Whether they were chosen by God in Scripture does not make them chosen by God now.
The crucifixion changed everything, but the little detail about the temple curtain has passed you by.
Priests are to facilitate the church, not control the people and their relationship with God.
Richard
The promises of God are irrevocable, states the Scripture itself.
Those Priests are long dead.
You do love universalising Scripture beyond what it means.
(and having the last word)
Richard
Irrevocable means irrevocable. They weren’t directed to specific individuals, just like God’s promises for Israel have never been revoked. Try and learn the Scripture instead of always typing frantically and erratically on your keyboard or cellphone, please.
Nope – the rending of the curtain in the Temple merely shifts the function of the special priesthood from standing in the place of Messiah-who-has-not-come to that of standing in the place of Messiah who has come. As a corollary, it also does away with priesthood based on blood inheritance andd opens it to all membeers of the priesthood of all believers.
Exactly – and they do that by standing in the place of Messiah Who has come.
This assumes that the New Testament priesthood is merely a continuation of the Aaronic priesthood. It isn’t, it is a fulfillment of the Aaronic priesthood under a New covenant.
True, and that does apply.
But I never claimed that the priesthood of the New Covenant is merely an unchanged continuation of the Aaronic priesthood.
In fact, Catholic theology explicitly teaches that the priesthood of the Old Covenant finds its fulfillment in Christ, who is our eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not Aaron (Hebrews 7:11–17).
The Catechism makes this distinction perfectly clear. Paragraph 1541 identifies the Aaronic priesthood as a prefiguration of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant, while paragraphs 1544–1545 explain that the priesthood of the Old Covenant finds its fulfillment in Christ, whose one priesthood is made present through the ministerial priesthood of the Church.
But fulfillment and irrevocability are not mutually exclusive. The fulfillment of a divine promise does not mean that God has revoked it.
And this is particularly important when discussing God’s promises to Israel.
In Romans 11:1–2, Paul explicitly asks whether God has rejected His people, and his answer is unequivocal: “By no means!”
Later, in Romans 11:28–29, he explains that even those Israelites who have not accepted the Gospel remain beloved by God for the sake of the patriarchs, precisely because “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
Notice what this means.
Paul is writing after the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ, yet he explicitly maintains that God’s election of Israel remains irrevocable. The promises made to the patriarchs have not simply expired, nor has Israel ceased to be the object of God’s covenantal faithfulness.
In other words, the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant do not mean that God has revoked His promises to Israel. Those promises remain irrevocable.
This is precisely why Paul insists that God has not rejected His people and warns Gentile Christians against boasting over the natural branches of the olive tree (Romans 11:17–24).
The Church herself recognizes this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 839, explicitly recalls that the covenants and promises belong to the Jewish people and reaffirms that God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable.
Of course, this does not mean that every institution of the Old Covenant must continue unchanged. The Aaronic priesthood, for example, finds its fulfillment in the unique and eternal priesthood of Christ.
But the transformation or fulfillment of an Old Covenant institution must not be confused with the revocation of God’s promises to Israel.
These are two different questions.
Indeed, if the establishment of the New Covenant automatically meant that God’s earlier promises had been revoked, Paul’s insistence in Romans 11 that God’s calling of Israel remains irrevocable would be difficult to explain.
So my point is not that the Christian ministerial priesthood is simply the Aaronic priesthood under another name. It is that the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ does not negate God’s continuing faithfulness to the promises He made to Israel.
And if we want to discuss the permanence of the Christian ministerial priesthood, we should examine the relevant New Testament passages and apostolic Tradition.
But merely pointing out that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant does not establish that God’s earlier promises have been revoked. Scripture explicitly teaches otherwise in the case of Israel.
That is not reformed Doctrine
Richard
And, I would add, Paul goes even further. In Romans 11:25–26, he speaks of a partial hardening of Israel lasting until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then declares that “all Israel will be saved.”
This is particularly significant because Paul does not present Israel’s present unbelief as the final word in God’s plan of salvation. Rather, he anticipates a future fulfillment of God’s saving purposes for Israel.
And it does mean that Israel’s future has not been erased from God’s plan of salvation by the establishment of the New Covenant.
Roymond, the fundamental difficulty with your argument here is that you have not yet established why the participation or reception of certain apostolic Churches should be indispensable to a council’s ecumenicity, while that of other ancient apostolic Churches should not.
And I believe the history of the first seven ecumenical councils makes this question particularly important.
First, the participation or invitation of every apostolic Church cannot be an indispensable condition for a council eventually to be recognized as ecumenical.
Consider the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
It was originally an Eastern council: no Western bishops participated, and Rome was neither invited nor represented.
Yet both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox recognize it as the Second Ecumenical Council.
Of course, you could reasonably respond that Constantinople I was subsequently received by the Western Church, i acknowledge that distinction, but this establishes that initial participation or invitation and subsequent reception are different questions: the former cannot be an absolute requirement for eventual ecumenicity.
Second, and more importantly, reception by every ancient Church possessing authentic apostolic succession cannot be an indispensable condition either.
Consider the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian Churches.
These Churches have preserved apostolic succession, yet they formally recognize only the first three ecumenical councils, they don’t formally recognize Chalcedon or the subsequent four councils accepted by both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
And here is the particularly important historical point: the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils were held in 553, 680–681, and 787, respectively, long after the separation between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches had become an established reality.
Consequently, we aren’t merely discussing Churches that rejected a council and subsequently separated from those who accepted it, we are discussing later councils that were held when other ancient Churches possessing apostolic succession had already been separated from the communion that convened and received them.
Nevertheless, neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox conclude that these councils lack ecumenical authority because the Oriental Orthodox Churches did not receive them.
So we have historical precedents of councils recognized as ecumenical despite their non-reception by ancient apostolic Churches that had already been separated for generations.
Why, then, should the non-reception of later Catholic councils by the Eastern Orthodox necessarily deprive those councils of ecumenical status?
I recognize that you might distinguish the separation following Chalcedon from the later separation between East and West, and I agree that the historical circumstances were different, but the existence of historical differences doesn’t, by itself, establish why those differences entail fundamentally different conditions of ecumenicity.
That is what needs to be explained.
You have argued that Eastern participation is indispensable because East and West both retained authentic apostolic characteristics, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches also retained apostolic succession.
Furthermore, the 1990 Second Agreed Statement of the Joint Theological Commission between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox representatives acknowledged that both families had maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological faith and the continuity of apostolic Tradition.
The same statement, however, recognized their different reception of the ecumenical councils.
Of course, that theological agreement didn’t itself restore full communion or constitute formal reception of Chalcedon by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but this reinforces my original distinction: substantial doctrinal agreement does not necessarily entail formal reception of the same ecumenical councils.
Nor can we simply assume that a Church’s preservation of apostolic succession automatically makes its reception indispensable, since the historical examples above demonstrate that this has not been the criterion applied to every ancient apostolic Church.
Third, there is also a historical difficulty with your assertion that only those already adhering to Rome were invited to the Catholic councils of the second millennium.
For example, Orthodox ecclesiastical authorities were invited to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. We even have evidence of the Greek Metropolitan Basil Pediadites of Corfu declining Pope Innocent III’s invitation.
More significantly, the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438–1439 included the Byzantine emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople, numerous Eastern bishops, and representatives of the other Eastern patriarchates.
The resulting decree of union, Laetentur caeli, was signed by the participating Greek bishops, with notable exceptions, although the union was subsequently rejected by the wider Orthodox Church.
I’m not suggesting that their participation automatically establishes Florence’s ecumenicity, nor am I denying the importance of its subsequent non-reception, my point is simply that the historical claim that only those already in communion with Rome were invited to the Catholic councils of the second millennium is not correct.
But let me return to the central question, because I think this is where our actual disagreement lies.
You could argue that, following Chalcedon, the Oriental Orthodox Churches no longer belonged to the ecclesial communion whose reception was necessary, whereas Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, despite their later separation, continued to constitute indispensable parts of the universal Church, that would be a more specific ecclesiological argument, but it requires an explanation of why the separation of one ancient apostolic communion removes the necessity of its reception, while the separation of another does not.
The mere fact that both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy preserved apostolic succession does not establish the distinction, since the Oriental Orthodox Churches preserved it as well.
If your answer is that only the reception of the communion constituting the Church in its fullness is necessary, then we must establish how that communion is identified, what makes its reception authoritative, and why its boundaries should be understood in the way you propose.
In particular, what ecclesiological principle makes Eastern Orthodox participation or reception indispensable to the ecumenicity of Catholic councils after the schism, while the participation or reception of the Oriental Orthodox Churches was not indispensable to the ecumenicity of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Councils?
If the answer depends on the nature of the Church, the consequences of schism, or the location of universal teaching authority, then those principles must be independently justified.
And this is where Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies differ: the Catholic position is that the college of bishops, together with the successor of Peter as its head, possesses supreme authority over the universal Church, including the authority exercised solemnly in an ecumenical council (Lumen gentium, 22).
This doesn’t require denying the authentic apostolic succession or sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
I recognize, of course, that this Catholic ecclesiological premise also requires justification when addressing someone who does not already accept it, but precisely because our ecclesiological premises are disputed, neither of us can simply assume his own understanding of the universal Church and then treat its consequences as independent proof that the other position is incorrect.
I’m not claiming that these historical precedents, by themselves, conclusively establish the ecumenicity of the Catholic councils of the second millennium (although I obviously affirm it), my argument is that the non-reception of those councils by the Eastern Orthodox does not, by itself, establish their lack of ecumenicity unless we first demonstrate that Eastern Orthodox reception is an indispensable condition.
And the history of the first seven councils shows why that condition cannot simply be inferred from the preservation of apostolic succession or from the absence of participation by a separated ancient Church.
It requires a further ecclesiological argument, which is the argument I have been asking you to provide and you have not provided yet.
Just one more question, Roymond. It’s entirely possible that I’ve misunderstood your position, and if so, I apologize in advance.
But are you suggesting that bishops such as those discussed in this article should be given free rein?
Allow me to quote a passage from the article:
Asked if same-sex relationships were permissible, the German prelate replied: “Yes, it’s OK if it’s done in fidelity and responsibility. It doesn’t affect the relationship with God.”
As I said, I may have completely misunderstood your comment and what you were referring to. But if I haven’t, I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the less free rein German bishops have in matters of doctrine and the administration of the sacraments, the better. I have heard a number of them make statements that are plainly heterodox, including the one quoted above, as well as others concerning the Eucharist, women’s ordination (a door that has been definitively closed by John Paul II) and other doctrinal matters.
And as for Knor’s statement you replied to
As I have shown yesterday, unless he can demonstrate that the Protestant historian and theologian Adolf Von Harnack was wrong, the idea that the bishop of Rome is merely the head of the regional Church is not well supported (to put it mildly).
“From the close of the first century the Roman church was in a position of practical primacy over Christendom.” And at the end: “ it was a cardinal duty to “strengthen the brethren,” and this duty Rome amply discharged.”
Source: Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vol. II, Book III, Excursus III, The Primacy of Rome in Relation to the Mission, p. 485. Adolf Harnack: Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
2. “Before general synods and patriarchs arose within the church, prior even to the complete development of the metropolitan system, there was a catholic confederation which embraced the majority of the Christian churches in the East and the West alike. It came into being during the gnostic controversies; it assumed a relatively final shape during the Montanist controversy; and its headquarters were at Rome. The federation had no written constitution. It did not possess one iota of common statutes. Nevertheless, it was a fact. Its common denominator consisted of the apostles’ creed, the apostolic canon, and belief in the apostolical succession of the episcopate.”
Source: Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vol. II, Book III, Excursus II, The Catholic Confederation and the Mission, p. 483. Adolf Harnack: Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
3. “All these causes combined to convert the Christian communities into a real confederation under the primacy of the Roman Church”
Source: Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, Vol. II, Excursus Catholic and Roman, pp. 159–160. Adolf Harnack: History of Dogma - Volume II - Christian Classics Ethereal Library . Rome’s apostolic foundation and episcopal succession — BEFORE the quotation (pp. 153–154, 158–159)
Harnack considers Rome’s association with the apostles Peter and Paul, together with its early documentation of episcopal succession, an important element in its exceptional standing among the ancient Christian communities, he observes that Rome is the earliest Church for which historians can demonstrate the existence of a list of bishops extending back to the apostles. He also argues that the Roman bishops were among the first to employ the concept of apostolic episcopal succession as an institutional and doctrinal argument.
Most significantly, immediately before his statement about Roman primacy, Harnack returns to this subject. On page 159, he emphasizes that by approximately AD 180 the Roman Church could point to an episcopal succession tracing its origins to Peter and Paul.Thus, apostolic succession is not something Harnack introduces after declaring Rome’s primacy. It is part of the historical evidence he has already presented when he reaches that conclusion.
Harnack also argues that the Roman Church developed an especially clear and authoritative formulation of the apostolic rule of faith.
According to his reconstruction, by around AD 180 Rome possessed a precisely formulated baptismal confession regarded as a standard of apostolic teaching, which, during the Gnostic controversies, enabled the Roman Church to distinguish what it regarded as authentic apostolic Christianity from competing doctrines.
On page 159, immediately before his conclusion concerning Roman primacy, Harnack emphasizes Rome’s firmness during these controversies and her established rule of faith.
In other words, Rome’s doctrinal authority is not presented merely as a consequence of the city’s political importance. Harnack also regards the Roman Church’s perceived fidelity to apostolic teaching as an important reason for its influence throughout Christendom.
This is especially relevant because his historical argument concerns not only Rome’s prestige but also her role in establishing and maintaining doctrinal unity across different Christian communities.
Harnack describes the Roman Church as exercising an exceptional influence over Christian communities outside its own geographical region.
He discusses several pieces of evidence.
First, he examines the First Epistle of Clement, written to the Corinthians toward the end of the first century. Harnack interprets this intervention as evidence that Rome already exercised a particular responsibility for communities beyond its immediate jurisdiction.
Second, he examines Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans, arguing that Ignatius acknowledged Rome’s distinctive precedence among the Churches.
Third, he discusses Dionysius of Corinth, whose correspondence with the Roman bishop Soter illustrates the extensive assistance provided by Rome to Christian communities across the Mediterranean.
So, if Knor is willing and capable to substantiate his idea that the Church of Rome was merely the leader of a regional Church and didn’t have a practical (not merely ceremonial) primacy over the other Churches, I’m afraid he will have to do a considerable amount of work to demonstrate that the Protestant historian and theologian Adolf Von Harnack wasn’t offering a coherent and truthful historical account.
I provide historical evidence, if the counter argument to historical evidence is “methinks” I don’t know how much credibility this modus operandi possesses.
But if he possesses historical counter-evidence to the evidence Harnack (a Protestant historian and theologian, clearly someone with a vested interest in defending Rome…) provided , let him show such evidence.
I have urged him, actually I have begged him, to provide the evidence that the early Church, even the earliest pre-nicene Church, would have been compatible with his beliefs (Rome as a mere “churches among other churches”, symbolic Eucharist, private interpretation of the text that superseded and could contradict and oppose the interpretation of the Church etc etc etc) and would have supported them and judged them orthodox. So far, I have seen none of that.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.