Catholic Questions

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by lesterb »

Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Sudsy »

lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
On the other hand, too much involvement of the community, which do not require specific qualifications that elders and pastors do, could be what contributed to some degree through strong, convincing personalities to all the splits and variations within Anabaptism. Seems to me Acts 15 did not involve everyone's input but rather the apostles and elders. Verse 6 - "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. " Did Menno rely on the understanding of the community when he determined the meaning of scripture ? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I think having a statement of faith in a group should be the basic beliefs one should have to be a member of a community. Outside that statement, other interpretations should be up to the individual and not forced on anyone. And, I guess, that is not the way conservative Anabaptists believe.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by silentreader »

Sudsy wrote:
lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
On the other hand, too much involvement of the community, which do not require specific qualifications that elders and pastors do, could be what contributed to some degree through strong, convincing personalities to all the splits and variations within Anabaptism. Seems to me Acts 15 did not involve everyone's input but rather the apostles and elders. Verse 6 - "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. " Did Menno rely on the understanding of the community when he determined the meaning of scripture ? I don't know, I'm just asking.

I think having a statement of faith in a group should be the basic beliefs one should have to be a member of a community. Outside that statement, other interpretations should be up to the individual and not forced on anyone. And, I guess, that is not the way conservative Anabaptists believe.
Just curious, which specific qualifications should the laity not have to have?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Hats Off »

lesterb wrote:
3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
Unfortunately in the old order Mennonite churches in Canada, conference discussions are top secret, and should any word of conference discussions be leaked, the conference leaders have vowed to find the source of the leak. This is where I see some Anabaptists reverting to Catholic practices.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
This is a fair question lesterb but my conclusion is based on what I see happened through the centuries with Protestantism in general & Sola Scriptura- because they broke away, and started over trying to figure it all out by Scripture alone (which Scripture doesn't claim itself to be the 'only' authority) then we have the situation of today- where over 20,000 denominatins outside of the ancient Church has interpreted all Scripture, while it 'seems' they include ancient writings in helping with that- it has totally sected out Christianity beyond real recognition of One Holy Apostolic Faith- this is what I see as a very sad situation. In light of your question, our former pastor of 20 years when we had reached an answer by prayer & understanding regarding covering, he simply said "I thought it was the hair. I don't see how some doily represents anything (or something like that is how he said it regarding doily-apparently visiting Holmes County often since we are close in proximity) even pastors today trying to understand the Anabaptists get confused about the different obvious sectarianism so probably don't see that as 'the answer' as well- recalling a man asking a waitress about the various coverings in Mrs. Yoders- he said the larger ones then are like 'super Christian'- see there is confusion in witnessing the variety-like that-
My conclusion is Pastor's learn where they go to 'theology' school and by praying to understand- it makes it easy for me to often fall back then on ancient writings and teachings and see where the Church at large has departed-
Just an aside- I really don't see, when having visited the numerous EO parishes we have, any "power" type of authority from clergy- not at all- honestly and truly, I see servants up at the altar and living out their priesthood very much like Christ- serving. Bringing healing. Compassion. The laity in the congregation we spent a year, loves loves loves Father Andrew, to them he has a huge heart and is all about serving not demanding an authoritarian role- A brotherhood situation is something I've never personally experienced in churches-like the Anabaptist-
Reading Scripture at face value, it seems to me though- the bishops played a very important role, the elders, the deacons- and in Churches like EO, there hasn't been a need to figure things out 'Scripturally" forever- those in leadership go by the early interpretations- the service is about worship, the homily or sermon, the Eucharist (being the most important part), prayer, singing, fellowship afterwards- there doesn't see this power struggle going on that I feel you suggest? However in decision making- I guess it has always been according to the pattern in Acts 15 among the leaders- that's where councils began-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23817
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Josh »

Valerie, significant schisms started back by the 3rd century. The churches in China, India, Ethiopia, Armenia, Syria, and Rome - Byzantium are already not in communion with each other at all. And by the 11th century, Rome and the east also ended up on schism.

If one wants to subscribe to a "Holy Apostolic original faith" then might just as soon choose Ethiopian Tewahadoism, Chinese Nestorianism, or Indian Orientalism.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by lesterb »

Valerie wrote:
lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:...This passage seems to teach that it is NOT left to the laity to determine what Scriptures mean- or to dictate doctrine- but it should have come from those in leadership that it was entrusted to- and for them to teach laity-
Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
This is a fair question lesterb but my conclusion is based on what I see happened through the centuries with Protestantism in general & Sola Scriptura- because they broke away, and started over trying to figure it all out by Scripture alone (which Scripture doesn't claim itself to be the 'only' authority) then we have the situation of today- where over 20,000 denominatins outside of the ancient Church has interpreted all Scripture, while it 'seems' they include ancient writings in helping with that- it has totally sected out Christianity beyond real recognition of One Holy Apostolic Faith- this is what I see as a very sad situation. In light of your question, our former pastor of 20 years when we had reached an answer by prayer & understanding regarding covering, he simply said "I thought it was the hair. I don't see how some doily represents anything (or something like that is how he said it regarding doily-apparently visiting Holmes County often since we are close in proximity) even pastors today trying to understand the Anabaptists get confused about the different obvious sectarianism so probably don't see that as 'the answer' as well- recalling a man asking a waitress about the various coverings in Mrs. Yoders- he said the larger ones then are like 'super Christian'- see there is confusion in witnessing the variety-like that-
My conclusion is Pastor's learn where they go to 'theology' school and by praying to understand- it makes it easy for me to often fall back then on ancient writings and teachings and see where the Church at large has departed-
Just an aside- I really don't see, when having visited the numerous EO parishes we have, any "power" type of authority from clergy- not at all- honestly and truly, I see servants up at the altar and living out their priesthood very much like Christ- serving. Bringing healing. Compassion. The laity in the congregation we spent a year, loves loves loves Father Andrew, to them he has a huge heart and is all about serving not demanding an authoritarian role- A brotherhood situation is something I've never personally experienced in churches-like the Anabaptist-
Reading Scripture at face value, it seems to me though- the bishops played a very important role, the elders, the deacons- and in Churches like EO, there hasn't been a need to figure things out 'Scripturally" forever- those in leadership go by the early interpretations- the service is about worship, the homily or sermon, the Eucharist (being the most important part), prayer, singing, fellowship afterwards- there doesn't see this power struggle going on that I feel you suggest? However in decision making- I guess it has always been according to the pattern in Acts 15 among the leaders- that's where councils began-
In Acts 15 they had several apostles in attendance. But the apostolic authority passed into the New Testament. Now we go to the NT for authentication, not an authority in the leadership.

And if you read the context carefully, you will notice that the entire church was present at the Acts 15 "council". Nothing was done in secrecy. This one factor would add an accountability to decision making that is often absent. But there was apparently hours of discussion at that meeting that isn't recorded, during which it appears that anyone could speak, not just leaders. James at that end gave his "sentence" which appears to be a summary of the discussion.

Somehow what I read about historical church councils do not compare very favorably with Acts 15.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Sudsy »

silentreader wrote: Just curious, which specific qualifications should the laity not have to have?
Not sure if I understand your question correctly but this link explains qualifications for elders,pastors, bishops,deacons https://www.gotquestions.org/qualificat ... acons.html

Imo, opening the interpretation to those who are not in these positions and may not qualify leaves the door open to those who are talented at making their case in such a way that they persuade the majority to follow them. However, if a church really does have spiritual, qualified leaders, then they should be able to guide the flock despite any talented. persuasive lay person.

Our teaching pastor was previously a Pentecostal pastor and he says how he now appreciates the Anabaptist way of involving more than just the pastor in discerning things. We just had a change in the approach to women in ministry leadership and although every member was allowed their input, the council created on this subject along with the elders and pastors made the final decision. Some laity did not agree and had to decide if it was a deal-breaker for them to stay.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by silentreader »

Sudsy wrote:
silentreader wrote: Just curious, which specific qualifications should the laity not have to have?
Not sure if I understand your question correctly but this link explains qualifications for elders,pastors, bishops,deacons https://www.gotquestions.org/qualificat ... acons.html

Imo, opening the interpretation to those who are not in these positions and may not qualify leaves the door open to those who are talented at making their case in such a way that they persuade the majority to follow them. However, if a church really does have spiritual, qualified leaders, then they should be able to guide the flock despite any talented. persuasive lay person.

Our teaching pastor was previously a Pentecostal pastor and he says how he now appreciates the Anabaptist way of involving more than just the pastor in discerning things. We just had a change in the approach to women in ministry leadership and although every member was allowed their input, the council created on this subject along with the elders and pastors made the final decision. Some laity did not agree and had to decide if it was a deal-breaker for them to stay.
The point I was making was that most of those qualifications seem to point towards an expression of personal holiness more so than any natural abilities. That is why the 'able to teach' seems somewhat out of place if it is taken as a natural ability. When they chose the 7 in Acts, they didn't specify financial acuity, rather it seems they looked for Holy Spirit filled men who would be willing to serve others in a Christ-like way.
In our Mennonite way of choosing leaders from among us I have repeatedly seen a misplaced focus in the choosing.
And lives expressing personal holiness is not something that should be expected only of leaders.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Catholic Questions

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:
Valerie wrote:
lesterb wrote: Couple of quick thoughts on this...

1. The leadership of the congregation you attend feels that the woman's covered head is subversive and unnecessary. According to your own testimony, you are wearing it because of your personal conviction, rather than the interpretation of your leadership.

2. This doesn't line up with the practice of the Church in Acts, specifically in Acts 15 but also elsewhere. The "multitude" came together to discuss the issues.

3. This idea flies in the face of a lot of what Anabaptism teaches about community, brotherhood, and the kingdom of Christ. In fact, Anabaptists would not exist had they held to this teaching. Groups like the EO and the RCC like this teaching because it gives them total control over the people under them. I will not be part of a group that locks the brotherhood out of the interpretation process.
This is a fair question lesterb but my conclusion is based on what I see happened through the centuries with Protestantism in general & Sola Scriptura- because they broke away, and started over trying to figure it all out by Scripture alone (which Scripture doesn't claim itself to be the 'only' authority) then we have the situation of today- where over 20,000 denominatins outside of the ancient Church has interpreted all Scripture, while it 'seems' they include ancient writings in helping with that- it has totally sected out Christianity beyond real recognition of One Holy Apostolic Faith- this is what I see as a very sad situation. In light of your question, our former pastor of 20 years when we had reached an answer by prayer & understanding regarding covering, he simply said "I thought it was the hair. I don't see how some doily represents anything (or something like that is how he said it regarding doily-apparently visiting Holmes County often since we are close in proximity) even pastors today trying to understand the Anabaptists get confused about the different obvious sectarianism so probably don't see that as 'the answer' as well- recalling a man asking a waitress about the various coverings in Mrs. Yoders- he said the larger ones then are like 'super Christian'- see there is confusion in witnessing the variety-like that-
My conclusion is Pastor's learn where they go to 'theology' school and by praying to understand- it makes it easy for me to often fall back then on ancient writings and teachings and see where the Church at large has departed-
Just an aside- I really don't see, when having visited the numerous EO parishes we have, any "power" type of authority from clergy- not at all- honestly and truly, I see servants up at the altar and living out their priesthood very much like Christ- serving. Bringing healing. Compassion. The laity in the congregation we spent a year, loves loves loves Father Andrew, to them he has a huge heart and is all about serving not demanding an authoritarian role- A brotherhood situation is something I've never personally experienced in churches-like the Anabaptist-
Reading Scripture at face value, it seems to me though- the bishops played a very important role, the elders, the deacons- and in Churches like EO, there hasn't been a need to figure things out 'Scripturally" forever- those in leadership go by the early interpretations- the service is about worship, the homily or sermon, the Eucharist (being the most important part), prayer, singing, fellowship afterwards- there doesn't see this power struggle going on that I feel you suggest? However in decision making- I guess it has always been according to the pattern in Acts 15 among the leaders- that's where councils began-
In Acts 15 they had several apostles in attendance. But the apostolic authority passed into the New Testament. Now we go to the NT for authentication, not an authority in the leadership.

And if you read the context carefully, you will notice that the entire church was present at the Acts 15 "council". Nothing was done in secrecy. This one factor would add an accountability to decision making that is often absent. But there was apparently hours of discussion at that meeting that isn't recorded, during which it appears that anyone could speak, not just leaders. James at that end gave his "sentence" which appears to be a summary of the discussion.

Somehow what I read about historical church councils do not compare very favorably with Acts 15.
Couple things in regards to this- lesterb- I think that we disagree about something here- and that is Apostolic Succession and how that was supposed to work- from what I read in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs- there is a lot of support for Apostolic Succession. I don't want to derail this thread about it but I do believe the Roman Catholics would agree with it - I think that EO & RC's will differ in some ways, and I do believe EO, since the great Schism of 1054 wouldn't see perhaps Apostolic Succession really in Rome-by that point- I don't believe the Church fully relied on Scripture 'alone'.

I'm curious because I have only read 'bits' about the council- mainly the councils I have read about are the one Constantine called because heresy was soooooo strong it was really dividing the Church- think about Christianity going 'worldwide'. It was difficult enough to keep Israel walking in truth without heresy/sectariansim- now take it world wide and keep Apostolic doctrine intact. What a tremendous challenge!! Well- without the 'oral' traditions, relying on Sola Scriptura as the 'only' aunthenticity without Apostolic Succession being considered, we have the situation presently- where there are tremendous disagreements on interpretation- even- seemingly different understandings of what 'the Gospel' really is, regarding salvation, regarding works, regarding just about every topic in Christendom.

So my question I guess because I am limited in knowledge about each council (there were 7 major) where is the source of your learning about each council?

I am tempted to start a thread about what the early writers wrote about Apostolic Succession- how it was supposed to work. Yet by Scripture alone- I can attest to that happening already as being conveyed by the Apostles themselves by their own statements (namely Apostle Paul) and then the early church fathers & writers emphasized this as well. It doesn't mean there weren't some bad ones that entered the Church, to be sure- but that does not take away from the original intention.
0 x
Post Reply