Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
EmperorConstantine,
I believe that this is a very accurate depiction of what actually happened historically. The Papacy as it is understood today was an outgrowth from the economic, geographic, political and cultural separation and isolation that occurred after the fall of Rome.
The Church, the See of Rome became the stablizing center of existance in the west. All things centered on the Church which was the only thing not actually destroyed by the Huns. It became the starting point of a new culture, it became almost mandatory that the Bishop also have secular or political authority over the chaos of that time. Thus it was an assumption, that having primacy, first among equals elevated to being supreme, at least in Rome first, then the western part of the empire. Then Rome began to foist Supremacy on the East.
You can follow this very clearly as history evolves when Rome finally separtes from the Church. The establish the Roman Catholic Church and by that time the Middle Ages is beginning to evolve out of the Dark Ages. The Holy Roman Empire evolves from the beginnings of organized states out of the chaos of the Dark Ages. The Roman Church battles with Emporers of the New states, in some cases they were Emporers themselves, and some Emporers became Popes.
Going all the way down to modern history as the Holy Roman Empire dissolved into independent States, all that was left was known as the Papal States in Central Italy. With the Unification of Italian states in 1870 the only island was the Vatican. The last remnant of the Holy Roman Empire which still exists today. The Pope is head of the Church but also the political head of the Vatican. It is an officially recognized country with the exchange of Ambassadors.
The development of the Papacy has very little to do with ecclessiastical or theological issues.
As many have already pointed out, Rome was never the seat of authority in the Church even in the first 500 years of Church History. That Rome had Primacy, which itself is a political description rather than theological. Rome was considered Prime only because at the time it was the center, the capital of the Empire. If relevance was going to be placed on historical grounds and/or biblcial grounds then Jeruselem would have been Primary. Antioch would have been second and Rome much further down the line.
The Roman Catholic Church simply made theology retroactive to rationalize their efforts and position.
If one needs to follow the early Church theolgically, the whole concept of the papacy, or a central organization entity is antithetical to the Christological understanding of the Church then as now.
If a Supreme Head, a central Official jurisdictional Head was understood as necessary, then when Rome did separate, why did not Constantinople become the Papacy of the East. Would it not have been logical to establish a new Head, since the former was no longer a member?
This is a very simplistic and short explanation but I challenge any to check this out for themselves.
On the issue of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope, is also antithetical to the understanding of the Church and the purity and governance and preservation of the Gospel through the Body of Christ with Christ as Head. This doctrine is very modern. Established only in 1870 as official Church dogma hardly makes it Apostolic.
It is always this single text that Roman Catholic refer to hoping that it might give some kind of support for a papacy. The context of this whole reference is that every single bishop sits on the chair of St Peter. Peter had primacy, even among the apostles. The Pope, the heirachical See of Rome was given the seat of Primacy as well. As I explained, not because Peter was there, but because it was the capital of the Empire at the Time. If you really want your view to stick, why did not Rome argue for Jerusalem, which is the very first Church, then as Second, Antioch, which Peter did actually establish.St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy
"...they dare even to set sail...to the chair of Peter and the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy [errors or perversion of faith] to have entrance." (Epistle 59:14) AD 250
You can follow this very clearly as history evolves when Rome finally separtes from the Church. The establish the Roman Catholic Church and by that time the Middle Ages is beginning to evolve out of the Dark Ages. The Holy Roman Empire evolves from the beginnings of organized states out of the chaos of the Dark Ages. The Roman Church battles with Emporers of the New states, in some cases they were Emporers themselves, and some Emporers became Popes.
Going all the way down to modern history as the Holy Roman Empire dissolved into independent States, all that was left was known as the Papal States in Central Italy. With the Unification of Italian states in 1870 the only island was the Vatican. The last remnant of the Holy Roman Empire which still exists today. The Pope is head of the Church but also the political head of the Vatican. It is an officially recognized country with the exchange of Ambassadors.
The development of the Papacy has very little to do with ecclessiastical or theological issues. .
Actually, there have been many, many ex-cathedra statements, mostly from the previous pope as during his reign he declared many people to be saints.Thus even within the Catholic church, out of all the things popes have said in the last 2000 years, only about 3 statements are commonly held to be ex cathedera, and thus infallible.
Im rather amused by the RCC claim that a Pope is infallible in matters of "faith and morals".
When was a proclamation of a Pope limited to just faith and morals? What is the first RCC document that lists faith and morals as alone being within the bounds of a Papal decree?
Well, maybe not so sudden, but if one really checked, it might be somewhere in the Enlightenment or in the Scholastic Movement. That adds just a couple of centuies. But to say it is even implicit in the early Church is purely Roman Scholasticism. There is absolutely nothing in the Early Church Fathers about any bishop having infallibility. Especially when so many became heretics.The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching. It is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time.
But what of a bishop who removes himself from that church. What of a bishop who then leads a large number of other faithful out of the Church. Are they still Church? Can you be outside of Christ and still be considered IN Christ. Is Christ divided?This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman.
But is the Pope the Church? Does the Pope even represent the Church? Is not Christ the Head of the Church, is not the Holy Spirit who abides in believers who are the Body of Christ, the Church. So were does a Pope fit in?this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church so the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.
a_ntv,
Sorry, not to have gotten back immediately, but....
It is interesting that the Roman See separated, finally from the Church, when Emporer Henry III installed a relative of His as Pope Leo IX. What led to this event was a rivalry between three different popes.
His successor, Hildabrand sought ecclessiastical reforms which included the lay investure of the Popes by the emporer. Hildabrand is recognized as one of the best Popes, yet it is also his strong belief that the Pope was supreme over ecclessiastical affairs but also over secular affairs. Then we can speak of the Crusades, wars for sure, but campaigns built by, controlled, by the Popes. After this for quite some time the Popes crowned Emporers, Emporers desposed and excommunicated Popes. The Papacy actually went to war more than a couple of occassions just to enforce the Popes right of secular authority over the princes of the realm. The actual existance of a strong Empire never actually existed all during this time. This actually never happened until modern times which included the unification of Italy and Germany. Nevertheless, the Pope held political power, had authority over large lands intermittantly as long as they could keep control. It was centuries of bitter battles and wars over control of secular lands. It was not so much a problem of secular rulers wanting ecclessiastical control but the other way around.
About and around 1450 when the struggle of the unification of Itally begins, the Popes sought to consolidate their secular control over parts of Italy, mostly in the central around Rome. Both Nicholas V and Pius II began the reconquest of papal lands. They succeeded in preventing the unification of Italy by controlling the central part, thus dividing the other two factions. The fact that you agree that the Vatican is still also a secular as well as a ecclessiastical entity. It is most magnanomous of Italy to permit such a small kingdom within itself. But it is a fact, and they do exchange Ambassadors as does any other secular state. Does any other religious entity, outside of Moslem rule have this kind of authority?
There is little or no ecclessiatical or Biblical support for a papacy. There is no historical support prior to the schism of 1054. Several instances, the longest and most recent to the schism is the Photian schism, which ended when the Pope acceded that he was wrong.
It actually sounds much more like a secular governing entity, than the Body of Christ.
and that pretty much sums up what I have been saying all along. You have a continual conflict between the secular, political power and the ecclessiatical. My question, why would the bishop and later any Pope care about the political power, UNLESS, it is something they desired. That has been the whole issue from the very beginning. It is the whole reason for the split and the emphasis on supremacy over the Church. The Scriptures, history itself, and more importantly, theologcially, the way the Early Church saw herself ecclessiatically does not support a Supreme Pope. A single supreme jurisdictional Bishop. The Papacy has very little to do with ecclessiastical or theological position. It is wholly a developement from entirely outside issues and forces. The Pope is as political today and he was then.PS Hildabrand (pope Gregory VII) was famous for his fight AGAINST the German Emperator, to have the right to appoint himselfthe bishops, and not the Emperator (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_VII)
Over on OBOB, one of our Catholic friends stated this:
"Yes, the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church and is guaranteed to be able to teach the Church infallibly. Therefore, no pope can teach the Church infallibly."
http://www.christianforums.com/t4769952
I replied: "but how can that be when this was not a doctrine of the early church?"
Why did it take until the mid 1800's to define?
And why wasn't the office of the Papacy explicitly defined in the scripture as was bishop, elder, and deacon? Why do we see those terms, but not "Pope" or it's equivalent? With all the special attention to Peter, why leave it ambiguous, & undefined for 1800+ yrs?
It can be because it's a promise made by Jesus in the Bible. Because Jesus is God in the flesh, He does not make any mistakes.
1) Jesus founded His Church with Peter (the keys) as the leader of that Church and told Peter to tend to Jesus' flock.
2) Jesus gave all of His authority to Peter. Jesus said to Peter, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."
3) Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to always lead the Church in all truth.
4) Jesus said he would be with His Church to the end of time.
5) The Apostle's appointed successors and added to their numbers. They then began to call themselves bishops.
6) The writings of the Early Church fathers all unanimously confirm that the essential teachings of the early Church are the same essential teachings of the Catholic Church today.
Don't you know how to wiki?What is a "Liberal Catholic Church"???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?