Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do you really feel it necessary to continually drag conversations from OBOB over to here? Do you see Catholics trolling the Baptist, Peticostal, Presbyterian, Methodost, or whatever boards and posting their congregational discussions here?

Were you one of the "heretics" that had him banned?
I was simply stating an even stronger case of how the RC's view us Christians on the GT board. I have never implied RC's were heretics!!! Get a grip.

 

[ScottBot]

Were you one of the "heretics" that had him banned?
I was simply stating an even stronger case of how the RC's view us Christians on the GT board. I have never implied RC's were heretics!!! Get a grip.

There are only a few obstinate ones who hold that view.

 

[Rick Otto]

I posted the whole thing.
If it can't establish it's own context, content, and import, it ain't a Bull. You try and marginalize it by limitingb it to its historic moment, but the document itself testifies plenty of its transcendant nature.
It is supremacist thought at it's epiphanic zenith.
I would be embarassed by it, too.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I posted the whole thing.
If it can't establish it's own context, content, and import, it ain't a Bull. You try and marginalize it by limitingb it to its historic moment, but the document itself testifies plenty of its transcendant nature.
It is supremacist thought at it's epiphanic zenith.
I would be embarassed by it, too.

I think that considering the times and how the Church saw things when that Papal Bull was written it is not as awful as you guys are making it.

Besides everyone seems to be acting like Unam Sanctum from 1302 was some dogmatic declaration of the Church and it was not and it has nothing to do with the teaching on Papal Infallibility.

It is but a letter from the Pope during tough times writing a tough letter to the Church.

I think we prejudice this letter a lot by using our time in the modern world to see it and not through the eyes of someone alive in 1300 in those trying times.

 

[fated]

I think that considering the times and how the Church saw things when that Papal Bull was written it is not as awful as you guys are making it.

Besides everyone seems to be acting like Unam Sanctum from 1302 was some dogmatic declaration of the Church and it was not and it has nothing to do with the teaching on Papal Infallibility.

It is but a letter from the Pope during tough times writing a tough letter to the Church.

I think we prejudice this letter a lot by using our time in the modern world to see it and not through the eyes of someone alive in 1300 in those trying times.

It clearly indicates that the Pope should "properly" have some universal coercive authority, the nature of which is not laid out , but it is simply stated as existent.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It clearly indicates that the Pope should "properly" have some universal coercive authority, the nature of which is not laid out , but it is simply stated as existent.

Agreed. An Apostolic Letter is meant to be followed.

I see this with women priest and debating the topic. The Pope said (ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS) this is the way it has been for 2,000 years and it is staying that way. So we follow the Vicar of Christ in this.

But I think people take these letters from times long past in what was a very different world and try to equate them to todays world and so their full contextual meaning is lost or dimisinshed much.

I just think (correct me if I am wrong) that these letters can have something in them that later changes if it is not defined and still open to theological debate?


Please... if I am in error please let me know. If nothing else others will learn from my error.

 

[Rick Otto]

It clearly indicates that the Pope should "properly" have some universal coercive authority, the nature of which is not laid out , but it is simply stated as existent.

I emboldened the last line which sums up the short document, it plainly states the nature of the coercive authority Pope should "properly" have.
At the risk of being "obsessive" , I'll post it yet again for ya:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Using terms like "Every human creature" blows the proportion of this document's intent way out of France, fellas.

 

[fated]

I emboldened the last line which sums up the short document, it plainly states the nature of the coercive authority Pope should "properly" have.
At the risk of being "obsessive" , I'll post it yet again for ya:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

Using terms like "Every human creature" blows the proportion of this document's intent way out of France, fellas.

Agreed. An Apostolic Letter is meant to be followed.

I see this with women priest and debating the topic. The Pope said (ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS) this is the way it has been for 2,000 years and it is staying that way. So we follow the Vicar of Christ in this.

But I think people take these letters from times long past in what was a very different world and try to equate them to todays world and so their full contextual meaning is lost or dimisinshed much.

I just think (correct me if I am wrong) that these letters can have something in them that later changes if it is not defined and still open to theological debate?


Please... if I am in error please let me know. If nothing else others will learn from my error.

First, we note, that when making a definition like this, it is an act of a Magesterial council at the Holy See ("WE").

Second, we note that the nature of this subjugation is not defined. It could just as easily be a teaching on achieving moral society. And an easily defensible one at that.

 

[Rick Otto]

Second, we note that the nature of this subjugation is not defined. It could just as easily be a teaching on achieving moral society. And an easily defensible one at that.

Baloney.
The subjugation is coldly spelled out as both spiritual & temporal. The spiritual, salvific subjugation is achieved thru monoply on censecrating power - the sacraments.

Read it again, it is truly bodacious:

"We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

 

[fated]

Baloney.
The subjugation is coldly spelled out as both spiritual & temporal. The spiritual, salvific subjugation is achieved thru monoply on censecrating power - the sacraments.

Read it again, it is truly bodacious:

"We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

While this letter may not be definitively infallible, as I don't believe the Church has asserted it as such. I think the Church only asserted two teaching as necessarily meeting infallibility requirements...

Women cannot be priests.
and
Mary's impeccability.

I could be wrong.

However, the type of language used in this document is fairly strong and definitive, AND is fairly in line with Orthodox Catholicism, even if people who use the Roman Canon don't like it.

In the end, however, it is clear from context that the word "subject" is something fairly obtuse, as the meaning the Rick is placing on it simply does not fit, nor is it theologically valid.

As I was pointing out the position is highly defensible from a morality standpoint. Quite simply, there cannot be peace with the RCC or the world in general unless one makes peace with the Pope.

To what degree we ARE subject to the Pope is a bit of a mystery. Just as to what degree we must carry out his wishes.

This, because theologically, we are supposed to carry out a variety of tasks, and further God is in control or occurrences are by "allowance", and thus it may not always be clear exactly why things occur as they do.

When you fit the theology together, you can come to a better conclusion of what the Pope is actually trying to say, the obvious threat he is making, and the implication for the rest of Christendom.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=fated;While this letter may not be definitively infallible, as I don't believe the Church has asserted it as such. I think the Church only asserted two teaching as necessarily meeting infallibility requirements...

Infallability wasn't "defined" until the 1870's, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in effect in the 1300's, else the Gates of Hell prevail against her.
It is a Bull, which testifies to it's instructive dogma authority and it explicitly uses the language "we define", so it is teaching infallibly by so doing.

In the end, however, it is clear from context that the word "subject" is something fairly obtuse, as the meaning the Rick is placing on it simply does not fit, nor is it theologically valid.

The entire document is perfectly clear about who is to be subject to whom & in which of two ways (spiritualy & temporaly), and you are absolutely right, it is theologicaly invalid.

As I was pointing out the position is highly defensible from a morality standpoint. Quite simply, there cannot be peace with the RCC or the world in general unless one makes peace with the Pope.

To what degree we ARE subject to the Pope is a bit of a mystery. Just as to what degree we must carry out his wishes.

"Mystery",... the Theological Wild Card. It is mystery that the priesthood uses to monopolize consecrating power with.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think that considering the times and how the Church saw things when that Papal Bull was written it is not as awful as you guys are making it.

Besides everyone seems to be acting like Unam Sanctum from 1302 was some dogmatic declaration of the Church and it was not and it has nothing to do with the teaching on Papal Infallibility.

It is but a letter from the Pope during tough times writing a tough letter to the Church.

I think we prejudice this letter a lot by using our time in the modern world to see it and not through the eyes of someone alive in 1300 in those trying times.

It clearly indicates that the Pope should "properly" have some universal coercive authority, the nature of which is not laid out , but it is simply stated as existent.

I dunno guys.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

that seems to be using the same language as used to "proclaim and define" the Marian dogmas that are considered infallible. And as infallibility only relates to teaching faith and morals (I'm aware that infallibility does not mean impeccability) I would think this applies. It is definitely a matter of faith, in which the Papal authority is claimed unable to err... and is stating that every human (so by definition, not a limited scope) must be subject to the Pope, for salvation.

It's no real skin off my nose, of course, because I don't have any belief in Papal authority in the first place, but I think it DOES have to be recognized for what it is.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As addressed to Catholics.

Remember there was nothing like a supreme ignorance today.

 

[namericanboy]

As addressed to Catholics.

Remember there was nothing like a supreme ignorance today.

Like the ultimate way to keep your flock under your control, huh..

 

[Uphill Battle]

As addressed to Catholics.

Remember there was nothing like a supreme ignorance today.

Unless "Every Human Creature" means Catholics, I'm afraid I can't agree with that assessment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Unless "Every Human Creature" means Catholics, I'm afraid I can't agree with that assessment.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

[RNKJ] Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

http://www.scripture4all.org/

 

[Rick Otto]

It's always the same drill: what you can't marginalize in context, you can try & redefine on a technicality.

 

[fated]

I dunno guys.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

that seems to be using the same language as used to "proclaim and define" the Marian dogmas that are considered infallible. And as infallibility only relates to teaching faith and morals (I'm aware that infallibility does not mean impeccability) I would think this applies. It is definitely a matter of faith, in which the Papal authority is claimed unable to err... and is stating that every human (so by definition, not a limited scope) must be subject to the Pope, for salvation.

It's no real skin off my nose, of course, because I don't have any belief in Papal authority in the first place, but I think it DOES have to be recognized for what it is.

That assessment holds many things that are not stated. Others are simply historical fabrications. You are adding "not a limited scope,," which certainly makes the Church "look bad" but is very disrespectful to how the Church operates then and now. In short, what is the intent of this letter? Who was it written by? Who was the intended audience?

If you can't tell me these things, then you can't legitimately interpret the meaning of it.

 

[fated]

It's always the same drill: what you can't marginalize in context, you can try & redefine on a technicality.

It was written 700 years ago. Context is necessary.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It was written 700 years ago. Context is necessary.

As long as it works out to Roman catholicism's advantage, Eh?