Chief Shepherd

[JohnJones]

"One of the many titles Pope Benedict XVI assumes as head of the Roman Catholic Church is that of Chief Shepherd of the People of God." ( http://www.bne.catholic.net.au/reflections/benedict.htm )

"As he assumes now the responsibility as chief shepherd of the whole universal church, we pledge him our loving prayers, our loyalties, our filial respect. May God's Holy Spirit, which guided his election, continue to be with him, and strengthen him with the spiritual gifts he will surely need to carry out this unique ministry, this awesome pastoral ministry." ( http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/regional/s_326041.html )

"We should not forget that he is a fine theologian in his own right and is now the Chief Shepherd in succession to St Peter." ( http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/reflection.html )

"So Pope Benedict XVI is the new chief shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church. As you have heard, he is 78 years old. The last time a conclave elected someone near that age was in 1958, when Angelo Rocalli, who had a month to become 77, was elected pope. He took the name of John XXIII." ( http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20050420T210000-0500_79080_OBS_THE_NEW_POPE.asp )

All of the above claim that Benedict the 16th is the "Chief Shepherd in succession to St Peter." However, Peter himself disclaimed the title "Chief Shepherd," reserving it to JESUS CHRIST ALONE. Notice:

1 Pet 5:4 "And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

Did Ratzinger, now Benedict the 16th give ANYONE a crown of glory that fadeth not away upon his appearance??? Is it not a fact that Peter, rather than giving himself this title (as the 'popes' do) recognized that this title belongs to JESUS CHRIST ALONE? Peter was not a 'pope.'

 

[King of the Nations]

Hi John,

Did Ratzinger, now Benedict the 16th give ANYONE a crown of glory that fadeth not away upon his appearance???

Uhh....Not to my knowledge, no. That's Jesus' prerogative.

Is it not a fact that Peter, rather than giving himself this title (as the 'popes' do) recognized that this title belongs to JESUS CHRIST ALONE?

The title of Chief Shepherd? Mmmmm, in one sense, yes. In another, no.

Consider: Is Jesus Christ not the "only Son of God"? And yet, what does Scripture call believers but "God's children"? (1 John 3:1)

Is Scripture contradicting itself in this case, or are both declarations accurate, just in different senses? I would submit it's the latter.

In the same way, Jesus Christ is indeed the "only" Chief Shepherd of the Church in the sense that He alone is God and Savior. However, to say that that means that no man can hold that title as well in a subjective, or conditional fashion, is an oversight.

Further more...

1 Peter 5:2, "Shepherd the flock of God which is among you..."

Matt 10:2, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother..."

(Note that Peter is the only one whose name has been changed by Christ and is the only one with a "number" before his name in this account, signifying an order of authority, not quantity. Note that the passage does not say, "First, Simon, Second, Andrew, Third, James, etc...")

Peter was not a 'pope.'

The word "pope" simply means father. Seeing as how Paul considered Abraham, himself and others as "fathers" of the faithful...not much of a stretch for Benedict to do the same, I'd say.



Peace and blessings to you,

Greg

 

[JohnJones]

Consider: Is Jesus Christ not the "only Son of God"?

No, actually Jesus is NOT the only Son of God. Jesus is the onlybegotten Son of God. The Greek phrase is monogenes huios. However, most modern translations ignore the genes part and translate it as if it said mono huios, which it doesn't! All Greek texts contain the word monogenes (onlybegotten) with respect to Jesus' sonship. This word monogenes indicates that Jesus is Son of God by NATURE whereas Christians are sons of God by adoption.

Besides, although some of Jesus' titles may be shared by Christians, such as pastor, bishop, physician, priest, etc. those which express his headship cannot be shared. He is Chief Pastor (Shepherd), Great Physician, High Priest, etc.
Eph 1:22 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," -- Chief Shepherd is a title that men steal at their own risk!

 

[StPaul]

All of the above claim that Benedict the 16th is the "Chief Shepherd in succession to St Peter." However, Peter himself disclaimed the title "Chief Shepherd," reserving it to JESUS CHRIST ALONE. Notice:

1 Pet 5:4 "And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

Did Ratzinger, now Benedict the 16th give ANYONE a crown of glory that fadeth not away upon his appearance??? Is it not a fact that Peter, rather than giving himself this title (as the 'popes' do) recognized that this title belongs to JESUS CHRIST ALONE? Peter was not a 'pope.'

In reading all of 1 Peter 5, it seemed to me that Peter was directing Shephards to tend to the flock....

Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it- not by sordid gain but eagerly....

Here, Peter is acting as the 'earthly' chief sheperd by assuming authority and giving directed guidance. The quote that you use of 1 Peter 5, simply reafirms that any Authority that Peter has is through Christ, for Christ is The Chief Shepherd.

Continuing...

.....Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of Glory that never fades away. In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders....

I am really sorry, but I do not see your point. I do not understand how this one passage is supposed to prove that the phrase "Chief Shepherd" is reserved exclusively for Christ?

To claim that Peter was not a Pope is not necissary, and could be worded better for more cival discourse. A statement like this could leave one to believe that you are not interested in discourse at all, and are more interested in getting your point accross without hearing what others may have to say.

Your Brother in Christ,
God Bless

 

[JohnJones]

It's quite simple: Did Peter say "Ego sum Princeps Pastorum"? or did he say "Et cum apparuerit Princeps Pastorum"? In English, did he say "I am the Chief Shepherd" or "when the Chief Shepherd shall appear"? And then, what about that last part "percipietis immarcescibilem gloriae coronam"? Was Peter handing out crowns of glory that never fade away or can only Jesus Himself do that?

 

[StPaul]

It's quite simple: Did Peter say "Ego sum Princeps Pastorum"? or did he say "Et cum apparuerit Princeps Pastorum"? In English, did he say "I am the Chief Shepherd" or "when the Chief Shepherd shall appear"? And then, what about that last part "percipietis immarcescibilem gloriae coronam"? Was Peter handing out crowns of glory that never fade away or can only Jesus Himself do that?

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I never claimed that in that verse Peter was referencing himself. I (as well as Peter) acknowledge that yes, that is a phrase used for Christ. What I fail to see is how that verse is supposed to prove that the phrase "Chief Shepherd" is only to be used exclusively for Christ.

The exclusivity of the phrase is an assumption that you make, and that you read into the passage. Notice that while the verse is clearly talking about Jesus, it does not exclude the phrase to Jesus alone.

Chief can be used as a description. For example: if you have many sheperds all performing their jobs, and one stands out as leader and gives the others guidance... you can describe that person as the cheif sheperd.

 

[JohnJones]

Paul, lets just look at it logically. There can be many Shepherds, right? Ok. Can there be many Chief Shepherds? Well, if so, they are all equal. Is any man equal to Christ?

We can look at a similar example with the Latin term Pontifex. In the Latin Vulgate the word Pontifex is used to indicate that Jesus is the High Priest. For example, Hebrews 2:17 "Unde debuit per omnia fratribus similari, ut misericors fieret, et fidelis Pontifex ad Deum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi." (Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.) Now, however, the 'pope' claims the title Pontifex Maximus, which means "Highest High Priest"--can any man be higher than Christ? If Christ is High Priest (which He is) then how can anyone be Highest High Priest???? This question of the Chief Shepherd is the same thing.

Can a man be equal to Christ and can a man be higher than Christ? That's the question. The Bible, by the way, answers it quite well:

Eph 1:22 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,"

Col 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

Jesus is head over all things to the church--he has the preeminence in all things. No man is Highest High Priest--ONLY JESUS IS. No man is Chief Shepher--ONLY JESUS IS.

 

[StPaul]

Paul, lets just look at it logically. There can be many Shepherds, right? Ok. Can there be many Chief Shepherds? Well, if so, they are all equal. Is any man equal to Christ?

We can look at a similar example with the Latin term Pontifex. In the Latin Vulgate the word Pontifex is used to indicate that Jesus is the High Priest. For example, Hebrews 2:17 "Unde debuit per omnia fratribus similari, ut misericors fieret, et fidelis Pontifex ad Deum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi." (Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.) Now, however, the 'pope' claims the title Pontifex Maximus, which means "Highest High Priest"--can any man be higher than Christ? If Christ is High Priest (which He is) then how can anyone be Highest High Priest???? This question of the Chief Shepherd is the same thing.

Can a man be equal to Christ and can a man be higher than Christ? That's the question. The Bible, by the way, answers it quite well:

Eph 1:22 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,"

Col 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

Jesus is head over all things to the church--he has the preeminence in all things. No man is Highest High Priest--ONLY JESUS IS. No man is Chief Shepher--ONLY JESUS IS.

Again, what you fail to understand is how Catholics see this.

There are to parts to look at. Heaven and Earth. Heaven transcends earth, meaning that any Head/Power/Authority, etc. in Heaven naturally translates to earth as Head/Power/Authority, etc. While on Earth, any leader, power, authority cannot ever be greater than that in Heaven.

IOW, The Chief Shepherd of Heaven implies (transitively) Chief Shepherd of All (Heaven and Earth)... while the 'earthly' Cheif Shepherd does not necissarily imply equality with the Heavenly status.

So back to what I have been re-iterating... The Pope is the 'earthly' Chief Shepherd... meaning he is our earthly leader, our earthly power of Authority. In no way does this take away from Christ, b/c who gave him this power?... the Chief Priest of all Heaven and Earth,... the Chief Shephard of all heaven and earth Jesus himself.

The way you are approaching this arguement is to deny the existance of one or the other.... to deny the existance of both the 'earthly' Chief Shepherd, and Chief Shepherd of all Heaven and Earth.

And again, I re-iterate, that I fail to see how 1 Peter 5 denies the existance one or the other.

 

[King of the Nations]

No, actually Jesus is NOT the only Son of God. Jesus is the onlybegotten Son of God. The Greek phrase is monogenes huios. However, most modern translations ignore the genes part and translate it as if it said mono huios, which it doesn't! All Greek texts contain the word monogenes (onlybegotten) with respect to Jesus' sonship.

Well...I'm no Greek scholar, so I can't confirm or deny that. All I can do is post 1 John 4:7-9 which says, "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is begotten of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."

The only distinction that's made by the Scriptural text is one that's not explicitly stated but implied, or understood. As you said:

...Jesus is Son of God by NATURE whereas Christians are sons of God by adoption.

Very true, but that, from a strictly literal standpoint, is not what the text says. The text all by itself does not allow for any distinction.

Besides, although some of Jesus' titles may be shared by Christians, such as pastor, bishop, physician, priest, etc. those which express his headship cannot be shared.

1) According to who? Does it say that in the Bible? This is an arbitrary statement.

2) How is it that the above-mentioned titles do not take away from Jesus' identity as each? If Jesus is prophet, king, priest, physician, etc., how can a Christian make use of the same titles and not get people confused about who is being referred to, or about whether a given Christian is fully equal with Christ? If Jesus is "priest", "prophet", and "healer", for example, and I am a priest, prophet, and healer as well....??? Am I equal with Jesus? Of course not, but the way that that is known is not by the titles themselves, but by the understanding that comes with them. As you allude to - What we are in each of these examples conditionally, by adoption, or because God has granted us the capacity to share in these gifts, Jesus already is by nature.

Jesus - Absolute Chief Shepherd of the Church by nature.

Pope Benedict XVI - Conditional Chief Shepherd of the Church by commision from God.

I hope the point I am trying to make is clear.

Fear not. In spite of all the "pomp and circumstance" that surrounds papal activities and elections and all of that, no Catholic anywhere thinks that the Pope and Jesus Christ are equal in identity any more than any Protestant thinks his pastor and Jesus are equals. The office of "chief shepherd" is just that for any human commisioned to it - an office, subject to and commisioned by Christ, not an absolute identity.

He is Chief Pastor (Shepherd), Great Physician, High Priest, etc.
Eph 1:22 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," -- Chief Shepherd is a title that men steal at their own risk!

The title has been assigned by logic and Scripture.

Thanks for the dialogue!

Greg

 

[StPaul]

Well...I'm no Greek scholar, so I can't confirm or deny that. All I can do is post 1 John 4:7-9 which says, "Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is begotten of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."

The only distinction that's made by the Scriptural text is one that's not explicitly stated but implied, or understood. As you said:



Very true, but that, from a strictly literal standpoint, is not what the text says. The text all by itself does not allow for any distinction.



1) According to who? Does it say that in the Bible? This is an arbitrary statement.

2) How is it that the above-mentioned titles do not take away from Jesus' identity as each? If Jesus is prophet, king, priest, physician, etc., how can a Christian make use of the same titles and not get people confused about who is being referred to, or about whether a given Christian is fully equal with Christ? If Jesus is "priest", "prophet", and "healer", for example, and I am a priest, prophet, and healer as well....??? Am I equal with Jesus? Of course not, but the way that that is known is not by the titles themselves, but by the understanding that comes with them. As you allude to - What we are in each of these examples conditionally, by adoption, or because God has granted us the capacity to share in these gifts, Jesus already is by nature.

Jesus - Absolute Chief Shepherd of the Church by nature.

Pope Benedict XVI - Conditional Chief Shepherd of the Church by commision from God.

I hope the point I am trying to make is clear.

Fear not. In spite of all the "pomp and circumstance" that surrounds papal activities and elections and all of that, no Catholic anywhere thinks that the Pope and Jesus Christ are equal in identity any more than any Protestant thinks his pastor and Jesus are equals. The office of "chief shepherd" is just that for any human commisioned to it - an office, subject to and commisioned by Christ, not an absolute identity.



The title has been assigned by logic and Scripture.

Thanks for the dialogue!

Greg

 

[2+2=5]

Pope Benedict XVI - Conditional Chief Shepherd of the Church by commision from God.

Could you provide scripture for this?
Alternatively, is this just tradition?

 

[StPaul]

Could you provide scripture for this?
Alternatively, is this just tradition?

Actually it is a description.

Provide scripture for what?... evidence of Peter's leadership of the apostles?... While I continue to hold that you do not need to require for scripture to explicitly explain every aspect of Christian thought, I will say that there is evidence of Peter's leadership among the Apostles.

Also... if it were in Scriptures, that would automatically imply that it were of Sacred Tradition, b/c the Bible itself is a product of Sacred Tradition.

God Bless

 

[2+2=5]

I was inquiring on the "by commision from God" part actually.

 

[King of the Nations]

I was inquiring on the "by commision from God" part actually.

Sorry, I'm a little slow...

Are you referring to the papacy in general, or to Ratzinger specifically?

Greg

 

[Dale]

King of the Nations in post #2:
<< Seeing as how Paul considered Abraham, himself and others as "fathers" of the faithful...not much of a stretch for Benedict to do the same, I'd say. >>

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are literal fathers of the Jewish people. A Pope can never be the literal father of anyone unless he has violated his vows. Neither can any other priest in the Roman Catholic system.

 

[Dale]

JohnJones in post #1:
<< 1 Pet 5:4 "And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." >>

You do indeed have a point here. The term Chief Shepherd contributes nothing to our understanding of what the Pope does. Peter only claims to be a "fellow elder" and a "witness" in this passage.

 

[StPaul]

King of the Nations in post #2:
<< Seeing as how Paul considered Abraham, himself and others as "fathers" of the faithful...not much of a stretch for Benedict to do the same, I'd say. >>

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are literal fathers of the Jewish people. A Pope can never be the literal father of anyone unless he has violated his vows. Neither can any other priest in the Roman Catholic system.

This statement is not entirely true.

God Bless

 

[StPaul]

JohnJones in post #1:
<< 1 Pet 5:4 "And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." >>

You do indeed have a point here. The term Chief Shepherd contributes nothing to our understanding of what the Pope does. Peter only claims to be a "fellow elder" and a "witness" in this passage.

And this observation is consistant with Peter's messege that we must be humble. Yet, I still fail to see how this passage proves exclusivity of phrases. Please help me understand the gap in the conclusion that you all apparently have.

God Bless

 

[King of the Nations]

King of the Nations in post #2:
<< Seeing as how Paul considered Abraham, himself and others as "fathers" of the faithful...not much of a stretch for Benedict to do the same, I'd say. >>

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are literal fathers of the Jewish people. A Pope can never be the literal father of anyone unless he has violated his vows. Neither can any other priest in the Roman Catholic system.

Romans 4:11-17



Greg

 

[BBAS 64]

And this observation is consistant with Peter's messege that we must be humble. Yet, I still fail to see how this passage proves exclusivity of phrases. Please help me understand the gap in the conclusion that you all apparently have.

God Bless

Good Day, Paul

The exclusivity of the phase "Chief Shepherd" is inhert to the term, with in the context it was used. There is only one chief of any given flock there many be many tending shepherds.

The tending shepherds serve at the will of the chief, and when the chief is on the feild the sheep follow him and hear his voice. The chief shephard is allways with us and there are many tending the flock of which Peter seen him self as one.

The tending shepherd will be kneeling attend to the sheep, but when the chief speaks the tending shepherd is left kneeling as the sheep follows the chief. To assign this title other then to the one it belongs is an error IMO for there is only one Chief and we call his name Jesus.


Let him who has ears let him hear...

Peace to u,

Bill