Power
October 14, 2007
Γετοίδη: Hey man, you were talking to Julie earlier about liturgical Latin
Πάνυμενουν: Yeah…?
Γ: Are you Catholic?
Π: Yeah, I’m actually converting to Catholicism
Γ: Or really?
Π: Yeah, I used to be a protestant…I just couldn’t take it any more
Γ: Hmm, really
Π: Yeah, it came to a point when the Holy Spirit just gave me a direct order to join the Catholic Church
Γ: Tell me more about that
Π: Well, I’m a history major, and I just…there’s just no tradition in these Protestant schisms all over the place. The Catholic Church has been there from the beginning. Peter was given the ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ and upon that rock Jesus ordained the Church, that was what he set up from the very beginning.
Γ: So you’re saying it’s the one true Church
Π: Not exactly, like it’s not like we would call protestants not “Christians,” but they’re definitely…just confused at least because they’ve chosen disunity over unity and refused to acknowledge the authority that Jesus established on earth to be his church.
Γ: You say authority, what do you mean by that?
Π: Well, Jesus told the apostles ‘what you bind will be bound in heaven, and what you loose will be loosed in heaven.’ Christ gave the apostles that authority to establish the Church on earth.
Γ: Hmm, okay, so what does this authority entail exactly? What do you mean by binding and loosing exactly?
Π: I mean what the apostles set up, what they built, has authority because they were given authority to build it.
Γ: What do you mean ‘build?’
Π: I mean the hierarchy of Church, the establishing of Bishops and Priests and the Papacy. The apostles were given authority to appoint these people to hold these positions of authority in the Church–the papacy going all the way to the ‘rock’ Jesus established: Peter, the bishop of Rome.
Γ: Right, okay. So when you say they have authority you’re saying they have power over people?
Π: Well, not exactly, more like guiding people in the true way, telling people what is right.
Γ: Hmm, so you’re saying that their power is the power to bind and loose, meaning establish sound doctrine, and no one else has that power within the church.
Π: Exactly.
Γ: Man, I just think that’s oppressive.
Π: Oppressive? What do you mean?
Γ: Well, anyone having power means that they are more free than those with less power.
Π: I’m not following you
Γ: To say that you have power is to say that you have authority to effectively force someone to do something, regardless of their choice to. So one individual is free to choose, another is not.
Π: The Catholic Church doesn’t force anyone to do anything, though, anyone who does not want to consent to the teachings of the Church can very well leave. It’s based on consent, that’s a choice.
Γ: But tell me, O Πάνυμενουν, are you as a Catholic, free to interpret what it means to follow Christ, or is that up to the Church?
Π: I have to follow what the Church teaches, but that’s only because I’ve examined it and consented to what it teaches.
Γ: Even further teachings that will come about through counsels and papal declarations?
Π: Well, if I disagree with that, I could just leave the Catholic Church, but I wouldn’t because it would just cause another schism in the long, sad, line of disunity within the church.
Γ: Hmm, I think I understand what you mean. I guess it’s just that the Catholic Church does not allow for personal deliberation, personal study, because it has power over you when you give it that. It’s like you’ve consented to someone outside of yourself telling you what the bible says.
Π: Well, how could I presume to understand it right? That’s what I hated about protestantism, it was so stressful to try to figure it out on my own.
Γ: But it shouldn’t be that way! You shouldn’t be alone in that! See, I view the Church as a community: a group of Christians all wrestling together, as one, in what it means to follow Christ. A leader or Shepherd will have a word, and then the rest of them will ‘judge carefully what is said.’ It’s not meant to be a lecture, it’s meant to be prompting for thought and deliberation within the heart and within the community.
Π: Well, surely you don’t suppose that the same thing does not happen in Mass?
Γ: Surely not, for I haven’t been to mass in about 7 years, I don’t even remember. I guess I’m saying that the Church is not based on one individual or oligarchy having power or authority over anyone else, but the community as a whole, seeks to love one another in brotherly love and affection, learning from one another as equals, with equal authority given to them by Christ, to share their feelings about anything. Like the Master says, ‘Do not call anyone on earth Father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.’
Π: Yeah, okay. I think I dig what you mean, it’s just that Jesus gave authority to Peter and the apostles
Γ: Not everyone?
Π: No, not everyone.
Γ: So we are not all ‘one in Christ?’
Π: Well, each person has their different role to play, ‘one body, many parts.’
Γ: Certainly, but do we presume that one person has more authority to meditate, think, ponder on scripture through the Spirit than another person in Christ?
Π: Surely not!
Γ: Then why can the Pope make a declaration on faith and morals and be infallible? Or why does the Catholic catechism even exist?
Π: Well, it’s meant to be something to look into, learn from, wrestle with, and ponder on, not just to accept at face value.
Γ: That’s my exact view. I agree completely.
Π: Alright then.
Γ: I believe that if two people are both submitting themselves not to any man or man’s teachings, but fully to God alone, then they can never disagree on anything, because they will approach each other loving God and each other, and thus would seek to learn from each other, and not impose anything on another person on the presumption that they knew better. Considering others better than themselves, this is the humble Jesus way I think.
Π: Well, yeah
Π: Okay, here, let me tell you what I think. There’s two different “kingdoms:” the kingdom of the world, and the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of the world cares about how you act, and so imposes laws and carries the sword to coerce submission to these based on a threat of violence; inso it creates order. It’s essentially the act of having power over someone. The Kingdom of God acts the opposite: The kingdom of God is concerned not just with one’s actions, but with one’s intentions, emotions, and the state of one’s heart when committing those deeds. Through love and humility, a Christian will seek to bring a person to a higher understanding of their own nature, not by overpowering them, but by underpowering them: this is humility.
So there’s basically government and the Church. The real big danger to the world is Religion: it’s like government because it overpowers, but this time it has ‘god’ on its side, so it can never be disobeyed and uses the ultimate sword of fear (hell) to coerce submission. See, Jesus works the complete opposite. He humbles himself before another in love, dying a humiliating and painful death to liberate another through love, and not through coercion, but by seeking understanding and peace, winning submission out of love, not out of fear.
When the Church turns into something where Christians tell other Christians what to do, or have any power over their brothers, then it has ceased to reflect Christ’s love and humility, but has conformed to the world. See the world is all about power, it seeks it constantly, because it thinks that it will fill it. But we know that this is false; we know that the only thing that will fill it is love.
Jesus himself.
Notes:
‘Keys to the Kingdom’ and ‘bind…loose’ from Matt. 16:19, 18:18
‘upon this rock’ 16:18 [my view would lean towards Jesus as the bedrock (cf. Is. 8:1, Ps. 118:22)]
‘judge carefully what is said’ see 1 Cor. 14: 26-39 and also chapter 3 concerning the authority of leaders and the ‘foundation’ v. 10 and 11.
‘do not call anyone Father on earth’ Matt. 23:8-11 please read this.
‘one body, many parts.’ 1 Cor. 12:12-31
‘considering others better than yourself’ Phil. 2.
Much of the thinking in the last paragraph is coming out of a sermon series Greg Boyd preached in 2004 called “the cross and the sword.” It can be found at http://www.whchurch.org/content/page_726.htm, accessed October 14th, 2007.
November 1, 2007 at 2:58 am
Timothy,
This is an interesting work, which seems to be trying to get to the roots of the disagreements between Protestants and Catholics. Your intents to represent the opposing viewpoint appears honest and I don’t find anything offensive here. I appreciate you including me in this, and I hope that I can both serve as an adequate representative for the Catholic Church as well as a representative for Christ, our savior. It is my desire to built up all people in this discussion, and I do not intend to insult nor belittle anyone’s beliefs or convictions.
That being said, I would disagree with the “Catholic” in this piece on a couple of points, and I think that the “Protestant” perspective is missing a couple of points as well. Here are my thoughts (please forgive the length):
1. I personally dislike the term “confused” to refer to my Protestant brothers and their beliefs. This may simply be my interpretation, but I find the term “confused” to be a patronizing one, particularly in the realm of religious dialogue. I don’t recall if I used the word confused, and if I did so then I apologize. I avoid judging people and thus labeling them when possible, but if pressed I think I would find it more accurate to say that I think that on the whole Protestants were being honest in their efforts to understand God, etc., but that I feel that their conclusions are incorrect.
2. “There’s no Tradition in the Protestant schisms…” I don’t know if I said this or not, but at first I found this somewhat misleading. I do believe that my Protestant brothers have traditions (which are probably very dear and close to them), many of which originate from Orthodox Catholic tradition. It is not my, nor, if I understand it correctly, that of the Catholic Church, intent to belittle their traditions. I was attempting to refer to the history of breaking away, and “reforming” churches in the manner that Martin Luther embraced. I’m not certain if that is what you meant to convey, but I wished to be clear on this point.
3. On a practical level, the way the “Catholic” describes being able to leave strikes me as a little too accepting of the idea of leaving Catholicism from what I have witnessed by experience. Many Catholics I have talked to have very big problems leaving the Church because it is a huge part of their identity. This is even true of many Catholics I know that dislike many of the teachings of the church (celibate priesthood, boring music, contraception, etc.). I may have said that because I am not quite as attached to it yet as they are, but most Catholics would not undertake such a project lightly.
4. Personal study is also allowed, and in fact encouraged. Again, so long as one does not contradict those large doctrines and does not divide the community one is allowed a fair amount of theological leeway, to the best that I can understand. For example, the right to fight a just war is not decided, but there is a theory of just war that the Church does allow. One can fight in such a war, or remain completely pacifist. Both are welcomed with open arms in the Church. Denying the Trinity, the communion of saints, the Ressurection, papal authority, etc., however, are not things the Church will likely tolerate.
Personal study, yes. Personal interpretation: if the Church is not completely sure on the topic. Individual control over every aspect of doctrine: no, to my knowledge the Church does not support that.
5. The Protestant says that two people who submit completely to God will not disagree on anything. If that is true, then which Protestant denomination is correct? There are over 10,000 just in North America. Are 9,999 of them wrong and one correct? Individual people are different, and two honest seekers can come to very different conclusions. That is why the Church has authority-to unite individuals under one head, one body. Even the greatest Catholic fathers, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, did not get everything right. As a Church, however, we believe that what is sound doctrine is correct in every sense of the word.
7. The Protestant side here opposes the Catholic’s claim that the pope and Church hierarchy have authority, in the Catholic sense at least; however, I see little biblical evidence to support this argument. The philosophy of how Jesus worked is correct, as well as the way that power works in this world is accurate.
But that does not disprove, from my perspective, what Jesus said, that Peter had authority over the Church. How that authority should be used can (and frequently is) debated within the Church, and the relationship of power and the Church has changed over time. But the argument’s existence does not eliminate the scriptural evidence that the authority does exist. Catholics have varying views of how papal authority should work and to what degree he should have influence. This debate is not, in my view, inherently bad. But Jesus said it was there. Like it or not, that is what He built, and the potential drawbacks to the system cannot, in my view, outweigh scriptural commands.
Popes have made horrible mistakes, and some were outright sinful. That was bad, and there are not many Catholics to my knowledge that would justify those actions. But the papacy’s power has not been revoked by God, because God does not abandon those who let him down. He stays with them, works with them, and builds them up again. He did this with Israel in days past and present, and He does that with the Church as well.
Those are my thoughts. I hope that they are helpful to you, and that they were only written with the utmost goodwill and respect.
God bless,
Jared
November 1, 2007 at 3:24 am
Jared, thank you so much for your words, they mean so much to me.
I think that a lot of it you disagreed with with me at least, and that’s the point I suppose, like #1 and #2 above, and some of it was in reference to your own statements, which I did not intend to mirror, only to draw from. You know that I was not trying to represent you, but to represent to hypothetical viewpoints (one being my own).
What you say in #3 I think is very sound, and it seems true that such nonchalance seems to not reflect a fear of God but a personal autonomy that is dangerous to a Christian (and especially is cultivated in the Protestant tradition).
#4, again, this goes with what I was just saying, I’m only stating that Power over an individual equals inequality of freedom. It’s based on consent and understanding, not power. Some people approach the Church in the way of the latter, which I think hinders the former, which is the desired striving.
#5. You raise a great point, and I thank you for doing so. We actually talked about this in my bible study on tuesday. Jesus with the Samaritan woman in John 4. He says how in times coming (now) people will neither worship God on that mountain or in Jerusalem but in SPIRIT and TRUTH. Now what is this? Jesus has just said to Nicodemus that the spirit blows where is will and no one can understand it really (at least not in a simple sense). But is this spirit of truth, is it not also the spirit of peace? Are we not all different? In Christ, we are the same, but we are different parts of the body. You and I, Jared, are different. You worship God in a certain way, I do in a certain way. But are we worshiping in SPIRIT and TRUTH? What I was saying in the dialog in that in Christ, submission to one another (Eph 4) is what is Christian. So when we submit to God, we do to one another, and we seek understanding and not disagreement. The beauty is, we can disagree, but we can still be both true. Is this possible? I think it is. One another thing I’ve thought about is just our different understandings of God and how we are all on a separate path but each of us is pointed towards Christ. Now we may be farther along than some, or less, and our paths may all be very different, but they all are paths with, for, and to Jesus, the only path. And so I say to you, can we both be in Spirit and Truth and disagree? I believe that the fact that we are not the same person necessitates plurality in unity.
7. Yeah man, you’re right on. The point I was trying to make, (I don’t even know if I just said this in the dialog or not) is that that authority is vested in those who call Christ Lord. Christ gives authority through himself, not through peter. I pointed you to the passage in Matt. 23, I hope you read that. That’s my main thesis. I just think that authority comes from Christ alone based exactly on what he says there in Matt. Peter was given authority, and so was Paul, he rebukes people in letters and calls upon this authority. But was Paul’s intention to pass that authority along to another Paul who would then have authority over others? No, I do not think he did (neither with Peter). I believe that God wishes all to come to understanding of him and AUTHORITY in him because of him. Read 1st Cor. 3 about how Paul says he planted and others helped, but God made it grow. God is the center piece everyone is vassals. That’s my view point. Thanks so much for your thoughts, Jared.
shalohm
tim