The Church, should it be questioned?

Mr. Incognito

Okay- I was over on Yahoo and spotted this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_vatican_pope

This part caught my eye:

Rome's center-right Mayor Gianni Alemanno was in the crowd, along with other pro-Vatican Italian officials.

"We want to show our solidarity to the pope and transmit the message that single individuals make mistakes but institutions, faith and religion cannot be questioned," Alemanno told Associated Press Television News. "We will not allow this."

This disturbs me. I do not personally believe in The Church as an institution. I see it as curropt, greedy and hypocritical in it's actions, but that is my personal belief.

I do however believe in the law. And in my opinion no one is above it, be they president, priest or Pope.

What do people think on the infallability of the Church as an institution?

Fanny Cradock

I assume you are looking for a Catholic response?

philologos

I don't think any church is infallible, and I think the words of preachers and so on should be checked by individuals to see if they are coherent Biblically. Members of the congregation should feel as if they'd be able to meet up with their minister to discuss the sermon he made the Sunday previous in order to see their reasoning.

Positive questioning should be inherent to the church. Unwarranted suspiscions, rumours and other such things shouldn't.

lmaopml

I guess Mr Incognito that you are entitled to how you feel about the Catholic church, as much as the people who attended that day in St. Peters as a show of solidarity are entitled to their feelings too

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess Mr Incognito that you are entitled to how you feel about the Catholic church, as much as the people who attended that day in St. Peters as a show of solidarity are entitled to their feelings too

This goes a bit further no?

"institutions, faith and religion cannot be questioned"
"We will not allow this."

Your message should be sent to Mayor Gianni Alemanno.

MrPudding

Everything should be questioned, particularly an organisation that has shown in the past that without oversight it cannot be trusted.

MrP

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Everything should be questioned,

Including you motives for attacking the Church?

particularly an organisation that has shown in the past that without oversight it cannot be trusted.

MrP

But that is the point isn't it? It wasn't in their view the church that erred is the point but some of the leaders or members in it. And dogma like the Trinity had nothing to do with this.

It is a bit like saying the "constitution " can't be trusted. But it can! Interpretations change and when slavery was allowed in the past and women were not allowed to vote people didn't say "throw out all the constitution it cannot be trusted" did they? Nope! they REFORMED the constitution! Just as they reformed the Church!

By the way claims to be infallible are extremely rare . Papal infallibility only came in about 150 years ago and has only been used ONCE to my knowledge.

philologos

ISAW, dare I ask, what is the church, other than a body of believers? - If people in high ranking positions in the church have erred, I would deem it appropriate to say that the church itself has erred, particularly if you consider the scale of this latest series of revelations about the church.

I'm saying this in church neutral terms. You could apply any denomination to this, as we've all pretty much erred.

As for your reference to the Constitution, slavery was never in the 1937 Constitution at all, and women were allowed to vote prior to 1937.

Piano man

Firstly it should be noted that the Mayor quoted is not a Vatican official or a spokesperson for the Pope or the Magisterium and secondly I imagine that his choice of words was just unfortunate - positive questioning is of course to be encouraged in order to learn and help both the Church and individuals grow, but what I think the Mayor was getting at is negative questioning - an agenda driven line of inquiry that seeks to bring the integrity of the church into account - for that is neither honest nor accurate.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think any church is infallible, and I think the words of preachers and so on should be checked by individuals to see if they are coherent Biblically. Members of the congregation should feel as if they'd be able to meet up with their minister to discuss the sermon he made the Sunday previous in order to see their reasoning.

Ok so if the words of preachers can be checked by individuals to see if they are coherent biblically, what if these individuals come up with different conclusions - some say yes that's coherent biblically, others say no it's not. This happens enough and suddenly you've got a multichotomy of contradictory interpretations, which is pretty much the state of Christianity today. Of course not everyone can be right.
Jesus foresaw this though so he appointed the apostles to be the interpreters so the Church would remain in theological unity.

ISAW wrote:

Papal infallibility only came in about 150 years ago and has only been used ONCE to my knowledge.

That's not actually correct. Papal infallibility has been around since Peter the first Pope, given to him by Christ himself, and has been used numerous times through the centuries to define dogma and doctrine, condemn heresies and hold the Catholic Church in unity. Today it is usually exercised through the person of the Pope after extensive discussions with the Magisterium - the bishops being the successors of the apostles. And it concerns only statements made ex cathedra by the Pope on issues of faith and morals.

God bless:)

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

ISAW, dare I ask, what is the church, other than a body of believers?

Interesting question. Let me as you one in reply. do you believe that a legal entity like a corporation or company or a constituted body can exist independently of the shareholders?
Apparently company law does. So if a body can exist independently why do you think the Church can't?

- If people in high ranking positions in the church have erred, I would deem it appropriate to say that the church itself has erred

So if a bank does something wrong you can sue the bank but you also want to pierce the corporate veil and sue individual members of the board? Collective responsibility isn't vested in a corporation? Companies are not legal entities ?

Particularly if you consider the scale of this latest series of revelations about the church.

Really? Ther are 1.2 billion Catholics all involved in a conspiracy and cover up? and nobody else outside the church carries any responsibility even when less than one per cent of sex offenders were clergy?

I'm saying this in church neutral terms. You could apply any denomination to this, as we've all pretty much erred.

But if it isn't the church it becomes "we have all erred" and society doesn't have to be held accountable. But when the less than one percent of offending clergy is concerned it is the fault of the church and they have to be held accountable to a different degree than "all of us" are?

As for your reference to the Constitution, slavery was never in the 1937 Constitution at all, and women were allowed to vote prior to 1937.

I refer to constution in terms of the Us. But ireland was not the first country to allow women to vote. The 1937 constitution was written over a century after constitutional law reformed slavery and over three centuries after the Church had opposed slavery.

Anyway let us just take Ireland. suppose the church is leading the pack in instituting reform. Why focus only on the church? why not on all the other organisations and people who need to redress wrongs?

philologos

Piano man wrote:

Ok so if the words of preachers can be checked by individuals to see if they are coherent biblically, what if these individuals come up with different conclusions - some say yes that's coherent biblically, others say no it's not. This happens enough and suddenly you've got a multichotomy of contradictory interpretations, which is pretty much the state of Christianity today. Of course not everyone can be right.
Jesus foresaw this though so he appointed the apostles to be the interpreters so the Church would remain in theological unity.

I'm motivated by this passage in Scripture:

James 3:1 wrote:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

This is why questioning needs to happen, and also so that people will not be led astray.

It depends generally on the quality of the reasoning involved, at least that much is the case for me. Prior to reading a passage, I would ask God to guide me so as to try and understand what He is trying to say to me through it, and then I would think about what is making sense arising from it.

If I come into a situation whereby one person has one interpretation, and I another, I am generally intrigued to find out more about it, and indeed I would always arrange time to discuss it, and on hearing their reasoning, if it indeed makes more sense than mine I would be inclined to think further and perhaps adopt this reasoning.

Invoking the Apostles in ones argument is rather difficult, if historically one can find evidence for there being numerous Apostolic churches.

For example the Jewish church under James, that of the Gentiles under Paul, the Armenian church set up by Jude, the Indian Church (Mar Thomas) set up by Thomas, and so on and so forth. It becomes incredibly difficult to argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church (a claim I am hugely sceptical of), if other churches predate it in particular. Even, the veracity of whether or not Peter was ever Bishop of Rome is open to question considering that a tomb in Jerusalem has been found with the name "Simon bar Jonah" in the outskirts of the city.

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

Interesting question. Let me as you one in reply. do you believe that a legal entity like a corporation or company or a constituted body can exist independently of the shareholders?
Apparently company law does. So if a body can exist independently why do you think the Church can't?

I don't believe the church is a legal entity, or a company, nor even buildings, I believe that the church is the body of believers in Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual entity, indeed it is the guardian of the very Gospel itself, it is the representative of Jesus on this earth.

I don't think such excuse making is warranted in the light of our responsibility as Christians. We are meant to be living for Jesus, our true example, we are not meant to be the equals to the world in conduct. Indeed, we are meant to shine like stars in this world. We've failed to do this.

ISAW wrote: »

So if a bank does something wrong you can sue the bank but you also want to pierce the corporate veil and sue individual members of the board? Collective responsibility isn't vested in a corporation? Companies are not legal entities ?

Read above. The church isn't meant to be the moral equivalent to banks, or other secular institutions.

ISAW wrote: »

Really? Ther are 1.2 billion Catholics all involved in a conspiracy and cover up? and nobody else outside the church carries any responsibility even when less than one per cent of sex offenders were clergy?

This is a strawman. I never said all adherents were involved, but a sizeable element of the RCC heirarchy have been. Now isn't the time for excuse making, that stage is long over. Other churches have had issues that have hindered their witness also. It isn't a RCC only issue as I made out in my post previous.

ISAW wrote: »

But if it isn't the church it becomes "we have all erred" and society doesn't have to be held accountable. But when the less than one percent of offending clergy is concerned it is the fault of the church and they have to be held accountable to a different degree than "all of us" are?

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Part of becoming a Christian, involves a decision. It involves repentance, turning away, saying to Jesus. I've done wrong, I've fallen short and I need your mercy. It is a humbling recognition, that you indeed have done wrong, but that you can find peace in Jesus, and you can learn from Him on a daily basis.

The church should be a living example, of the hope that is found within the Gospel. The fact that people are turning away from church, of all kinds, in Ireland, is because the church isn't showing itself as an example, a testament to the living hope that is in us through our salvation in Jesus Christ.

ISAW wrote: »

Anyway let us just take Ireland. suppose the church is leading the pack in instituting reform. Why focus only on the church? why not on all the other organisations and people who need to redress wrongs?

I'm focusing on the church (Christian church in general, not just the Roman Catholic Church) because it I have a great love for it, and a great faith in its potential for witnessing the great truth we have received, and I want to see it reach its full potential.

ISAW

Piano man wrote: »

Papal infallibility has been around since Peter the first Pope, given to him by Christ himself, and has been used numerous times through the centuries to define dogma and doctrine, condemn heresies and hold the Catholic Church in unity.

Not really. Papal infallability and the infallability of the church are different things.
The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility




The argument is that it was always there but not stated:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6
...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra:

Today it is usually exercised through the person of the Pope after extensive discussions with the Magisterium - the bishops being the successors of the apostles. And it concerns only statements made ex cathedra by the Pope on issues of faith and morals.

It isn't "usually exercised" at all that is my point! Only ONCE has any ex cathedra statement been made by a Pope since that about declaring it doctrine a century and a half ago!

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe the church is a legal entity, or a company, nor even buildings

Youer words

- If people in high ranking positions in the church have erred

They must hold such a "rank" withing an "organisation"
The office exists apart from the person holding it!
The office precedes and succeeds him!
And if there is no entity to sue then there is no way victims can get legal restitution.

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

Youer words

Indeed they are.

ISAW wrote: »

They must hold such a "rank" withing an "organisation"
The office exists apart from the person holding it!
The office precedes and succeeds him!
And if there is no entity to sue then there is no way victims can get legal restitution.

I disagree strongly. The office wouldn't exist if there were nobody to hold it. The one who is holding the position represents the one who he is holding the position for.

The church is liable to criticism for its failure to live up to the standard that Jesus has urged us to follow.

You need to see this in a broader sense than child abuse, as that isn't what this is entirely about. It isn't a legal discussion, it's about whether the church can and should be questioned.

I as a Christian believe absolutely yes, and we need to question the church and those who minister in it to make sure that corruption doesn't take place. We are the church, and we have to focus on living for Jesus, not comparing ourselves using the secular standards that others may hold in this world.

This involves failure in numerous ways.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think such excuse making is warranted in the light of our responsibility as Christians. We are meant to be living for Jesus, our true example, we are not meant to be the equals to the world in conduct. Indeed, we are meant to shine like stars in this world. We've failed to do this.

Yes christians have failed and christians in responsable positions and Christians in offices in the church. But not millions of them! Not even thousands in responsible positions! Most Christians didn't turn their back on Christ as you seem to suggest. But that isn't a denial of organisational or individual responsibility.

Read above. The church isn't meant to be the moral equivalent to banks, or other secular institutions.

One should hope not!

This is a strawman. I never said all adherents were involved, but a sizeable element of the RCC heirarchy have been.

Could you qunatify that? Say hierarchy = ordinary power i.e. bishops. How many bishops since 1950 - 10,000? 20,000? How many of these covered up abuse? 5 ? 10 ? 50?

Now isn't the time for excuse making, that stage is long over. Other churches have had issues that have hindered their witness also. It isn't a RCC only issue as I made out in my post previous.

Im NOT making excuses. How many Bishops were involved 100? 1000? 5000? Or was it closer to 10? That doesn't make any excuses for any done by the ten bishops involved but it does not paint a picture of a church rife with corruption!

The church should be a living example, of the hope that is found within the Gospel. The fact that people are turning away from church, of all kinds, in Ireland, is because the church isn't showing itself as an example, a testament to the living hope that is in us through our salvation in Jesus Christ.

Well here is where I disagree with you. what do you EXPECT the church to be doing?
How do you expect the Church to show an example?
I think if you look you will see whatever you recommend is probably being done already!

I'm focusing on the church (Christian church in general, not just the Roman Catholic Church) because it I have a great love for it, and a great faith in its potential for witnessing the great truth we have received, and I want to see it reach its full potential.

But in order to act in the modern world you need websites property bank accounts organisations etc. The RCC and other denominations has these and uses them to assist Christian work and actions. I'm happy to admit there is no necessity for the Vatican but it does help administer the Roman Catholic Church.

philologos

ISAW - This thread isn't exclusively about child abuse. It's about whether or not the church should be questioned, not purely in this respect, but also in its teaching.

I would say though, if you think that the church hasn't made mistakes or that it is perfect that this certainly isn't the case. That's the essence of what I am saying.

As for making excuses, I think you are if you want the church to be compared on the same scale as banks or other secular institutions. Or rather I think the point is probably being missed somehow.

Piano man

ISAW wrote: »

Not really. Papal infallability and the infallability of the church are different things.
The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

The councils are not automatically infallible, it depends on what their intention is: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=291854
The rest, yes I accept, but it has been around since the dawn of Christianity, as we read in Acts when theological disputes are resolved by the elders in Jerusalem (sorry I don't have the verse reference handy).

ISAW wrote: »

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra:

It isn't "usually exercised" at all that is my point! Only ONCE has any ex cathedra statement been made by a Pope since that about declaring it doctrine a century and a half ago!

I'm no theology student and I haven't studied the history of this, so I'll take your word that it was declared as dogma in 1870.
However, this of course does not mean that it was only created then, as your original post seemed to be saying.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined infallibly in 1854; however the belief in the Immaculate Conception has been around since the first century, and went relatively unquestioned until very recently - even Martin Luther believed in this, along with all the other Catholic beliefs regarding Mary, incidently.
My point being that the Church makes something dogma to protect the belief that has been upheld since the time of Christ, but the belief itself doesn't just come into existence when it is defined infallibly.

Jakkass wrote:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

I think this passage is referring to judgment from God, not from other Christians.

Jakkass wrote:

For example the Jewish church under James, that of the Gentiles under Paul, the Armenian church set up by Jude, the Indian Church (Mar Thomas) set up by Thomas, and so on and so forth. It becomes incredibly difficult to argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church (a claim I am hugely sceptical of), if other churches predate it in particular. Even, the veracity of whether or not Peter was ever Bishop of Rome is open to question considering that a tomb in Jerusalem has been found with the name "Simon bar Jonah" in the outskirts of the city.

There are plenty of Apostolic Churches that are in communion with Rome, and in the first century, all those Churches you mention would have been in communion with each other. But the Pope being head of them all hasn't changed.
As for Peter's tomb being elsewhere, I've also read of a tomb found over near China that is claimed to be the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene who allegedly eloped, all because of an inscription over the tomb entrance...
Also, I was in the excavations under St Peter's at Easter and I saw the bones of St Peter and learned a lot - the burial site has been marked ever since Peter was buried there at the site of his crucifixion, and in the past few decades when the tomb was excavated they found the bones of a well-built man (fisherman) complete except for the feet, which would have had to be chopped off to remove the body from the cross after he was crucified upside down.

God bless:)

lmaopml

I'll probably get slated for this, but I think some of the more media savvy journalists have a way of reporting something that can turn what could be interpreted as people gathering together to say they 'love' the faith and celebrate that unity in a time of upheaval, by finding the one person in the crowd who is going to express themselves in a more 'interesting' fashion...and the 'implication' is that everybody thinks the same way....Which is bull of course!

Still, it worked, it got people talking I guess...

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree strongly. The office wouldn't exist if there were nobody to hold it. The one who is holding the position represents the one who he is holding the position for.

so when Ben Dunne said to a tribunal that the money wasnt dunne stores money it was his money because he owned Dunnes stores he was correct?


If the taoiseach resigned or Pope dies the office ceases to exist until they appoint a new taoiseach or Pope? If I sue the President of Ireland and she retires then mary Mc elese has to pay over the damages if she is found guilty?

The church is liable to criticism for its failure to live up to the standard that Jesus has urged us to follow.

Yeah. and this is relevant to the point that offices exist in the church just ike any other body because...????

You need to see this in a broader sense than child abuse, as that isn't what this is entirely about.

i agree. it si about people holding offices of responsibility being responsible. Of course all Christians are responsible for themselves and others but it is those that hold power over land monies laity and clergy and over other things that have even more responsibility.

It isn't a legal discussion, it's about whether the church can and should be questioned.

Indeed. and while all people should be responsible those who have access to bank accounts and children and land deals and legal changes should be ever more responsible and accountable then the rest.

I as a Christian believe absolutely yes, and we need to question the church and those who minister in it to make sure that corruption doesn't take place. We are the church, and we have to focus on living for Jesus, not comparing ourselves using the secular standards that others may hold in this world.

and these standards are formulated my WHAT mechanism? Who involved in that process holds such high responsibility?

This involves failure in numerous ways.

cut the branch and the vine prospers. Cut the roots the tree will whither.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

ISAW - This thread isn't exclusively about child abuse. It's about whether or not the church should be questioned, not purely in this respect, but also in its teaching.

And while one can argue from the the particular to he general one can not do the opposite. i can for example state a case for child abuse as part of a general need for responsibility or accountability. One cant state " however that the solution in the particular it must be true or used in general.

I would say though, if you think that the church hasn't made mistakes or that it is perfect that this certainly isn't the case.

If you think I stated that it has not made mistakes you are taking something I didn't state
and suggesting i did state it!

That's the essence of what I am saying.

Well if "doing as Christ did" is the Church. then the Church is perfect. If the church is "people in the church" then of course the church by that definition isnt perfect since people aren't! It is just a tautology then. "People are not perfect."

As for making excuses, I think you are if you want the church to be compared on the same scale as banks or other secular institutions. Or rather I think the point is probably being missed somehow.

The point being you can regard the church as being just people in which case "people are not perfect" is a tautology! However if the church has done wrong and you wich to fix that and you wish to award restitution you have to have some system of doing that and some people who hold offices apart from their person. The whole idea of kissing the Bishops ring or bowing isn't because you like them or they are perfect and holy people it is because their office commands respect.

Office holders hold power and if victims want to sue the church it isnt good enough for a priest or a Bishop or a parish worker to say "I sinned but i have no worldly goods" The organisation which gave that person a position is to some degree responsible and the ORGINISATION has wealth even if the individual does not!

philologos

ISAW, you're really being quite abrasive now. We're merely discussing whether or not the church, the Christian church that is (N.B - not just the RCC, and not just on the question of child abuse) , should be questioned on the basis of teaching, practice and other such developments. It is my view, and the view of many others on this thread, that it certainly should be.

ISAW wrote: »

so when Ben Dunne said to a tribunal that the money wasnt dunne stores money it was his money because he owned Dunnes stores he was correct?

This question pertains to legality. It has very little to do with questioning church practice or hierarchical structures in the church. One can criticise the church without it necessarily being a legal issue. I think if you take a position, and in the process of serving that position you do certain things, you are representing that position by doing those things.

ISAW wrote: »

If the taoiseach resigned or Pope dies the office ceases to exist until they appoint a new taoiseach or Pope? If I sue the President of Ireland and she retires then mary Mc elese has to pay over the damages if she is found guilty?

The office doesn't cease to exist, it merely lies vacant. Your reasoning is a bit convoluted here, and again, for the second time it pertains to legality rather than to criticism of how the Christian church operates.

ISAW wrote: »

Yeah. and this is relevant to the point that offices exist in the church just ike any other body because...????

In fairness ISAW, it's probably a bit more relevant than this post is to my position concerning questioning in church.

ISAW wrote: »

i agree. it si about people holding offices of responsibility being responsible. Of course all Christians are responsible for themselves and others but it is those that hold power over land monies laity and clergy and over other things that have even more responsibility.

Individuals are responsible yes, but at the same time they are representing the church, and the church is open to criticism based on the actions of its members.

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed. and while all people should be responsible those who have access to bank accounts and children and land deals and legal changes should be ever more responsible and accountable then the rest.

Irrespective of how responsible people should be it will still reflect on the church as a whole if it isn't living up to what it should be.

ISAW wrote: »

and these standards are formulated my WHAT mechanism? Who involved in that process holds such high responsibility?

Which standards?

Secular standards - by human beings
Divine standards - by God

ISAW wrote: »

cut the branch and the vine prospers. Cut the roots the tree will whither.

What are you talking about here? I'm not "cutting" anything off by criticising what is worthy of criticism. Neither are any others who question the churches. Questioning makes a church a better church.

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

Well if "doing as Christ did" is the Church. then the Church is perfect. If the church is "people in the church" then of course the church by that definition isnt perfect since people aren't! It is just a tautology then. "People are not perfect."

Striving towards Christ's example, and living faithfully, is the example of the church (By church I mean the Christian church in general, just to make sure that we aren't conflating RCC and Church as they are distinct - one is a particular denomination, the other is Christianity in general).

ISAW wrote: »

The point being you can regard the church as being just people in which case "people are not perfect" is a tautology! However if the church has done wrong and you wich to fix that and you wish to award restitution you have to have some system of doing that and some people who hold offices apart from their person. The whole idea of kissing the Bishops ring or bowing isn't because you like them or they are perfect and holy people it is because their office commands respect.

The church is Christ's body on earth. The ecclesia. A church is effectively a body of believers.

I would hope by saying this that you don't mean that people shouldn't strive to move the church closer to Christ's message?

By the by, to make clear. I don't think kissing the bishops ring, or bowing and so on is essential. That is mere ceremony, not the message of the Gospel, which is infinitely more important than such practices. Respect can be demonstrated without such practice.

ISAW wrote: »

Office holders hold power and if victims want to sue the church it isnt good enough for a priest or a Bishop or a parish worker to say "I sinned but i have no worldly goods" The organisation which gave that person a position is to some degree responsible and the ORGINISATION has wealth even if the individual does not!

This is again legalities. My posts aren't dealing with legalities. Rather with how we should question the church, the whole Christian community to hold it more clearly to the truth.

In the case you describe: the organisation and the individual are both responsible, and the individual can in cases bring disrepute upon the organisation.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

ISAW, you're really being quite abrasive now. We're merely discussing whether or not the church, the Christian church that is (N.B - not just the RCC, and not just on the question of child abuse) , should be questioned on the basis of teaching, practice and other such developments. It is my view, and the view of many others on this thread, that it certainly should be.

That is your opinion. But in the discussion a person in st Peters square a cleric i believe was referenced as putting the "Church" as the source and that people shouldn't question some aspects of it.

The discussion then turned on what people meant by "Church".
Some people are of the opinion that "church" means only the people that make it up.

I however draw a distinction between ALL Christians and those who hold authority and those who are meant to inform conscience, whether or not they are holy people themselves. If a child catches a cold maybe some of the class might get it . If a teacher does every class he foes into gets it. Similarly the people holding high office have to be even more vigilant accountable and responsible. Asking questions of someone outside a church is one thing. Asking it of people who have authority in office is another.

This question pertains to legality. It has very little to do with questioning church practice or hierarchical structures in the church. One can criticise the church without it necessarily being a legal issue. I think if you take a position, and in the process of serving that position you do certain things, you are representing that position by doing those things.

If you are going to make an academic argument that "God judges all in the end" and hold accountability to be after we are dead well then that is fair enough. But if you think wrongs should be redressed in this life then there has to be a system to do so! There also has to be people held accountable to making sure the system works if the same mistakes are not to happen again.

The office doesn't cease to exist, it merely lies vacant. Your reasoning is a bit convoluted here, and again, for the second time it pertains to legality rather than to criticism of how the Christian church operates.

I'm all for "we all need to examine our conscience" but if you insist we question the authority of office holders in the church then you have to propose on what we should challenge them!
Furthermore it is all well and good to say "bishop x did wrong" but if there is nothing illegal in what bishop x does then how do you suppose you are going to challenge bishop x?
Do you think that if you pray a lot then God will simply strike him down or do you think that people should have some system by which to challenge the Church or those with power or prevent them doing wrong?

and what do you mean by "question the Church" anyway?

In fairness ISAW, it's probably a bit more relevant than this post is to my position concerning questioning in church.

Who do you propose to asks these questions and of whom? How do you forsee how what if anything will change?

Individuals are responsible yes, but at the same time they are representing the church, and the church is open to criticism based on the actions of its members.

Not really. If a Christian person does an unchristian thing you cant say it is the Pope's fault! If however a bishop hides money or gives land to his friends or supports a war you CAN say it is a corruption or misuse of their office.

Irrespective of how responsible people should be it will still reflect on the church as a whole if it isn't living up to what it should be.

Again this is just kicking to touch. "The church are the people in it" stuff! If someone is responsible for abusing their authority then they should be accountable and not only after they die!

Secular standards - by human beings
Divine standards - by God

Fallacy of excluded middle. Secular natural law arguments also exists.
and it isnt good enough to say "A is a child abuser B is a rapist and C is a fraudster but they will be judged by God's Law or by Canon law" WE saw where that got us.

What are you talking about here? I'm not "cutting" anything off by criticising what is worthy of criticism. Neither are any others who question the churches. Questioning makes a church a better church.

What i am talking about is that fixing individual Christians errors is like pruning a vine. It prospers. But if the actual core or roots are corrupt then the whole tree suffers. If people with power in the Church aid and abet something wrong then the damage done is much worse than individuals themselves cause who have no such authority.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

Striving towards Christ's example, and living faithfully, is the example of the church (By church I mean the Christian church in general, just to make sure that we aren't conflating RCC and Church as they are distinct - one is a particular denomination, the other is Christianity in general).

The Roman position is the Church subsists in it but it is quite accepted from many threads I have posted what i mean by "mainstream Christianity" I mean the core of hierarchical traditional dogmatic churches. Those with creeds. Basically roman Orthodox and Anglican. You might include Lutherand and others but those three alone comprise 80 to 90 percent of all people claiming to be christian. I would not include JW's Mormons and fringe Christians. In that sense Christianity in gnereal believes in things like The Trinity, Christ as wholly man and Wholly God etc. These are NOT to be questioned! To do so is regarded as heresy.

The "questioning " to which you are referring seems to be of temporal matters and as such requires temporal solutions.

The church is Christ's body on earth. The ecclesia. A church is effectively a body of believers.

Indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

The core to which I am referring has Episcopol polity and as such it is easy to establish the points I have made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_polity

My posts aren't dealing with legalities. Rather with how we should question the church, the whole Christian community to hold it more clearly to the truth.

How do you suggest that the vast numbers of mainstream Christians should direct questions to their hierarchy?

In the case you describe: the organisation and the individual are both responsible, and the individual can in cases bring disrepute upon the organisation.

Im not trying to excuse the individual. Im saying that because of the office they hold the organisation which bestowed that office holds a share in the blame and is the only organ capable of ensuring temporal restitution for wrongs committed. You can't claim damages from a pauper!

philologos

ISAW - We're going a bit off the rails here, so I'm going to stick to what is relevant to what I've actually said so far.

ISAW wrote: »

The discussion then turned on what people meant by "Church".
Some people are of the opinion that "church" means only the people that make it up.

What do you mean by church?

ISAW wrote: »

I'm all for "we all need to examine our conscience" but if you insist we question the authority of office holders in the church then you have to propose on what we should challenge them!
Furthermore it is all well and good to say "bishop x did wrong" but if there is nothing illegal in what bishop x does then how do you suppose you are going to challenge bishop x?
Do you think that if you pray a lot then God will simply strike him down or do you think that people should have some system by which to challenge the Church or those with power or prevent them doing wrong?

My original post wasn't made under the pretext of child sexual abuse. The churches deal with more than sexuality, or sexual abuse. I don't get why you are so fixated on it.

ISAW wrote: »

and what do you mean by "question the Church" anyway?

If a sermon is preached, and one finds it disagreeable, one should meet up with their minister and ask for their reasoning.
If one finds the practice in the church disagreeable, one should seek the reasoning as to why those practices occur.

ISAW wrote: »

Who do you propose to asks these questions and of whom? How do you forsee how what if anything will change?

It's not exactly always about change either, rather it is about making sure that corruption doesn't take place in the first place. Don't trust blindly but seek answers.

ISAW wrote: »

Not really. If a Christian person does an unchristian thing you cant say it is the Pope's fault! If however a bishop hides money or gives land to his friends or supports a war you CAN say it is a corruption or misuse of their office.

I wouldn't say that it is the Pope's fault, primarily because I don't believe the Pope is God's sole representative on earth, or that church automatically refers to Roman Catholicism.

If individuals claim to be Christian, and practice hypocrisy it will change how others view Christianity in a negative light. Would you agree?

ISAW wrote: »

Again this is just kicking to touch. "The church are the people in it" stuff! If someone is responsible for abusing their authority then they should be accountable and not only after they die!

I'm not talking about legal implications. The State is responsible for whether people are jailed. Outside of that it is the responsibility of the church, or the body of believers to ensure that church is run well, and that the teaching there is good and so on.

ISAW wrote: »

Fallacy of excluded middle. Secular natural law arguments also exists.
and it isnt good enough to say "A is a child abuser B is a rapist and C is a fraudster but they will be judged by God's Law or by Canon law" WE saw where that got us.

Luckily that isn't what I am arguing, despite telling you this on numerous occasions.

ISAW wrote: »

What i am talking about is that fixing individual Christians errors is like pruning a vine. It prospers. But if the actual core or roots are corrupt then the whole tree suffers. If people with power in the Church aid and abet something wrong then the damage done is much worse than individuals themselves cause who have no such authority.

What I am mainly talking about, is about Christians being concerned with how church is run, and ensuring that the sermons are Biblical, and questioning the minister as to their reasoning, as well as asking more about why certain church practices exist. I.E - Having a say in their local church.

ISAW wrote: »

The Roman position is the Church subsists in it but it is quite accepted from many threads I have posted what i mean by "mainstream Christianity" I mean the core of hierarchical traditional dogmatic churches. Those with creeds. Basically roman Orthodox and Anglican. You might include Lutherand and others but those three alone comprise 80 to 90 percent of all people claiming to be christian. I would not include JW's Mormons and fringe Christians. In that sense Christianity in gnereal believes in things like The Trinity, Christ as wholly man and Wholly God etc. These are NOT to be questioned! To do so is regarded as heresy.

I understand that the Trinity, wholly man and wholly God are the traditional teaching of the Christian community. However, you're patently wrong to suggest that Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodox and Lutheran are the only people who could be considered Christians and that the others are on the fringe, at least in my opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

The "questioning " to which you are referring seems to be of temporal matters and as such requires temporal solutions.

I'm not saying that they don't require temporal solutions

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology

The core to which I am referring has Episcopol polity and as such it is easy to establish the points I have made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_polity

I belong to a church with Episcopal polity. Anglicanism. However, I wouldn't say that other forms of church government aren't legitimate, such as Presbyterian polity or Congregational polity.

ISAW wrote: »

How do you suggest that the vast numbers of mainstream Christians should direct questions to their hierarchy?

In terms of the Anglican Communion, we have Diocesan Synods, and the General Synod, and every 8 years our bishops represent us in the Lambeth Conference. On a local level we have the Select Vestry in each parish situation. The Select Vestry play a key role in governing the local church, Diocesan for the diocese, and General for the entire community of Anglicans in a certain province (Ireland being a single province).

It needn't be based on structure however, the mere role of members of a church speaking with their minister about what was said in the sermon or about the general welfare of the church is a good sign of a healthy church.

ISAW wrote: »

Im not trying to excuse the individual. Im saying that because of the office they hold the organisation which bestowed that office holds a share in the blame and is the only organ capable of ensuring temporal restitution for wrongs committed. You can't claim damages from a pauper!

We clearly have different understandings of church. Your view seems to divorce the congregation from being considered the church, which is odd to me.

prinz

Of course both the Church, RC, and the church as a wider community should be questioned. Power corrupts etc, and the only way to keep power in check as far as I can see is to question it. Any authority or power must continually justify the position it holds IMO.