There will probably always be the tension of reading the Bible and understanding it as infallible or inspired.
To clear the air as to what that entails I'll put it out there:
Thinking the Bible is infallible means that there
cannot be any errors within the text, while the inspired perspective on the Bible means that God spoke
to and
through the writers and by that method
they were the ones who put the Bible together.
Personally, I'm caught in this tension simply because of the different circles of followers of Christ I hang out with. Some have a conservative view on life and so from there their faith is developed. Others have a liberal worldview and so from there their faith has been cultivated.
Is it wrong to be conservative or liberal? No, if not practiced to the extreme. I believe it's good to be even keel in one's beliefs, whether in matters of faith or other matters, to have a balance in what one believes to be true.
I also believe that one should be able to live with a bit of doubt; too often I think followers of Christ -- myself included -- have only lived out our faith because we think we have all the answers and we're the ones who are right.
But I believe that, as a result of this, we've traded faith in for certainty, to which as Anne Lamott so aptly put it; "the opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's certainty." To which I would have to agree with her, but sometimes I think Christiandom only says, "We are right," in a cocksure matter-of-fact kinda way, when we should live in the tension of doubt and faith and say, "What if we're wrong?"
As Peter Rollins says quite often -- to which it's the theme of his book
Insurrection -- "To believe is human, to doubt divine." And while I won't get into it in this post, I believe Jesus too hung in this tension for a while when he lived some 2000 years ago.
I believe that, whether you fall on the side of the fence that says the Bible is infallible or whether you fall on the side of the fence that says the Bible is inspired, the Bible needs to be read in context. By context I mean not the verse alone, not even the verses surrounding that verse alone, not even that chapter alone. All of the Bible needs to be read as to give the fullest broadest perspective, to read in a co-mingling of faith and doubt and trust and tension.
But one thing to keep in mind is that who we are and what we have gone through as well as what we're going through affects how we read and keep in the Bible as well as what we keep out of the Bible as well. As
NakedPastor put it in one of my favorite comics; "The Bible + My Interpretation = My Interpretation"
To Christians, how do you read into the Bible? To people of other faith systems, do you live in the tension of your texts? Whether they be infallible or inspired or other?
True
Comments (11)
If ever I come across Scripture I have difficulty with or interpret a certain way and I wonder if it is just my interpretation and I want to test it, I go to the teachings of the Church. If my interpretation clashes with what the Church teaches regarding a certain matter of faith or morality, then I know I'm off and I need to keep praying with that Scripture and ask the Holy Spirit for understanding and wisdom. If we try and separate Scripture from Sacred Tradition--removing it from the context in which it was written and assembled--then I think we run into the danger of The Bible+My Interpretation=My Interpretation. But when we keep both together, where one informs and checks the other and I can see how the Church has always interpreted Scripture in the light of what the Apostles taught, I know that I'm on solid ground.
I've found the matter beautifully articulated here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Nice! For me the most helpful context is The whole Bible + my life = intimacy with God. I'm totally with you that its unhelpful for a verse or chapter or book or New vs old Testament. As I read the Bible and run into something I don't understand or seems counter to what I've been taught or heard, or my life experience...or who I've come to know as the nature of God...I seek God and so far my experience is I come into a deeper understanding and intimacy with God.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - I appreciate your perspective. I've found different church teachings helpful at times (I've found value in the Roman Catholic, orthodox, and many flavor of Protestantism). I sometimes find one or any doesn't offer a life-giving perspective on a matter of personal perspective, but that seems all part of the personal journey...after all God is still perfecting His bride...of which I'm a part.
This probably goes in a different direction than you intended but it's what was formed in my mind as I read this post:
Fortunately for us, we don't need to choose between the Bible being inspired and infallible. In fact, if we say it is what it says it is - the Word of God - then we must say that it is infallible because it is not merely inspired by the very Word of God and of his breath. If we say the Bible is not infallible then we say that the Bible is wrong, that the Word of God is wrong. If we claim the Word of God is wrong then we have a problem if we also want to call ourselves Christians. If our God has spoken to us and taught us falsely then we ought to give him and his Word up for something which is true and does not deceive. We should then find a God who is not wrong and does not lead us falsely.
Our scriptures, especially the psalms, speak of God's Word (particularly his commands) as being true. The Gospels attest to the truth of Jesus and his teachings. Compared to God's truth, our truth is falsehood. If God's Word were true in the same vapidness as our human truth we'd have a problem even then. As it is, the Word of God is true and without falsehood.A more popular question in me experience is if scripture is infallible, inerrant, or both. The Bible teaches truth without falsehood and thus it is infallible. However, it holds within it some errors, such as grammatical errors, and this means it is not inerrant. Inerrant means without error. Infallible means without falsehood. Knowing this, we can say that the Bible is both inspired and infallible but not inerrant.
Assuming we believe the bible has mistakes; Is there a man on earth that can decide which part of the bible is a mistake and which isn't? Once you claim there are mistakes your challenging the very existance of God. If God is magnificent enough to create everything don't you think he is at least capable of getting to mankind an uncorrupted love letter (bible)? Revelation 22:18-19 says not even one word can be added or hanged by men or they will be cursed. If there are mistakes in the bible there is no truth and all mankind is doomed. Of course the bible is infalluable just as our Lord Jesus was, John 1:1-16. So the question is better if asked "Do you believe God's words?" If your salvation is based upon God's words how can you believe some of God's words are corrupted?
God Bless,
Brother RoberLeeRE
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - I'll test your theory. What tradition did the Corinthians have when Paul wrote his epistle to them? Scholars don't think that most of the New Testament was even written when 1st Corinthians was penned. Surely the Corinthians would have had to read the epistle in the light of tradition just like you say that we should do.
What are we to do if we read the Bible and find that it tells us that the tradition is wrong? For instance, tradition says that Catholics are to call priests "Father." However, the Bible records that Jesus said for his disciples to call no man "Father." I guess tradition wins over the Bible.
The Protestants claim, with a great deal of support, that Catholic tradition has added errors that contradict the Bible. So, that tradition is controversial in some points, to say the least.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - Well, I guess that if we fallible humans can't find mistakes, we'll have to say that a misprint like the Sinners Bible, which states, "Thou shalt commit adultery," excuses the adulterers. What about the Jehova's Witnesses' Bible? Do you call that inspired?
Clearly, God isn't preventing man from making errors of printing or translation. The KJV clearly has an error in 1 John, where text was added based on some notes in the margin of another Bible (the Johannine Comma). Which version is infallible? Do the Chinese have to learn English to read the Bible? Is one translation infallible, or just the autographs?
My position is that major doctrines and historical facts are accurate. There may be minor variations between texts, but we can test them against one another and against early translations to find out when errors were added. We can have good reasons to have great confidence in our Bibles because of diligence by translators, but translators err, so there are bound to be a few problems. Diligence is required on the part of the reader as well.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga
- The precise reason the Jehovah Witnesses bible came out was the belief that
the bible had mistakes in it. A bunch of bible students started going to the
Greek and Hebrew and started changing things because they believed there were
mistakes---so I don't see your point on that one as an example.
I agree with the position of @ToastersNMilkshakes@xanga
- when he said:
"However, it holds within it some errors, such as grammatical errors, and
this means it is not inerrant. Inerrant means without error. Infallible means
without falsehood. Knowing this, we can say that the Bible is both inspired and
infallible but not inerrant."
I think mainly our differences is semantics here. I agree with you the bible
should be translated to all languages. Overall the message is the same as tested
and confirmed by the worldwide body of Christ. Overall in the scheme of God's
kingdom the issues you speak of are minuscule.
However I do believe there are way too many going to the Greek (including
preachers) when there is no need acting like we all need to go to the Greek.
But there are those who do not read the bible because they say its words of
men or its been influenced by men. That is error in thinking and those were the
ones I was writing to. Overall we agree.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - When Paul wrote his epistle to the Corinthians they likely had only the Old Testament (likely the Septuagint since they were out in the diaspora, in Greek-speaking lands) and whatever oral tradition Paul and his helpers gave to them through preaching and teaching. So, yes, the Corinthians would have drawn on these two sources--both written and oral tradition--when reading Paul's letter. They would likely have found that nothing he wrote to them either personally contradicted what they found in Scripture, nor did it contradict anything he had previously preached or taught. Otherwise they'd likely have rejected it or at least been highly suspicious of it.
What are we to do if we read the Bible and it tells us that a particular tradition is wrong? I suppose that would depend a great deal on the tradition; for example Exodus tells us that the people of God MUST observe the Passover, yet the tradition is that Christians do not though Christ nor any of the Apostles explicitly told us to stop. If a long-standing tradition in the Church and Scripture seem to be at odds with one another I think the prudent, God-loving thing to do is to examine that tradition and seek its origins and a proper understanding.
Take for example the issue you raised regarding Catholics addressing their priests as "father," an incredibly ancient tradition in the Church that goes back further than Luther and even further than the East/West break in 1054; in fact the word "pope" simply means, "papa," and the Church has used that term for a very, very long time to refer to the successor of Peter.
Jesus said, "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called, 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah." (Matthew 23:8-10) This seems to contradict the ancient tradition of calling priests "father," as well as other traditions even more ancient regarding the titles 'master' and 'teacher.'
Regarding 'father': I have to wonder, then, by what title did Jesus grab the attention of Joseph? Would he have called Joseph by his first name? Have I sinned by calling my dad by such a title? Did not Jesus teach us to call God "Father" not because that is God's name, but because "father" is the closest human analogy we have to understanding how God truly loves us?
Continuing on, then, did some of Jesus' followers break His teaching on this matter when, for example, Stephen spoke to "men, brethren and fathers" of their "father Abraham" (Acts 7:2), Paul spoke of "our father Isaac" (Romans 9:10) and even more plainly in Romans 4:16 when he spoke of Abraham "who is the father of us all", Peter spoke of "the God of our fathers" (Acts 3:13), James spoke also of Abraham as a "father justified by works" (James 2:21), and perhaps most boldly John writes to his "little children" (1 John 2:1) as though he himself was their father, and he later says, too, "I have written unto you, fathers..." (1 John 2:13). These are only a few examples of Jesus' own followers breaking the teaching of Christ, referring to earthly men as fathers and in the case of John (and even in Paul when he writes to Timothy and Titus and refers to them as his sons) referring to themselves as fathers.
Even His own mother, Mary, speaks of many fathers and even Abraham as a father in her "Magnificat" (Luke 1:72-73). Did she sin, since by this time she knew, truly, that God was Father (since she bore His Son)?
Yet Jesus forbids them call anyone "rabbi" which means "teacher;" does He not commission His followers to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all" He had commanded them? Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:7 "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher." In 2 Timothy 1:11 he points out, too, that "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers..."
But perhaps the most interesting thing would be if there was in instance where Jesus seemed to contradict Himself, referring to another human being as a father? I already raised the question of how he referred to Joseph, but we don't know according to Scripture how He spoke to His earthly foster-father.
"And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me...'" (Luke 26:14) "Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent." (Luke 26:30) These are spoken by Jesus Himself when He is telling the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." (John 8:56) Jesus telling those who asked if He was "greater than [their] father Abraham" that even father Abraham knew who Jesus' Father truly was.
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child..." (Matthew 10:21)
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father..." (Matthew 10:35)
"What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish?" (Luke 11:11)
And there are other examples besides! Did Jesus contradict Himself? That would be impossible.
What Christ is teaching when He says "Call no man father" is not to address a man as "father" who isn't really a father; He was criticizing those Pharisees who seek honors, high places and titles and uses hyperbole to tell His followers, "Don't play their game." He uses the same technique when He tells us to pluck out our sinning eyes, for example.
The reason we Catholics refer to priests as "father" is not as an honorary title but rather because, in a spiritual sense, that is the role they play in the life of the Church community. Through them Christ continues His ministry of healing, feeding, serving, protecting, providing; all fatherly activities. Read Paul's letters to Timothy and you will get a Scriptural idea of this ancient tradition or even go back to his first letter to the Corinthians that you referenced earlier and see verse 4:17 in which he writes: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the faith..." Or more explicitly in Philemon 10 "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment."
This ancient tradition of referring to a priest as "father" began even in the days of Paul, and it is merely the faithful calling a man by what role he plays in their spiritual life: a father figure. We call a man a "doctor" because that is what he does; we call a priest "father" because he "fathers" us spiritually. The man's vocation becomes his title, too; the same follows for "nurse," "chef," "commander," "judge," and so on. No one would ask, "What does Nurse Smith do?" Her title is her work; Father Smith "fathers," but in a spiritual sense. The Pharisees Jesus criticized so heavily insisted on being called father not because they "fathered" the people but because it earned them the respect that came with honoring ones own biological father, as well as the respect given to the venerated fathers of Judaism: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and so on. Jesus did not want such a tradition--being called a certain title simply because it afforded you certain luxuries--but rather wanted His followers to be called what they were. So they were called disciples, or they were called apostles. Later, once He had entrusted His Church and ministry into their hands, those same apostles and disciples were called other things:
Bishops (from "episkopos" meaning "overseer"
Presbyters (from "presbyteros" which meant "elder" and also came to have an association with the role of priest)
Teachers
Deacons (from "diakonos" meaning "servant" or "minister")
And many more. These weren't titles of rank or honor, but were titles according to the role the person had in the Church; "father" is the same way.
I hope that these thoughts have proved helpful!
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - Well, you got me to look at the passage again. Thanks.
When you read any literature, context rules. The context is the negative example of the teachers of the law and the pharisees. Jesus lambastes them for their religious pageantry, their obsession with titles, their laying of heavy burdens on the people, their craving of honor, their hypocrisy, and, of course, their pride. Jesus also emphasizes the importance of equality when he says that the crowd are all brothers with One Father. The passage includes a strong theme of anti-hierarchicalism, emphasizing as it does the immediate relationship of God and man. There is also a hint that Christ is implicitly suggesting His equality with God, since He is claiming to be the only instructor and God is the only teacher.
The notion of blood relationship is not at issue, so all the discussion about Jewish patriarchs and earthly familial relationships is out of context. Paul states that he "fathered" Onesimus and others by the gospel, but we see no evidence from scripture that he insisted on being called "father." On the contrary, the church at Corinth didn't even seem to recognize his apostolic office and recognized non-apostles as apostles.
What you see as the role of the priests is precisely what scripture states that all Christians are to do as they gain maturity. Again, this goes back to Christ's teaching regarding the notion of equality of Christians and is anti-hierarchical. Having someone special to do that is necessarily hierarchical.
The real point about not calling someone "father" is to recognize your immediate relationship with God. Of course, calling someone "father" implicitly tempts them to expect special honor, as a father deserves honor from his children.
When you look at Rome, do you see pageantry? Titles? Laying of heavy burdens on the laity? These all bear on traditions which were long controversial. Protestants also do these things, too, but at least they don't try to justify them from their traditions. What you seek to justify by tradition I see as a problem since it goes against the plain teaching of scripture.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - Understood; thank you for sharing your thoughts on this passage from Scripture. I agree that there is a priesthood that all Christians--by their baptism--are called to practice. But I also believe that there is a sacramental priesthood that certain individuals in the Church are called to give their lives to, a sort of priesthood of the priesthood. It is not meant to be a matter of honor, but rather of service; not the raising up of a life, but laying it down. There are some priests who take it the other way, certainly, but I would say (thankfully!) that this is a small minority. Really it is far more a cross than a crown!
As for calling priests "father," I imagine that the tradition arose not from the insistence of presbyters, apostles and bishops but rather came from the people they served who saw them exercising a certain "spiritual paternity." Since baptism makes a person a child of God the baptized not only has earthly parents but now has God as their Father, as you pointed out. The priest serves to help in whatever way he can to assist the baptized in their relationship with their Father, ministering the graces of Jesus Christ, continuing that mission of Christ to reconcile all people with God the Father; Christ carries on His mission *through* His priests, not *exclusively* but in a particular way that He does not through other Christians. The priest lays down his life to take up Christ's life so that Christ can use that priest to do His work. None of the apostles would have insisted on being called "father," but I can see how the faithful may have begun doing so nonetheless, simply because of the particular ministry they carried out in the Church. Considering the large number of martyrs and saints that have arisen through the centuries, some being priests, others not, it seems to me that the tradition of calling priests "father" did not impede many people, if any, in their relationship with God.
When I look at Rome I see pageantry for certain! But when I see it I see it quite differently than you probably do. I see beautiful vestments as being completely appropriate considering that the Pope is, in a sense, Christ's "Prime Minister" here on Earth or, if that isn't the most helpful image, the Head Pastor of the Catholic Church. The Pope doesn't dress in the manner he does for himself but rather because it is appropriate to his office as Head Pastor in service to Christ the King. Those vestments, the hat, the cross, the various "papal regalia" all serves to remind us that the Papacy is not about Joseph Ratzinger as though he were a king himself, but rather that he is merely the next man in line from St. Peter to hold and exercise that sacred office first entrusted to that great Apostle by Christ Himself.
Part of the pageantry, too--the gold vessels used at Mass, the incense, the vestments, the music, etc.--is because the Mass and other rituals and Church functions are all done in the presence of Jesus Christ our King; He serves what respect, honor and dignity we can give Him, don't you think? An interesting exercise in prayer might be to re-read the Book of Revelation and pay attention to the liturgical imagery that you see--white robes, gold candlesticks, gold sashes, golden censers, incense, altars, martyrs, virgins, and all sorts of things. What does it all remind you of?
Likewise when I look at the few titles of the Church (those that aren't merely job descriptions) such as "Pope," "Cardinal," "Archbishop," "Bishop," "Monsignor," "Father," "Deacon," and any others I cannot call to mind at the moment, I see merely the title that describes the reality of that man's ministry in the Church.
"Pope" is just the Latin word for "papa," since the Pope is the Head Pastor of the whole Church. He is called "papa" for the same reasons we call our priests "father;" as you probably saw at the death of Blessed Pope John Paul II and have seen in footage of any World Youth Day, Catholics have a good deal of love for the Successor of Peter.
"Cardinal" comes from the Latin word that basically means "hinge." When a man is made a cardinal all it means is that man now has a special relationship with Rome and their ministry in the Church "hinges" upon that relationship. Cardinals may be called to represent the Pope on certain matters and, more importantly, the cardinals all make up a college which has the unique ministry of electing the pope when the previous one passes away or resigns. The cardinals are the current ceremonial and titular embodiment of the deacons, priests and bishops of the ancient Roman Church; thus there are cardinal deacons, priests and bishops. In ancient times when the Bishop of Rome died (usually martyrdom) the deacons, priests and bishops of the diocese would gather and chose from among the men of the Roman Church the next successor of Peter. The Pope is, after all, the Bishop of Rome and exercises his ministry of leadership over the whole Church because that was Peter's task, and Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Had Peter remained in Antioch and died there, that is where the Pope would be today, and so with any other city where Peter may have been in charge of the Church. Anyways, a piece of history for you!
"Archbishop" merely denotes a bishop who, in certain matters, holds a degree of leadership over other bishops in a certain area. For example in my home state of Iowa there are four dioceses: the archdiocese of Dubuque and the dioceses of Davenport, Des Moines and Sioux City. Each has its own bishop, with Dubuque having an archbishop. In certain matters, such as if two dioceses are engaged in some kind of dispute or difficulty, they defer to the archbishop of that region. Just as any other position in the hierarchy of the Church, the archbishop has a particular ministry in the Church; his title is not meant to be a particular honor or privilege (asking an archbishop if he sees it as such will immediately earn you laughter and the honest admission that it is a heavy, heavy cross).
"Bishop" I think I've already covered in my previous comment; these are the overseers of the Church in a particular diocese, leading, teaching, defending always, governing when necessary; generally governance of the local Church is left to the pastors of each parish, unless matters arise that are beyond their ability. Then the bishop may step in.
"Monsignor" is something I don't know too much about, but of all the "titles" in the Church that I could think of, this one is the closest that comes to being an honor. From what I understand a priest who is given the title "monsignor" is a priest that is given certain responsibilities regarding papal documents if they are serving in Rome. Outside of Rome this title is generally only an honorary one that indicates a priest is particularly capable and trusted by the Pope (since a priest is nominated for the honor by his bishop). I haven't met many monsignor's yet, so this is something I don't know a ton about.
"Father" and "Deacon" I think I've covered enough!
Laying on of heavy burdens on the laity; do you have anything specific in mind? The only precepts of the Church--those sort of non-negotiables that are expected of every Catholic--are as follows:
1. You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation (basically the equivalent of a Sunday but on a different day of the week, and there are five) and remain free from work or activity that could impede the sanctification of such days. ("Keep holy the Sabbath Day!)
2. You shall confess your sins once a year. (That's not so awful!)
3. You shall receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter Season. (You must go to Mass every Sunday, but receiving the Eucharist is an individual's choice. But each Catholic should receive Our Lord at least once a year, and that's not so awful, either!)
4. You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church. (For Latin rite Catholics like myself this is Ash Wednesday and Good Friday for fasting and all the Fridays of Lent for abstinence. Other rites have other traditions.)
5. You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church. (The Church intentionally does not specify how or how much; there is no tithe. Whatever the needs of the Church are, however one can provide, you must do so, even if you are so poor all you can do is pray for the Church. That would be sufficient!)
Other than these, I can't bring to mind any imposed burdens beyond what is demanded of a Christian in Scripture; the Church will, of course, uphold these but I don't imagine you and I would disagree on the necessity of doing that!
I suppose my difficulty with your perspective on the "plain teaching of Scripture," at least as it pertains to the passage we've been discussing, is that the hierarchy of the Church today arose precisely from the hierarchy established initially by Christ who chose12 men from among all His disciples to be in special relationship with Him and to exercise certain leadership and practice certain ministries in the Church (and Peter in particular He singled out for the particular ministry of leading the Church and being the shepherd of His flock; see Mt. 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17). Those 12 became 11 for a short time, and they themselves elected Judas' successor (Acts 1:15-26), doing for Matthias what Christ had done for them: choosing him from among the many followers. This they did from city to city, entrusting authority to an "episkopos" (bishop). As the Church grew the apostles realized the ministry entrusted to them by Christ was being impeded by the demands of so much else, so they established the diaconate (Acts 6:1-7), and later there are references to a "presbyterate" (Acts 15:22, for example) which assisted the apostles in their ministry to the Church in a particular city.
The Council of Jerusalem is a beautiful example of the Church hierarchy in action (Acts 15 as a whole): we see Paul, an apostle, and Barnabas (an apostle like Paul), go to Jerusalem to speak "to the apostles and the presbyters." Peter gets up and speaks to everyone (verse 7), reminding them of his own particular mission to the Gentiles (makes sense that he'd wind up in Rome!) and exhorting them not to impose burdens on them. It is James, however, that makes the final call, since he is (according to tradition) the episkopos (bishop) of Jerusalem; not Peter. But as we read James respects what Peter had to say.
I hope this is all helpful or at least interesting!
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - Thank you for your reply. It is helpful to see the Catholic perspective put so clearly and forthrightly.
Are priests deserving of the special honor of being addressed as "Father" and of the special honor of pageantry because of the special burdens they bear?
If so, does this mean that it is therefore necessary and justified to invalidate the Word of God for the sake of Church Tradition? Clearly, if special honor is to be given to a few, then Christians are not equal. Certainly, most Christians are not honored by pageantry in Rome--only the special ones. Have any Catholics raised this issue through the centuries?
What are Catholics supposed to do regarding their loved ones that they imagine to be in Purgatory? Surely that doctrine imposes a heavy burden on the laity. How do they aid their loved ones to escape Purgatory?
And what of abuses like those of Tetzel? What of the guilt trips laid on those who have little, yet feel compelled to give out of their poverty--not cheerfully, but from guilt? Here I will freely acknowledge that I have also seen this among Protestants.
As regards the apostles, they were clearly in leadership in the early church. However, there is no evidence I have seen that anyone called them "Father." In fact, they were treated as equals amongst each other and Peter was even rebuked publicly by Paul. Paul and Peter both deferred to James. Paul certainly treated all of his co-workers as equals. The first few chapters of First Corinthians reaffirms Jesus commandment that the apostles aren't to be given special treatment--rather, the focus is to be on the unmediated Christ.
So what was the special role of the apostles? Jesus provided the answer when He said, "You shall be my witnesses." They were to give testimony regarding the resurrection of Christ, especially, but also concerning Christ's words and deeds as well. Of course, there were some other details provided in the four accounts besides these things. Can the popes give testimony regarding the resurrection of Christ? Here I mean "testimony" in the Jewish sense of the word--what "[you/we] have seen and heard," as we find this in the New Testament in Luke and Acts and the First Epistle of John. In Luke, Jesus commands John the Baptist's men to return to John and tell him what they had seen and heard--the miracles. In Acts, Peter defends the apostles to the Sanhedrin, claiming that they were only speaking of what they had seen and heard--giving testimony according to the Law, which was a religious defense. In First John, John emphasizes the empirical nature of the apostolic testimony in the first few verses. So, you can see that the biblical description of the apostolic office varies considerably from Catholic Tradition.
The early church first met in homes, not in special buildings with altars and choir lofts. Everyone was encouraged to take leadership roles during the time of worship. There were prophets who had an office different from that of apostles who had a different kind of primacy. It depended on the gift, since it was God operating through that gift.
@soccerdadforlife@xanga - You are welcome; I try to be as helpful as a can in these circumstances!
Are priests deserving of the special honor of being addressed as "Father," of "pageantry" and all else? Of course not; no one is deserving of such things, and I don't think that addressing priests as "Father" violates Christ's teaching. I don't believe Christ was simply teaching against the pride and egotism that can befall a man who insists on certain titles and honors, but what I think He was trying to teach, too, was that the true faith, the knowledge of God that Christ had brought, was not to be the teaching of this man or that man, but rather was the Truth itself (Himself!) and wasn't simply one teacher's school of thought, or one spiritual father's way of knowing God. Christ has entrusted His teaching to the Church, and it is the task of the Church's bishops and priests to faithfully hand on that teaching to everyone, to protect it and uphold it. No Catholic would say, "I believe in Christ according to the teaching of Father Smith," or according to a certain bishop or even a Pope," whereas there are many non-Catholic Christians who profess their belief in Christ according to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others. Again, the tradition of calling a priest "father" is more a recognition of his role and ministry in the Church as opposed to an honorific title he is somehow deserving of.
As for the pageantry you point out, the vestments, processions, music, bells, incense and all else, I think there are several reasons for this. First, I would say all of it boils down to the reality that the Church exists to praise, reverence and serve Jesus Christ! He is a king after all, and He deserves all laud and honor. Also, some of the pageantry as you call it has been retained from our ancestral worship in the Temple, where the burning of incense in prayer and offering to God was completely normal, where the priests wore special vestments on certain occasions, and so on. And speaking of vestments, most of the vestments Catholic clergy wear today are simply the modern-day equivalent of what Catholic clergy were wearing in the early days of the Church; go online and look at pictures of early Christian art and I'm sure you'll see some familiar sights!
The chasuble, for example (the large outer vestment priests wear), has an interesting history. The word itself basically means "little house" and that is because priests in the early Church were often traveling on foot. Rather than carry their tent they wore it like a poncho of sorts, and as time went on and the Church became more stable the chasuble became more ceremonial as opposed to practical, but it remains in use today as a symbol of the priesthood. So too the stole, which has long been a Jewish symbol of priesthood and has come also to represent the "yoke" of Christ that all priests must wear.
Another reason for the pageantry is I think it offers a valuable witness to the rest of the world that the Church and the life Christ has brought to the world is not merely an invisible, spiritual reality; He really is a king, He really did found a Church and He really is building a kingdom here on earth. When a non-Christian sees a line of Catholics participating in a Eucharistic Procession down the street with a fully-vested priest in the lead bearing the Blessed Sacrament in a golden monstrance, with acolytes carrying candles and incense and hundreds of faithful following behind singing hymns and praises to Jesus Christ, that non-Christian sees a reality that there is something important going on and that this faith he doesn't believe in must have some reality behind it if these people are willing to live it so publicly. The Church isn't meant to hide under a bushel basket after all! If Christ is our King we ought to make a big deal about it!
Special honor is given in the Church to all sorts of people; it all depends on the occasion. At a wedding, look how much honor is given to the bride! Or what of the children at Baptism or First Communion? When a bishop is present we honor him not because he deserves it but because we are so grateful for his ministry and leadership in the Church, and we are grateful to God for giving us a bishop; not having a bishop is a tremendous hardship on the local Church. If the Pope, the "head pastor of the Church universal" if you will," is present, my goodness! Yes we show our gratitude! And again, none of this is deserved, but I think it would be more difficult to tell the faithful that they CAN'T show honor to their priests, bishops and the Pope than to insist that they must! Yes, I will definitely grant that men in the Church abused these gifts in the past but, as with many sad things of past ages, such abuses rarely happen any more, if they happen at all.
I know this matter can be difficult to understand from a non-Catholic perspective, since it comes so naturally to Catholics! It has been a part of our faith for ages, so it is something many Catholics never really look into or seek to understand, especially since, on a whole, priests play such a good and important role in our life with Christ and to my knowledge the matter of calling them "father" has not hindered anyone's love of Christ in the least. But then again I can't speak on behalf of a billion-plus Catholics! Here is an article, though, that I found helpful and offers a slightly different take on the crucial verse we've been discussing: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-we-respond-to-the-call-no-man-father-question
Instead of launching into a huge defense of the doctrine of purgatory right away I hope this past blog of mine will help give you my perspective on the matter: http://ancient-scribe.xanga.com/754783779/purgatory/ Properly understood, purgatory is not a burden but a gift, an opportunity for those destined for heaven to be purified before they enter eternally into the presence of God. What a gift and mercy! Purgatory is not a "diet hell" or a compromise for those that are "OK but not good enough;" it is a gift only for those bound for heaven. For Catholics here who believe their loved ones are in purgatory preparing for heaven we can pray for them in all sorts of ways if we wish; I've never met a Catholic in my life who felt burdened by the doctrine of purgatory. Rather I've met more who are relieved by it!
As far as Tetzel goes, what a slimeball! The Church never encourages such behavior, nor does she encourage anyone to take advantage of the poor or to guilt anyone into giving to the Church for any reason. I don't think you can fairly condemn an entire Church because of the abuse of some of its members, any more than you can condemn the United States for the abuse of some of its politicians, citizens, soldiers, celebrities, etc.
The earliest example, at least in writing, there is of the title "father" being applied to leadership in the Church was to the Patriarch of Alexandria in the 3rd century; he was referred to as "pope" which is based on the Latin word for "father." "Pope" was an addressed used for all bishops (being seen then as now as successors to the apostles) and wasn't seen as being reserved for the Bishop of Rome specifically until the Middle Ages or so. But yes, the Apostles and even their subsequent successors were seen as being equals among one another; hence Paul could call out Peter on things, and both of them could defer to James (though this was probably done moreso because James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem, not Peter and not Paul). This is still the model used today in the Catholic Church; bishops are all equal to one another, even the Pope. The Pope "presides" over the bishops, being the one bishop to which all of them defer in certain instances. He has the special charism of being able to speak on behalf of the whole body of bishops if need be, since if all the bishops are in communion with the Pope, they are all in communion with one another as well. The Pope could not, however, just throw his weight around and come to some other bishop's diocese and start calling the shots; the bishop of the diocese is the chief authority there. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome; that's his diocese. But, again, he has a unique charism in the Church that he has inherited from St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome and spokesperson for the Apostles.
I agree that in First Corinthians St. Paul is teaching against the people's tendency to make the apostles into celebrities or to divide the community up according to which apostle or preacher they agree with the most. He emphasizes the important point that they are all "ministers through whom [the Corinthians] became believers" (1 Cor 3:5), and regardless of who Paul or Apollos or anyone else is, they are just instruments and co-workers of the One who is really doing everything. I don't see this contradicting Catholic thought and tradition at all.
Can the popes give testimony regarding the resurrection of Christ? Could St. Luke? He wasn't an apostle and according to tradition he was a native of Antioch and probably never met Christ in person, yet we trust his Gospel testimony. Luke may have witnessed several miracles and such in his work with Paul I suppose, but I think it would be difficult to say that Luke meets all of your criteria for being a true "witness," yet his Gospel is absolutely essential to our faith.
The bishops of today hold the apostolic office as the successors of the apostles, safeguarding and passing on the traditions, teachings and testimonies of those first Apostles who experienced Christ first hand. Before the Gospels were written down, before Paul wrote many of his letters, it was the living Tradition of the budding Church, coupled with the Old Testament, that the Church relied upon after all; there was no "New Testament" nor a "Bible" as we have it until centuries later. The bishops today offer the testimony that the Apostles offered, they pass on what they have received (1 Cor. 11:23) to the next generation so that the full testimony of the Apostles continues to echo in an unbroken chain throughout the ages until Christ returns. The Gospels themselves admit that not everything Jesus said and did has been written down (John 20:30 for example), and we certainly don't have written testimony from all twelve Apostles. Yet in Sacred Tradition, from which the New Testament has sprung in the first place (being the written record of some of what was originally transmitted solely by word of mouth for decades after Christ ascended) we are able to read and understand the Word of God in its full, complimentary context. Here is a good explanation of the Church's teaching on that harmony between Tradition and Scripture, if you are interested: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
The early Church met in homes, caves, catacombs, wild places, etc. not because they saw it as forbidden but because it was illegal to meet publicly! After all, up until the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, did not the first Christians meet regularly in the Temple for worship and prayer, as we read in the Book of Acts? And just look at the artwork we have found in the catacombs of Rome and the earliest places of Christian worship! Frescoes, mosaics, statuary; or look at the example of the Basilica of St. Clement in Rome! It began as a Roman noble's house in which Christians met for worship, but as the faith became public it was converted into a magnificent basilica. Why, one of the first things to happen in Rome when Christianity was made legal was the building of four great basilicas so that people could openly, as a whole community, praise, worship and reverence Jesus Christ not in the shadows but in the light of day! St. John Lateran in Rome was given to the Bishop by Emperor Constantine and was consecrated as a place of Christian worship around the year 324. One of the oldest churches in the world still standing is St. Mary in Trastevere in Rome, the first sanctuary of which was built in the early 200s.
I think archaeology and history can clearly demonstrate that there was always an urge and tendency in early Christianity to move from worship in homes and in secret to worship in places specifically built for worship, in the open and publicly. The altar has always been a key feature of any Christian place of worship; it is the table of the Lord's Supper, it is Calvary, it is symbolic of Christ the Rock from which we draw our strength and sustenance...the altar is very important and has always been present. Choir lofts likely were a much later addition since choirs probably weren't all that present in worship in the early days! But again, once the faith was able to be practiced in the open, my goodness who wouldn't want a choir to help enhance the liturgy! But a big choir needs its own space, particularly a space that will not distract people from the sanctuary and the liturgy that should be their chief focus; putting the choir in a loft in the back permits the choir to minister to all present without being a visual distraction.
Everyone has their part in the liturgy, according to their gifts. Some men are called by God to be a priest, and it is the priest who has the gifts and training to preside at Mass. Some men are called to be deacons and to assist the priest in a special way, or even to lead some rites themselves. Young people of both genders can serve as acolytes and assist in the liturgy as well. Some are called to be lectors and to proclaim the word of God, some are called to minister in other ways. Some men and women are called to amazing and beautiful lives of total prayer and consecration, some are called to a life of apostolic work; there is a place for every single person in the Catholic Church, from the newly-baptized infant to the 100 year-old great-grandmother. Lay leadership is absolutely crucial in the Church; every parish has a parish council that works with the priest for the benefit of the whole parish, and most of the actual leadership is done by them. A diocese also has a large number of lay people involved in the leadership, and most countries or regions have conferences and larger governing bodies in which there is a large number of lay people involved. If a person has a gift they wish to offer to the service of the Church, the Church has a place for them!