, 09:20 AM']
It's okay, I kept thinking that Terra Haute was in Illinois for some reason last week.
[/quote]
Well it's almost in in Illinois.

[homeschoolmom]

Sissy, Buffy and Jody were from Terra Haute. (Mrs. Beasley, too, I assume)

Oh, I bet JPTP meant the movie "Fargo" which was set in Minnesota... doncha know?

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1089829' date='Oct 12 2006, 11:10 AM']
You do know that Fargo is in North Dakota, right?
[/quote]

My memory is going bad in my old age.

[ardillacid]

Its that stupid movie's fault. No one actually talks like that here.

Yaaaah suuuure ya betcha. minnesooooooooooota

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1089827' date='Oct 12 2006, 11:08 AM']
1. The Church has consistently maintained a good sense of missions. This is why we have the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Jesuits, and numerous smaller orders. We've been doing it for 2000 years and have gotten quite efficient at it.

2. The apostolic era of the Church certainly saw traveling bishops, but the dioceses were clearly lead by individual bishops.

3. The Church certainly never fell. Christ Himself promised that this would not happen.
[/quote]

1. Your in 'have to argue' mode so you are unfortunately missing the point entirely.

2. This statement is historically incorrect. However the truth need not scare you as a Catholic, as it is a plausible explanation of the development of the Catholic hierarchy. The question is, is it a necessary development.

3. Right.