Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

So tell me, CJ, where is the "magic" dividing line in time where the Church should "leave things" alone and where the Church should step in and clarify things? There's an expiration date on that kind of thing where new questions and new problems cannot be addressed by the Church upon careful reflection?

It's YOUR point.

Here's what you posted:

Nonsense (with respect). When you went to Mass...were you not struck by the number of times the word "mystery" is used? Do you not recall how often in Catholic theology we claim the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union and the Real Presence and tension between Predestination (which is a Catholic dogma) and Free Will (which is also a Catholic dogma) are all mysteries of the faith that exist paradoxically? When I learned Catholicism I was totally SHOCKED at just how much theological freedom there is, and how much mystery and tension between paradoxical elements are embraced. And there simply is no Christian faith more balanced than Catholicism - rarely do we put things in either/or contexts like Protestantism (read: Bible OR Tradition, Predistination OR Free Will, Mystical OR Institutional, Faith OR Works, etc...).

I replied...

The RCC uses the word but has forgotten the concept, in my experience. My Catholic Catechism here, which is just a VERY, VERY, VERY BRIEF SUMMERY of what the RCC has to say, is 800 pages long and has 2,865 points. Each just a very, very brief summery of what the RCC insists upon.

Real Presence is a "mystery." It's embraced by the OO, EO, Lutherans and often by Anglicans and at times by Methodist. Theoretically, also by the current RCC. But could the RCC leave it at that? Doesn't seem so, it had to "explain" it via a unique DOGMA of "Transubstantiation." The RCC has a whole DOGMA that Our Blessed Lady was "assumed" into Heaven upon Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there). Amazing. Just amazing. And it goes on and on and on. The RCC can't seem to leave things were God or even the early church left it - it seems compelled to apply its own logic, secular philosphy and its OWN theories: and eventually declare it dogma. Friend, I mentioned earlier that I probably agree with 95% of Catholicism. The other 5% is often not a rejection, it's just not an embrace. Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary would be a couple of examples. DOGMAS that seem moot and baseless but are insisted upon as DOGMA. In my discussions with my blessed Catholic teachers, I was often amazed by all the philosphy. On and on and on. This philospher, that philospher - all explaining away this or that. I respectfully disagree with you: I think the RCC as a centuries long history of eliminating mystery and instead asserting its own theories. Now, I agree with you that this has been "inherited" by some of the RCC's children (lol) in Protestantism. And if you read my posts in Soteriology for example, you'll see the EXACT same issue I have with Catholicism unwillingness to embrace mystery is also one I have with extreme forms of TULIP'ism and Arminianism; note my posts on OSAS for example.

odd because I was SHOCKED by the exact opposite.

And I'm amazed that you think the United Methodist Church has more dogmas and insists upon docilic acceptance of all of it more than the RCC does. Boy, you must have been involved in one unique Methodist congregation!!!

I posted that Rome didn't like things "loosey goosey" and you retorted that the RCC likes to leave things with great theological openness, freedom; that it likes to embrace mystery, tension, balance. You also posted that you left the Methodist Church for the Catholic Church (If I recall correctly, forgive if I'm confusing you with another poster - and correct me). Thus, you likely think that the Methodist Church was too definitive in these areas and that the Catholic Church is better in that it is more open in theology.

I simply shared my observation: That there is no denomination on the planet LESS comfortable with mystery, balance, tension, openness than is the RCC one. Of the two things that STUNNED me as I began my journey in the Catholic Church, one of them was the shear HUGE bulk of Catholic doctrines and teachings!! Read what I said above. Not that it's apples to apples, but I have two Catechisms here at my computer: My Catholic one and my Lutheran one. The Catholic one has 800 pages in it, my Lutheran one has 8 pages in it.

Where's the line? I don't know, only that the RCC hasn't reached it - and likely never will. PLEASE take no offense at this, for none is implied or meant, but a Greek Orthodox friend of mine expressed to me, "My major issue with the Roman Catholic Church is that it has never learn how to shut up." I think in some ways, Protestantism has the same issue with the RC denomination. WHY do we need the unique, late DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary or Transubstantiation or the Infallibility of the Pope? Why this constant propensity to elminate mystery, define everything, constantly moving the "goal posts?" Why this obsession it seems to have with secular philosophy, its own "logic" and explaining away just about everything???? I honestly don't know - but it was STUNNING to me during my blessed journey in Catholicism.

The Sunday I was Confirmed in my Lutheran congregation, one of my Catholic teachers came to the worship service and reception. She's a very outgoing, friendly lady and I overheard her speaking briefly with my pastor. She essentially commented, "We Catholics know that Lutherans are basically simple Catholics - Catholics without the unique and controversal stuff. Take no offensive, I mean that as a compliment." My pastor (who was raised Catholic) said something in reply - but I didn't hear that, so I don't know if he agreed or disagreed with that (or commented on it at all). But I took no offense. My Greek Orthodox friend (raised Methodist, BTW) feels similarly.

So, friend, I was just responding to your comment about the RCC being "loosey goosely" and with all that theological openness and lack of definativeness. Such was the EXACT OPPOSITE impression I got (and nearly everyone I know that has ever experienced Catholicism), and just struck me that you left the denomination that celebrates "Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors" for the RCC because the RCC is so open and allows so much theological freedom (this the same denomination that invented burning heretics at the stake, lol, and caused the divisions of today by its excommunications).


I hope that clarifies.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Rick Otto]

about the RCC being "loosey goosely" and with all that theological openness and lack of definativeness. Such was the EXACT OPPOSITEimpression I got (and nearly everyone I know that has ever experienced Catholicism)

WAIT FOR ME!!! LOL
I'm in the middle of those two perspective points.
It isn't that they are "loosey goosey" in the sense I found the charismatics to be uncomfortably vague in their terminology, I grew up in the RC where sophisticated complexity of detail is an ever expanding art form. Latin is the enabling accomplice in that pursuit.
But the task of guilding the gospel lily is unceasing. If it isn't responding to doubts & seducing unbelievers, it simply revels in its own waxing effusive.

So my perspective is that the overwhelming complexity of articulation is there, but it is 98% camoflage.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

WAIT FOR ME!!! LOL
I'm in the middle of those two perspective points.
It isn't that they are "loosey goosey" in the sense I found the charismatics to be uncomfortably vague in their terminology, I grew up in the RC where sophisticated complexity of detail is an ever expanding art form. Latin is the enabling accomplice in that pursuit.
But the task of guilding the gospel lily is unceasing. If it isn't responding to doubts & seducing unbelievers, it simply revels in its own waxing effusive.

So my perspective is that the overwhelming complexity of articulation is there, but it is 98% camoflage.

LOL.

Yeah, if the United Methodist and Catholic denominations are the two extremes in this regard - and they may well be - I'm somewhere in between, too. But, again, MY reply was to Bob's insistence that the RCC is loosey goosey in theology - with abundant freedom and openness in such. And (if I recall correctly) he changed from UMC to RCC - perhaps (in part) for that reason - to get more freedom and openness. Wow. And, I don't think I"ve met anyone before with the opinion that the RCC is loosey goosey in theology and such - more open than the other 34,999 denominations. Interesting perspective. And it does get to the unity issue that seems so important to him; this issue that the RCC is in unity with itself just like all other denominations are. I'm still trying to understand that point - and the significance of such.




.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Sunday I was Confirmed in my Lutheran congregation, one of my Catholic teachers came to the worship service and reception. She's a very outgoing, friendly lady and I overheard her speaking briefly with my pastor. She essentially commented, "We Catholics know that Lutherans are basically simple Catholics - Catholics without the unique and controversal stuff. Take no offensive, I mean that as a compliment." My pastor (who was raised Catholic) said something in reply - but I didn't hear that, so I don't know if he agreed or disagreed with that (or commented on it at all). But I took no offense. My Greek Orthodox friend (raised Methodist, BTW) feels similarly.

...Because you are two charitable gentleman.

WE know that you people are basicaly human, just without our stuff.
Take no offense, I mean that insult as a compliment.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by NewMan99

So tell me, CJ, where is the "magic" dividing line in time where the Church should "leave things" alone and where the Church should step in and clarify things? There's an expiration date on that kind of thing where new questions and new problems cannot be addressed by the Church upon careful reflection?

My problem is with the ambiguity & schizophrenia inherent in the institutional model.
One man can be "The Church" speaking in half of one sentence & finish that sentence as a simple errant member regardless the heighth of his office. I think the ossified monolith offers limited returns.
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

...Because you are two charitable gentleman.

WE know that you people are basicaly human, just without our stuff.
Take no offense, I mean that insult as a compliment.

Thou givest new meaning to the word "insult" on the GT board

 

[NewMan99]

Well...after some sleep and reflection I have pretty much decided that this thread has reached a point of diminishing returns - as such my participation in it will likely diminish as well.

I promised earlier that I will provide some evidence to support Catholic claims that the Christian Church was pan-congregational and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome on numerous occasions starting in the Apostolic era and afterward (well before the legalization of Christianity in the 300s AD). I will keep that promise (but not in this post).

CJ, you are a good man and I mean no offense here...but we are clearly still talking past each other. You continue to misunderstand some of the most fundamental concepts I have tried to explain over and over and over. Please know I am not asking you to AGREE with me, but it is of critical importance to fruitful dialog that we be able to at least understand each other and what we are actually saying. But what has continued to happen is that I will say something like, "I believe in ABC..." and you will reply with, "Now that I know you believe in XYZ...". This, to me, illustrates you don't understand what I said. Until you can repeat back to me my actual beliefs (so I know you UNDERSTAND what I am saying - again - I am not asking for agreement - I am asking for basic comprehension), there simply is no reason to continue much longer. I am not affixing blame to anyone - maybe I am just not doing a good job of explaining my beliefs.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the energy for this kind of thing, and you have made several long posts that I just am unable to respond to (not because there isn't a response - but rather because there is too much to respond to).

So here is what I intend to do...

In my next post I would like to make a few comments from some of your recent posts (kind of like housecleaning) to clear up a few minor things. I will try to avoid getting too deeply into the whole "denomination" issue because no matter how many times I have tried to explain my position, you just don't grasp what I am saying - and I don't know how else to explain it.

Then - in subsequent posts - I will provide the aforementioned "evidence" I promised earlier (and hopefully that will address at least some of Mike's concerns).

After that, I intend to pretty much back out of this discussion. Of course, I can always become Brett Favre-like and flip-flop on my "retirement" from this thread. Many of us here have been known to echo the famous line from Godfather III (a terrible movie), when Michael Corleone says, "Just when I thought I was getting out...they pull me back in!!!". But for now my hope is to just fade away. It's been fun, but I need a life - LOL.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well...after some sleep and reflection I have pretty much decided that this thread has reached a point of diminishing returns - as such my participation in it will likely diminish as well...................

Hi NM......Perhaps because most here disagree with Roman Catholicism and Papal supremacy?
That usually ends up being the case in these kinds of threads from what I have seen....God bless

 

[NewMan99]

Hi NM......Perhaps because most here disagree with Roman Catholicism and Papal supremacy?
That usually ends up being the case in these kinds of threads from what I have seen....God bless

It's a fair question - but the reality is that I am not really concerned with agreement - I rather expect that many here will not agree with Catholicism and Papal Supremacy.

What is frustrating to me and eating up far too much of my time and energy is with regard to COMMUNICATION and the seeming inability for many of us to understand on a fundamental level what others are even trying to say in the first place.

Disagreement? That would not be enough to make we want to leave.

A severe lack of communication? That would be enough. For if we cannot even communicate - then what is the point?

What I will say in a more positive vein is that I am very pleased with the overall civility and charity shown by almost everyone in this thread. That, I think, is awesome. If it wasn't for that, I would have left long ago.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's a fair question - but the reality is that I am not really concerned with agreement - I rather expect that many here will not agree with Catholicism and Papal Supremacy.

What is frustrating to me and eating up far too much of my time and energy is with regard to COMMUNICATION and the seeming inability for many of us to understand on a fundamental level what others are even trying to say in the first place.

Disagreement? That would not be enough to make we want to leave.

A severe lack of communication? That would be enough. For if we cannot even communicate - then what is the point?

What I will say in a more positive vein is that I am very pleased with the overall civility and charity shown by almost everyone in this thread. That, I think, is awesome. If it wasn't for that, I would have left long ago.

Can you elaborate on "lack of communication" ?

 

[NewMan99]

Sure - we are talking in circles.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sure - we are talking in circles.

Ok.........I found this thread on the OBOB board rather interesting

http://www.christianforums.com/t7364718/
Eastern Rite Icon

 

[NewMan99]

Josiah,

Here is my general "housecleaning" post to you. I am sure you will respond to some of these comments, but I cannot promise I will be able to respond back. No offense - but I really do want to reduce my participation here (this includes CF in general as well).

From your post #269:

I'm just not following you how you are saying that The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and yet it didn't exist until the 4th Century (and that was not a good thing).

I hope to avoid talking too much about the denominational thing...but just to clarify for the sake of anyone who might be confused about my actual position...

It is not my position - and has never been my position - that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the 4th century. Others (read: some Protestants) may believe that - but I don't - nor do other Catholics believe that. It is my position - it is the Catholic position - that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ upon the Apostles at Pentecost even though it did not start calling itself "The Catholic Church" until later. The Church that was legalized in 313 AD at the Edict of Milan was The Catholic Church in unbroken continuity both BEFORE and AFTER this historic event. It consisted of all Christian congregations throughout the world (all of them happened to be within the Roman Empire at the time simply because the Christian faith had not yet been evangelized beyond the empire) that were in communion with the Bishops and Patriarchates of that era, including the Bishop of Rome.

It is NOT my position that the Catholic Church suddenly became a "denomination" when it was legalized - nor is it my position that ANY denominations existed until denominationalism came into being in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. At that time, the PROTESTANT sects that sprang up...THEY became denominations. But the Catholic Church is not and has never been included in the umbrella term "denomination" - nor are the Orthodox Churches "denominations" either.

Then there's the "unity" issue I'm truly puzzled about. Because if there was no denomination before 313, then there was no institutional unity - so that can't be what you are talking about.

But there WAS institutional unity - there were (and still are) authoritative and hierarchical BISHOPS that were (and still are) IN COMMUNION with each other - that is institutional unity. And it is precisely because of this unity, whereby the True Church is ONE, that we cannot consider it a "denomination". This is an area where Catholics and Orthodox agree: before 313 AD when the Church was underground - it was united as ONE Church because the Bishops not only shared in Apostolic Succession - but they were also in communion with each other. The legalization of the Church did not change that in any way.

Was there doctrinal unity? No, probably no time in the history of Christianity was there more doctrinal diversity and fewer things "pinned down" than in those early centuries (not even the Trinity).

There were doctrinal questions back then - just as there are now - just as there was during the Apostolic era (which is why the Church convened in Jerusalem to settle a new question - as per Acts 15)...but that does NOT mean there was not unity. I say this because the (Catholic) Church back then (which did not call itself The Catholic Church at that time) - had a way to settle theological disputes that were threatening the unity and orthodoxy of the Church. The point is that unity was found in that when the Church spoke on a given matter, believers in communion with that Church were bound to assent. When the Church did not issue a teaching (perhaps because it was still in debate and still reflecting on where the Spirit was guiding them), Christians were free to speculate as long as their speculations did not contradict or oppose previous Church teachings. This is why, for example, the Judaizing party from Jerusalem was free to (try to) impose their views on Gentile believers in Antioch UNTIL the Church made a binding decision/teaching on the matter as per the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Now, just because there was some diversity of theological opinion on this topic prior to the decision of the elders in Jerusalem does not mean the Church lacked unity. For if it lacked unity then one faction or the other would have refused to participate in "binding arbitration" (for lack of a better phrase), or a portion of the Church would have refused to abide by its decision. This is not to imply that individual Judaizers did not continue to Judaize (Jesus promised there would always be false teachers)...but they did so IN OPPOSITION to the Church itself (Jesus promised that He is Truth and that the Spirit of Truth would guide the Apostles...and hence His Church).

I only theorized that the legal status of Christianity by Rome was probably the reason for the development of a denomination in the Empire, and also why said denomination was a mirror image of Rome itself.

You have already agreed that prior to legalization the Church existed with a form of hierarchy (Bishops) and perhaps even some kind of pan-congregationalism (although you seem to not be quite sure about that)...and yet you claim that prior to legalization the Church existed only as a "movement" and not as a "denomination" (as YOU define the word...which is more akin to "religious group" if I may offer a simplistic paraphrase). So if a denomination is a religious group...and if the very early Church had a hierarchy...then I don't understand why you would characterize the early Church as a movement instead of a denomination or a loosely affiliated bunch of different denominations. Note: I am NOT saying the early Church was anything like a denomination (using my definition)...I am talking about consistencies within YOUR definition.

Again, I find your position a difficult one: you seem to be arguing that THE Catholic Church - that specific, singular, particular denominational institution and no other - was founded by Jesus, and yet no denomination existed before 313 and all denominations are "offensive."

This is a good example of bad communication. I have consistently said that no denominations existed until Protestant denominationalism entered the world stage during the Reformation...therefore there it is not a difficult position to say that Jesus founded the Catholic Church (which is not a denomination) and that there was no denominationalism before 313 (or, by logical extension, before 1500 either).

As for the "offensive" thing...I am offended - given MY definition of denomination - when that term is applied to the Catholic Church. In other words, when we are called a denomination it is the SAME THING (to us) as saying that we lack communion with the True Church founded by Christ on the Apostles (even though that is not necessarily what you mean to convey to us). You can call yourself a denomination all you want - I am not offended by that - in fact I think it is accurate. But we are NOT a denomination and I would appreciate it if you would find some other word to use when describing us. Now, all that being said, I know you do not intend offense, so I am not taking it nearly as personally as it may appear. I can find something to be offensive even if I choose - for the sake of the peace - to not take offense in a personal manner...but I still have the duty to speak up and tell you that MANY Catholics (not just me) strongly object to the term WHEN it is applied to us.

I'M the one saying that the appearance of a denomination in the 4th century (which you claim was the RCC; I'm not sure the EO would agree with that)

I make no such claim - and never have. Firstly - there was no "appearance of a denomination" in the 4th century. The Christian faith and, by extension, the Christian Church, was simply legalized. That's all. It already existed before it was legalized. And I would NOT - I repeat NOT - begin to say that the newly legalized Church was the "RCC". Rather it was the ENTIRE Catholic Church which consisted of several Patriarchates INCLUDING the Roman Church AND several Eastern Churches...each in communion together even though each had their own modes of theological expression.

And here I thought we were in agreement that there were no denominations prior to the 4th century but there have been since.

We agreed that there were no denominations prior to the 4th century (although I still don't know why you take that position given your very broad definition of what makes something a denomination) - but I never said that there was a denomination in the 4th century. You said that - not me. You were reading into my words and imposing your definitions on them.

1. In 313, the capitol of the Roman Empire had moved to Constantinople?

No - in 324 AD Constantine defeated his Eastern imperial colleague, Licinius, and became the sole Emperor of both East and West. Once that happened, Constantine made the decision to move the capital to Byzantium which he renamed "Constantinople" and referred to as the "New Rome." So a little bit over a decade passed between the Edict of Milan and the shift of imperial power over to Constantinople.

You need to remember that except unusually, a Greek Orthodox is barred from the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, that the RCC has a LOT of dogmas that the EO does not.

Actually an Orthodox believer CAN recieve the Eucharist in a Roman Church - it is a Roman who cannot receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church.

I mentioned above two DOGMAS of the RCC I don't affirm: Transubstantiation and the Assumption of Mary, well, I don't think the EO does either.

You are right that EOs do not. That said, I should point out that the Eastern Rite Catholics (who ARE in communion with us and hence are just as much a part of The Catholic Church as I am) are not required to include these within their own theological approaches either. While they cannot claim that the West is in error or heretical for these dogmas (when understood from the Western POV using Western theological approaches), they are not required to include them in their theological language, expressions, devotions, or teachings. These dogmas address specific WESTERN concerns that are not raised in the East. The Church has two lungs: East and West and we don't try to make the East the West or vice versa (that has failed utterly in the past when imprudent Bishops tried to Latinize Easterners).

From post 272:

Of course, this would be an entirely different discussion if he were an evangelist and not an apologist; if the starting point was: "This I believe - and here's why" rather than, "I'm right and I can prove it."

Firstly, thanks for your kind words in the post. As for the above comment, I hope I don't come off as trying to prove I am right INSTEAD of first trying to explain my beliefs and why I believe them. Obviously, I think that my beliefs are, indeed, right - and of course I hope I can show some evidence to support my views. But as for "proving" it in the sense of trying to "win" a debate...well...I know that in some cases no amount of proof will suffice, and in other cases no proof is necessary. Not everyone will be willing to accept what I view as objective Truth, just as I will not always be willing to accept what someone else views as objective Truth. As for whether or not people are persuaded by my "proof" - well - that is not up to me and it is not something I spend much time worrying about.

Not a "document," but in the thread I referred you to, CaDan (a Catholic in those days, I seem to recall) was asked directly and specifically, "So, is the Roman Catholic Church a denomination?" And he posted, "Yes. It is more than that, but yes it is a denomination." Post # 5.

As you note, CaDan is offering a PERSONAL opinion - he is not the same thing as an official document. There is a sense in which I can, also, say that the Catholic Church is a denomination IF the entire premise is that a denomination is - objectively speaking - a "religious group" and nothing more. The Catholic Church is a religious group - voila - the CC must therefore be a denomination. But words can have different meanings and different definitions depending on CONTEXT. Notice CaDan also said "it is MORE than that" - which tells me there is an important qualifier to his opinion. While I can't speak for him, something tells me that there is more to his definition than there is to yours. Bottom line: we don't consider ourselves to be a denomination unless you want to utilize a definition that is so broad as to be almost meaningless.

Okay - this is all I care to comment on for housecleaning purposes. There is TONS more I can say but I have to cut it off somewhere.

Hopefully I can finally get to the "evidence" stuff soon (today?).

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

This is likely to be a multi-part post. As I said previously, I don't know how much time I will be able to devote to this thread or responding to various comments that may arise out this, but here goes...

I really want to narrow down the scope of what I am trying to illustrate here. Then I will provide a plurality of evidence to support my main point enough to the degree that most people will (hopefully) consider my position as reasonable even if not everyone will agree with all points. My case will not necessarily rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather the preponderance of evidence will hopefully serve to provide most of the weight.

So here is the main premise I will try to support through evidence:

The papacy, defined as "the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian church," was created by Christ, through the apostle Peter, and this ministry was thereafter succeeded to by the bishops of Rome.

That is the scope of this apologetic. I will not delve into other tangential matters as important as they might be in another thread.

As an introduction to this topic, I first want to point out that many Protestants do not see the Papacy in the Bible because they perceive that the Pope is an autocratic guy in a pointy hat sitting on a throne acting imperious - and there is nobody like that in the Bible among the Apostles. And Peter was certainly not like that.

And here we must admit that there is some reason - a valid reason - why most people perceive the Pope in this fashion, for there have been Popes who have acted in an autocratic and dictatorial fashion from time to time. But, as we will see, that particular style of Papacy does not define the nature of the Papacy itself.

So it is understandable that many people do not see the Papacy in the Bible, for that style of governance did not yet exist within the Church, even though (as I will illustrate) the Papacy did exist and has existed ever since Jesus first commissioned Peter to his special and unique ministry.

But let's now turn to the initial part of my stated premise.

I defined the Papacy as: "The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church."

This refers to THE MINISTRY of Simon Peter and all those who succeed him to that ministry. That is its core and central mission. Anything else that came later, such as a change in styles to meet the challenges and demands of later eras, is not instrinsic to this ministry, but rather something merely added on via its historical experience. Remember that, right or wrong, the Papacy was forced to adapt its style in reaction to outside (sometimes political) pressure put upon it.

We have already talked a little bit in this thread about the various challenges in the first centuries of the Church. But it doesn't hurt to briefly recount them here:

1. The legalization of the Christian faith in 313 AD. This changed the legal status of the Church from that of a persecuted underground organization, to that of the official religion of the empire. Therefore this compelled Popes to operate within the dictates of imperial law (which is closely connected with the first Ecumenical Councils), as well as forcing the Popes to deal with other secular influences intruding into the Church.

2. The fall of the (Western) Roman Empire which forced the Popes to assume a far great and more awesome responsibility of keeping Western civilization together since no other western leader was capable (due to circumstance) of doing it.

3. There was a 700-year (313-1054 AD) struggle between the Papacy and the Eastern Emperors (in Constantinople) for control over the universal Church. Bear in mind that MANY – not all – of these Emperors were heretics of different stripes (some were Arians, some were Monophysites, some were Iconoclasts, etc…) who tried to force their heterodoxies on the entire Church as they pressed forward their “One Church One Empire” agenda. It was due to this struggle for Church unity and orthodoxy that the Pope was forced to adapt a more imperial style – where “imperial trappings” (such as thrones and rings etc…) were acquired. And this style continued through the Middle Ages where it was also useful in preserving Christian unity in the face of Muslim invasions into Europe.

As I said, we have already talked about these points and how these historical events affected the style of the papacy until we see the more dictatorial style that many Protestants think of (and are often repulsed by) when the word “Pope” is mentioned.

But this, of course, is neither here nor there in that these historical events had nothing to do with the supposed institution of the Papacy by Christ. In the very early days of the Church we would not expect to see a more dictatorial style from Peter (since the historical events that caused this style had not happened yet), but we did see the Papacy manifested in a very different way. In the early days we see Peter and his successors acting more like a “court of appeal” than you would a “hands on administrator” or secular “ruler of the church.”

The style that St. Peter adapted – and the style adapt by his successors for the first 400 years of the Church – can be found here in 1 Peter 5:1-4, which states:

“So, I exhort the presbyters (i.e., bishops) among you, as a fellow presbyter (i.e., bishop) and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd (i.e., Christ) is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

So here we see Peter speaking of acting in true Christian fashion, and not exercising his authority in a secular manner. Peter was able to imitate Christ in true humility and sought to serve rather than be served (e.g. John 13:5-17, Mark 9:35).

It is little wonder that many modern folks (especially those non-Catholics who might have a pre-existing antipathy to the Papacy) have to struggle to see the Papacy in the Bible or the early centuries of the Church. When the Pharisees and Romans who killed Jesus looked at Christ - they did not see a "king" or a "ruler" either. If one acts like Peter suggests above, you will not be readily perceived to be a ruler IF you are only viewed through secular eyes. We must look through Christian eyes, then we can perceive and judge authority according to Christian standards.

This principle will, hopefully, become more apparent as we work through this analysis, for we will see examples of humble Christ-like men exercising authority but not necessarily in the same style we would expect a secular leader to. This doesn't make them less authoritative - nor does it make them less of a Pope or a "supreme pastor" with jurisdictional authority over the universal church.

So to flesh out my premise I need to demonstrate that:

1. The "ministry of supreme pastor with jurisdictional authority to maintain universal authority and orthodoxy within the Christian Church" was bestowed upon Peter by Jesus.

- and -

2. That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry.

In my next post I will specifically address the first question.

To be continued on Part 2...

 

[TraderJack]

No, it does not make them false. It could also make them incomplete, or not in full union with the true Church. Catholics do not teach that other Christian churches are "not Christian." However, some non Catholics teach that Catholics teach other Christian churches are non-Christian. This is, by definition, a straw man.

The Roman Catholic church prior to Vatican II did in fact teach that non-Catholics were not Christian, and did so dogmatically, as a "divine truth".

However, by definition, when Rome says it is the only true church, then only it can truly be a church, by definition.

Either something is true or false.

There is no middle ground.

Back to Canon VI, you seem to have responded by delving into Scripture, your interpretation of which I disagree with. But if I may rephrase why the language in Nicea Canon VI does not equate to Antioch and Alexandria having equal authority as Rome...

The text can be fairly interpreted to mean: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since that is the custom of Rome to recognize these regions being in Alexandria's jurisdiction...."

In yet other words, when Canon VI says "the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome", it can be fairly interpreted as "because this idea is customarily the view of the Bishop of Rome..." And I still contend that this interpretation is fitting with the historical context both before and after Nicea, whereas the interpretation of diluted authority is not fitting with the historical context.

That is not how the early church, nor any churches except for the church of the Romans interprets that canon from Nicea I, which is that all the Sees were equal in jurdisdiction.

 

[TraderJack]

Looking more and more like the RCC and O will be joining, no?

No. For two hurdles that cannot be overcome.

1. Roman papal supremacy, which Rome cannot give up it's claim to, or else be in contradition to everything it has claimed since the Dark Ages concerning the papacy. And the EOs will never concede to any Roman papal supremacy because it simply is not true.

2. The Filioque, which the EOs also will never concede to.

 

[TraderJack]

Although the Catholic Church does want union with the Orthodox, you are wrong about the positon of the Church. It is growing rapidly worldwide, especially in Asia and Africa.

So is Mormonism and Islam.

Numerical growth does not equate to truth.

Matthew 7:13-15





13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Big numbers actually work against claims that it is true because of numbers of followers.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

The Roman Catholic church prior to Vatican II did in fact teach that non-Catholics were not Christian, and did so dogmatically, as a "divine truth".

However, by definition, when Rome says it is the only true church, then only it can truly be a church, by definition.

Either something is true or false.

There is no middle ground.



That is not how the early church, nor any churches except for the church of the Romans interprets that canon from Nicea I, which is that all the Sees were equal in jurdisdiction.

This is wrong.
I became a Catholic Convert in 1955. While doing so, started a deep study of the Catholic Church, mainly because I had been a very vocal anti-Catholic. I was rather amazed that one of the Prayers for Blessings that we prayed was for our "Separated Christian Brethren". I was pretty low key but it was there.
After Vatican II, it came out in the sunlight. It was not new though.

 

[TraderJack]

Hi

I learned a lot about history and how it connects.

Not everything that is claimed to be true history is.

For instance, the Roman Catholic churc claims that the bishops of Rome were the supreme rulers of the entire church from the beginning, and it was taught historically by the early church fathers.


When an objective, comprehensive survey of early church history is embarked on, we find the claims of Rome concerning the Roman papacy are completely foreign to the patristics and early church fathers, making those claims of "history" made by Rome to be false.

They are so false, that during the medieval period Rome manufactured forgeries, made to look as if they were from antiquity and from the early church, but were in fact, medieval frauds. The "Donation of Constantine" and "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" are just two examples of Roman Catholic fabricated "history".

I'm not a scholarly person and I'll have to read this thread a lot to fully comprehend all of what has been written.

Best thing to do is to do the work yourself and check the historical records themselves.

 

[NewMan99]

Part 2 (this is a continuation of Post #296)

When I left off, I listed 2 questions that I must address. This post will delve into the first question, which was:

1. The "ministry of supreme pastor with jurisdictional authority to maintain universal authority and orthodoxy within the Christian Church" was bestowed upon Peter by Jesus.

Notice that there are a number of elements at play:

1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?

2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?

3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?

So let's start by breaking down the first element. Initially I claim that there was a call by Christ for "universal unity" in the Church. No doubt we can all agree that Jesus prayed that we all be One, even as He and the Father are One. Jesus desired we be united in faith for all time.

We see this clearly taught in John 17:20-21, which reads:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Earlier in this thread I listed out other verses from the NT calling that we be united in faith. Here is that list again:

Acts 4:32: "The community of believers was of one heart and one mind..."

1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents."

Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing."

Ephesians 4:1-6 -- “...bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God and Father of all ...”

1 Peter 3:8: "Finally, all of you, be of one mind ..."

Now, it is fair to ask ourselves if this is the kind of unity we see today in modern Christianity? Have we maintained the unity of faith - the oneness of mind - we have been called to?

Hardly. We live in a time when THOUSANDS of different bodies (plural) and groups (plural) exist *outside* of communion with each other, not only institutionally, but ALSO doctrinally.

We all read from the same Bible, and yet we interpret it in contradictory and mutually exclusive ways...and not just in "non-essentials" - but rather in some VERY important and essential issues. Thus, we see before us extensive DISUNITY where the error of heterodoxy lies at its core and hence Christianity today is guilty of the very thing condemned in the Scriptures cited above.

This state of affairs begs the question: WHERE are we to find the unity we are called to? I will submit that it certainly isn't found in church splits, sectarianism, division, and denominationalism.

I am sure we can all agree that this was not a problem when Jesus and the Apostles were around. If people did not agree with Jesus, they were free to walk away (which they did in large numbers from time to time - see John 6:66-68), but when they did, it was plain that THEY were the ones to walk away and reject the Truths being taught through what we may call the True Church.

But what about later? What about after Pentecost when we longer had Jesus here on earth to guide us? Anybody could claim to be speaking for Christ or for orthodoxy. That is what we see in Acts 15:1-2 when Judaizers presumed to impose their views on others as if Judaizing was an orthodox Christian belief and valid practice.

Since Jesus left us a PHYSICAL mechanism in place to teach the faith (in other words, we didn't just learn Christianity via osmosis - God didn't just "zap" Christian knowledge into us - unless your name is Saul and you are on the road to Damascus - LOL), that is to say, since He left us physical men (the Apostles) to physically teach the nations, doesn't it make sense to wonder if Jesus also appointed a "vicarious" shepherd - a substitute teacher in a manner of speaking while the True Teacher is away - who could settle doctrinal disputes within the flock? This would be someone who would be authorized to preserve the flock in unity and orthodoxy in Christ's place until He returned?

Now, just because it would make sense for this - or because it is possible - does not ipso facto mean that that is what Jesus did. But I will submit that according to Scripture (and not just Tradition) this is EXACTLY what Jesus did do!

Let's start with John 21:15-19. Here we see the resurrected Jesus, in front of all the Apostles, commanding PETER three times to feed/tend his lambs/sheep. Earlier in the Gospel of John (Chapter 10, verses 11-16) Jesus said that He - Jesus - is the "Good Shepherd" and claims that there is "one flock and one Shepherd." So if Jesus is the Good Shepherd, the one Shepherd, why can he not feed and tend His own sheep? Why is He commanding Peter to do what He claimed for Himself exclusive rights to do?

Of course since Jesus is God it is plain that Jesus CAN feed and tend His own sheep. So why did He commission Peter for this task? We Catholics (and more than a few Orthodox as well - and even some Protestants too since some of them believe in the Primacy of Peter, but don't believe this Primacy was passed on to others) believe that Jesus was appointing Peter to act as a VICARIOUS shepherd. Notice in John 21:15-19 that they are STILL Jesus' sheep from Jesus' flock. Jesus said "Feed MY sheep" "Tend MY lambs" and so on. Therefore the flock is not Peter's but belongs to Jesus - the Good Shepherd. Thus, Peter is Jesus' "stand-in" so to speak...acting on His behalf since He is not present PHYSICALLY to do it. Therefore Peter is the VISIBLE vicarious shepherd of Jesus' flock.

Now in the original Greek, the word for "feed" is "boskein" which has been known to denote "spiritual nourishment" (as per the writings of the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria among other first century Jewish writers), and the word for "tend" is the Greek word "poimanao" denotes "rule" (see Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15 where it is applied to Jesus Himself).

Therefore, Peter is told to "rule" over the sheep to give them "spiritual nourishment" - and that is one reason (among others) that we say that Peter was commissioned to be the vicarious shepherd of the Church in Jesus' physical absence. This makes Peter the "Supreme pastor" as per my original premise.

Okay - we need to take a little detour because plenty of Protestants (in particular) might object at this point and claim that John 21 doesn't say anything about a special ministry involving universal jurisdiction. The claim by many is that Jesus was merely restoring Peter's Apostolic status after Peter's repentance due to his three-fold denial after Jesus' arrest. In other words, Jesus merely restored Peter to the same ministry of ALL the other Apostles to feed and tend the sheep. Nothing special or unique here relative to the ministries of the other Apostles. At least - that is what many Protestants will claim.

But this interpretation runs into some problems once we turn to a similar situation as told in Luke 22:31-32, which reads:

“Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you [singular] have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers [plural].”

Peter is not merely one among many, rather he is singled out to strengthen the welfare of all. In other words, it is a special unique ministry being commissioned - that of the vicarious shepherd.

So in looking next at the following two verses, we can see an even stronger case being made. For in Luke 22:33-34 we see where Jesus PREDICTS Peter's three-fold denial. As stated above, the common Protestant objection is that the three-fold re-commission in John 21 is merely to restore Peter to his Apostleship after he denied Christ three times. But the problem with that view is that Peter's three-fold denial as predicted by Jesus is CONTRASTED not with Peter's apostleship, but rather with Peter's special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles - and this comes BEFORE Peter's denial. Therefore if the restoration in John 21 restores anything it MUST INCLUDE with it the commission that Peter was given in Luke 22 too! In other words, if Peter is "restored" then that means he is fully restored to ALL that he was commissioned for by Jesus - especially when the commission in Luke 22 SPECIFIES that all the Apostles would be ground like wheat (insert here the events of the Passion including Peter's denial) and that once he (Peter) "turns back" (insert here his three-fold repentance in John 21) THEN he (Peter) was commanded to strengthen the others. So there it is - in both Luke 22 AND John 21 Peter is commissioned and re-commissioned as the vicarious shepherd over the whole flock in the physical absence of the Good Shepherd.

I have to head off to Church right now. I don't know if I will be able to return later tonight or not. But there are a few more installments to go - and I have not forgotten to include in it the historical evidence from the early Church that I promised both CJ and Mike.

End of Part 2 - Part 3 to follow (eventually)

God's Peace,

NewMan