Church authority according to the Romans and Protestants

[rembrandt]

[quote:8b71afec3f]Council of Trent (loc. cit., n. 961): "If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema."[/quote:8b71afec3f]

What? Thats rather odd.

Hey, I give them the credit that all three are present: administration of sacraments, church discipline, and preaching the word. If a chruch only preached the Word and not administer the other two they actually would be anathema.

[quote:8b71afec3f]power of consecrating and offering the Body and blo*d of the Lord[/quote:8b71afec3f]

How do protestants see the Lord Supper in light of this Roman idea?
Do we think we can consecrate the body and blo*d of Christ?
Would we say that we are "offering" the body and blo*d of Christ?

[quote:8b71afec3f]as well as of remitting and retaining sins[/quote:8b71afec3f]

The Romans think they have the ability to forgive sins. How do protestants believe that they have power to bind and loose?

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-22-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 5-22-2004 by rembrandt]

 

[Scott]

[quote:768a48621d]
The Romans think they have the ability to forgive sins. How do protestants believe that they have power to bind and loose?
[/quote:768a48621d]

Classical Protestant teaching maintains that duly appointed church officers have the ability to bind and loose sins. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 30 of the Westminster Confession. Ministers have the power to retain or remit the sins of the people. They may censure people for their sins and absolve people as well.

[quote:768a48621d]
30.1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
30.2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.
[/quote:768a48621d]

Here are the proof texts, the Confession attaches to 30.2:


[quote:768a48621d]
Matthew 16:19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 2 Corinthians 2:6-8. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
[/quote:768a48621d]

You will note that the proof texts include texts commonly cited by Catholics.

You don't see much appliction of this much in Reformed churches today. While church government takes a higher place than in congregational churches, such as bible churches, Presbyterian circles have been infilitrated with the rampant egalitarianism, individualism, and anti-authoritarianism of the day. It is anathema for many people to think in any meaningful terms other than a "personal relationship" with Jesus. To think that Jesus delegated actual authority to men is anathema to many evangelicals. Historically, this can be traced to the American Revolution and the revolutionary ideals there. See Nathan Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity, which is essential reading on the church in America.

The Reformed view, which maintains that ministers may retain sins, remit sins, provide absolution, etc. is different than Roman views. According the the Catechism of the Catholic Church, confession is a sacrament, penance is a sacrament, penance involves all sorts of strange things, etc. This is outside the Reformed understanding.

Still, in this respect classical Protestantism is close to Rome than it is to egalitarian, low church evangelicalism: duly ordained ministers have actual authority delegated them from God and this authority include the power to retain and remit sins.

Scott

 

[Scott]

[quote:9145f5ea39]
Do we think we can consecrate the body and blo*d of Christ?
[/quote:9145f5ea39]

This is how classical Protestants view the consecration:


[quote:9145f5ea39]
WCF 29.3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.
[/quote:9145f5ea39]


[quote:9145f5ea39]
Would we say that we are "offering" the body and blo*d of Christ?
[/quote:9145f5ea39]

This is what the Westminster Confession says:


[quote:9145f5ea39]
In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.
[/quote:9145f5ea39]

Scott

 

[rembrandt]

Thanks Scott!

Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I am more impressed with the ecclesiology of the [i:8abf79f5fa]early[/i:8abf79f5fa] Catholic Church than I am with that of modern evangelicalism. It is nice to go back and see the early Reformed folk's church doctrine.

This is kind of off subject, but I think the 'autonomy' of the local church is over r@ted. Church discipline is almost an impossiblity if people can just hop up and leave to go to another church down the road that doesn' t care about their prior church relations.

Rembrandt

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by rembrandt]

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by rembrandt]

 

[Scott]

Rembrandt:


[quote:b3b57b45c5]
Perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I am more impressed with the ecclesiology of the early Catholic Church than I am with that of modern evangelicalism.
[/quote:b3b57b45c5]

I agree with you. Modern evangelical ecclesiology is anabaptistic to the core. Reformed churches have been heavily influenced by it.

[quote:b3b57b45c5]
Church discipline is almost an impossiblity if people can just hop up and leave to go to another church down the road that doesn' t care about their prior church relations.
[/quote:b3b57b45c5]

This weigh heavily on my heart daily. You may find this interesting. It is an excerpt from Sunday School notes I did:

I recently read an account of an ancient excommunication proceeding in which someone was cast out of the church. He repented and stood at the doors of the meeting place of a congregation, seeking to be restored to fellowship. He had nowhere else to go if he wanted participate in the life of the church. Every orthodox congregation would have barred him because of the fundamental ecclesiastical unity. Excommunication had some visible teeth.

Excommunication in modern Protestant churches presents a practical problem. If a person is excommunicated from one church, he can simply go down the street to another - often with no questions asked. In any event, it will be no problem to find another church that will accept him, even knowing of the other church's excommunication. This obviously undermines one purpose of excommunication, which is to send a message to the excommunicated that he is outside of God's covenant community. One congregation denies that the person is part of the community. A second affirms that he is. Who is he to believe?
This practical problem arises because there is little ecclesiastical or governmental unity among modern Protestant denominations. We should see this condition as abnormal. While this is an oversimplification, generally speaking, Christianity was united ecclesiastically for the first 1,000 years of its existence. If a person were excommunicated from "the church" he had nowhere else to go, except for the occasional minor break-off sect (which was normally heretical). Christendom did not have denominational splits, independent congregations, and the like. If a person were excommunicated he would not be welcome in any congregation throughout Christendom.
The first great schism in church history occurred in 1054 AD. Prior to the schism, Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, with heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years the Roman papacy had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. The Eastern churches resisted these papal pretensions. The end result was schism with Catholic Church excommunicating the Eastern churches and the Eastern Churches returning the compliment. Both continued to function independently.
From this point on, the church was divided in two. The Eastern Orthodox system remained basically as it had been. In the Roman system, the papacy became increasingly tyrannical and worldly. It was in desperate need of reformation. In the Sixteenth Century, a group of people, such as Martin Luther, tried to reform the Roman Catholic church. They did not initially break from the church but rather protested against its abuses. These protests are the reason they were called "Protestants." Rome would have none of these changes and banished these men from outside her government.
Unwilling to submit to papal tyranny and the false doctrines the church imposed on men, men like Luther and Calvin set up their own ecclesiastical institutions in order to minister to the people of God. These institutions were provisional and were not intended to be permanent. The great hope was of "reformation" not "schism" or separation.
The situation of the Reformers is analogous to the situation of the French Charles de Gaulle in World War II. Germany invaded France and took over the government. French collaboraters, such as Marshal Petain, helped the Germans do this. French resistance fighters, led by Charles de Gaulle, refused to recognize German authority in spite of German occupation. They set up a shadow government to resist German tyranny and resist occupation. The great hope of de Gaulle and others was the liberation of France, not separation from it. Charles de Gaulle carried on much of his work from England. The French did not become complacent or happy in their new land. They did not separate from France and become reviled at the notion of returning.
The situation of the Reformation has turned out somewhat differently. The farthest things from the minds of most modern Protestants is unifying the church. Division and schism are the order of the day. Congregations and denominations split regularly, often over inconsequential things. Historians of Christianity in America have rightly identified one of its defining characteristics as an "impulse to split" which is much more extreme than in other countries. In America there are countless denominations, each claiming to speak with the voice of Christ. The spirit of division Paul warned against is common. Paul spends 6 chapters in First Corinthians arguing against disunity. This is a summary of the problem in the organized church at Cornith.


[quote:b3b57b45c5]
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
[/quote:b3b57b45c5]
1 Corinthians 1:10-17.

Paul expected the unity of the mystical body to be expressed in tangible and earthly ways. Namely people should be "united in mind and thought." Not having this unity leads to sectarianism, with claims of allegiance to various sub-groups within Christianity. Denominationalism is at its worst in America. The sinful impulse to factionalism in America is like the sin of division in Cornith on steroids. The PCA Book of Church order rightly says that the unity of Christ is "obscured" by the presence of denominations. In other countries, the religious scene is ordinarily dominated by only a handful of groups.

I don't know of any answers about how to resolve the problem of disunity and denominationalism. Few Americans even perceive this as a problem. The situation of the modern church seems to have parallels to ancient Israel. Israel was created to be a unified confederacy of twelve tribes. After the death of Solomon it split into two separate kingdoms (Judah and Israel a/k/a the Northern and Southern Kingdoms). This set up insoluble problems. For example, the center of worship was in one kingdom that was hostile to members of the second kingdom. Members of the second kingdom could not participate in divine worship due to the separation. Yet, God still treated both groups as His people. The only real solution was unity. In a glorious passage, Hezekiah strove for this unity by inviting members Israel to join with Judah in the celebration of the Passover. See 1 Chronicles 30. God gave the people "unity of mind."
In the end, though, the only thing that restored unity was the defeat and exile of Israel and Judah by Assyria and Babylon. Unity was only restored when the remnant returned from exile. The returnees set up one kingdom, not two. It took defeat by foreign powers to eliminate the division of the Northern and Southern kingdoms. I would not predict what God will do to unify the church. He has severely pruned His people before, such as with the barbarian invasions of the West in the Fifth Century, which almost (but did not) destroyed the Western church. Afterwards the church grew and flourished like never before. Of course, God could supernaturally provide His people with the "unity of mind" that accompanied Hezekiah's celebration of the Passover. That is my hope and prayer.

 

[rembrandt]

Wow, thanks Scott!

Question: If the visible church has the keys, does any one have the right to break off of the visible church? Must have the Reformers said that the church of their day was barely visible?

Rembrandt

 

[yeutter]

One of the best statements on the authority of the Church is found in Heidelberg Catechism Question 85.
Church discipline was always seen by the reformers as a means of grace.

 

[Scott]

Rembrandt:

You ask a question that is hard to answer, althought reformers spent a good deal of time addressing it. See this article series:
Protestantism and the Historic Episcopate
http://www.societaschristiana.com/

Scott

 

[rembrandt]

haha... exactly what I was looking for. Great website! You know of any other websites that promote the Catholicity of the Church?

Paul

 

[Scott]

Rembrandt, see:

Reformed Catholicism
http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/

http://hornes.org/theologia/

Ecclesia Anglicana
http://taylormarshall.blogspot.com/

Sacra Doctrina
http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/