Officially, Rome is opposed to abortion. Unofficially, prominent pro-abortion politicians are permitted to continue to commune with Rome. Case in point, America's first papist vice-president, who not only takes communion but receives a standing ovation (link). Nota Bene: he is now the VP, but the communion-taking and standing-ovation-receiving were 2 days before, when he was only a senator and the VP-elect.
One of the marks of a true church is whether godly discipline is being handed out.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
You have to be careful with your message here. Officially, and this is what really matters, Rome is opposed to abortion and considers it a mortal sin. Biden is objectively in a state of mortal sin and cannot lawfully and morally receive communion.
Unofficially, Bishops can fail their duty to discipline and follow Church laws. This is what you are pointing out. The correct term in this case is causing "scandal," which itself is a grave sin on both Biden's and Bishop's parts. Biden is still in mortal sin and not to receive the Eucharist, but he and others (eg local bishops) are unlawfully disregarding canonical laws.
There is no "double standard" if the rules are being broken. A double standard is when both situations are canonically being allowed.
I cannot point to your church to a pastor who is breaking some rules and say "double standard." That is because the fact is the pastor is breaking rules and thus is not a separate "standard."
As for your comment: One of the marks of a true church is whether godly discipline is being handed out.
This is a slippery slope because in Protestantism, the layman can go next door to another church or even open up their own. Those "options" are not allowed in Catholicism. Church discipline is only valid and logical in so far as one believes the Church to be a united and visible institution with valid Apostolic Succession (otherwise leaders are self appointed, which defeats the whole purpose).
All in all though, what is going on with these liberal Catholics (and weakling Bishops) is truly scandalous. Many bishops are speaking up, but sadly many are letting things slide. To whom much is given, much is expected, and such men will receive severe judgments before the Throne of Our Lord.
Nick,
Imagine that Mr. Smith says he hates adultery, but he himself is having an affair with a married woman. We would call this hypocrisy, right?
How about if Mr. Smith publicly says that adultery is wrong, but he turns a blind eye to his own son's adultery? That's not as severe a form of hypocrisy as the first example, but it is still hypocritical.
The situation here is more like the second case than like the first case - but there is a fundamental inconsistency between Rome's official canonical rules and the application of those rules.
***
As for the issue of "Protesantism," "Protestantism" isn't a church. Furthermore, sound Reformed churches don't endorse church hopping (or even church planting) to avoid discipline.
But let's be honest here - this "church hopping" phenomenon that occurs (sometimes) outside of Catholicism also occurs (sometimes) within Catholicism. There are definitely parishes where the rules are strictly enought enforced that Biden or Kerry or Pelosi wouldn't be given communion - but they don't tend to go there - they tend to go to places where they will receive a standing ovation. (In fairness, I've never heard of Kerry or Pelosi receiving a standing ovation.)
But while this is the case (i.e. it is the case that some priests would refuse communion on canonical grounds to pro-murder politicians), those guys seem to be the minority. One recalls how Senator Kerry famously received communion from the pope, during the last papal visit to the States. Did he just slip through unnoticed by the clergy? Hard to say definitively.
But I digress.
You stated that "Church discipline is only valid and logical in so far as one believes the Church to be a united and visible institution with valid Apostolic Succession (otherwise leaders are self appointed, which defeats the whole purpose)."
I see that as an assertion on your part, and not as a statement grounded in Scripture. Church discipline is the role of the elders. If they do their duty, they are good elders. If they do not, they are bad elders.
That's true, regardless of their denominational affiliation.
I am picking on Catholicism, but I don't mind the same standard being applied to the Reformed churches. A supposedly Reformed church that tolerates scandalous sin is a place from which believers should be high-tailing it, because those are not elders that care about the spiritual state of their people.
-TurretinFan
And that is why traditionalist parishes are burgeoning ever more. There is a saying that the Church is being renewed one funeral at a time.
This is also why mainline denominations on your side of the divide are graying, emptying, or changing.
TF,
I agree with your examples of hypocrisy, but the term "double standard" implies two true "standards" in place, rather than the deliberate breaking of one.
Like I said, I cannot write off your denomination if a pastor or leader is breaking or turning a blind eye to official church laws. There is scandal and hypocrisy going on, but not a double standard as far as official teaching is concerned.
You said: sound Reformed churches don't endorse church hopping (or even church planting) to avoid discipline.
Nobody should endorse those things, my point is there is no consistent way to stop it. The individual only needs to ultimately submit to Scripture (not church leaders), and if he feels his denomination is not faithful to Scripture and mistreating him, he can technically go next door or even start his own church. This happens all the time.
TF:I see that as an assertion on your part, and not as a statement grounded in Scripture. Church discipline is the role of the elders. If they do their duty, they are good elders. If they do not, they are bad elders.
I see evidence in places like 2 Tim 2:2 that apostolic succession is true and the means of determining genuine authority. Under the Protestant system, the elders are only authoritative in so far as the layman chooses to submit, if the layman disagrees with the elders on Scriptural grounds, he is free to leave (and even start his own church).
TF:I am picking on Catholicism, but I don't mind the same standard being applied to the Reformed churches. A supposedly Reformed church that tolerates scandalous sin is a place from which believers should be high-tailing it, because those are not elders that care about the spiritual state of their people.
Good. This proves my point that scandalous behavior doesn't automatically mean the Reformed churches are to be written off...because someone is breaking the Reformed churches rules, thus it is not a double standard situation.
Nick wrote: "I agree with your examples of hypocrisy, but the term "double standard" implies two true "standards" in place, rather than the deliberate breaking of one."
We may be talking past each other. I'm pretty clear that I don't mean two official standards.
Nick wrote: "Like I said, I cannot write off your denomination if a pastor or leader is breaking or turning a blind eye to official church laws."
Why not? If there were a Reformed church that was supposedly against abortion but was still giving communion to a pro-abortion politician, I'd have the same criticism.
Nick wrote: "There is scandal and hypocrisy going on, but not a double standard as far as official teaching is concerned."
I hope now it is clear that I was comparing the official standard with an unofficial standard.
I had said: sound Reformed churches don't endorse church hopping (or even church planting) to avoid discipline.
Nick wrote: "Nobody should endorse those things, my point is there is no consistent way to stop it."
I'm not sure why you brought it up then. There is a consistent way to stop pro-abortion politicians from notoriously receiving communion - you discipline those giving them communion. So, comparing it to something unpreventable, like people cutting themselves off from a church, is not a valid comparison.
I'm not going to debate the issue of apostolic succession in this combox at this time. Nor am I going to correct the characterizations of the rule of elders.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment