S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Christ is the head of the church. Read the bible. but the pope is the head of the church on earth - he is the vicar of Christ.
- Status
J
jmj1984
Guest
You do realise this is exactly what I said?
'*Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
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.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. *’ Unam Sanctam Issued by Pope Boniface VIII
Therefore one can say Christ is the head of the church but equally one can say The Pope is the head of the church as on earth Christ chooses to act (as regards the governance of the church) through his Vicar, The Pope.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yes he is placed their by Gods will in scripture. And he is there in the begining and today.
He was asked to explain his responsibility by the EO. We are waiting.
J
jmj1984
Guest
My post of Unam Sanctam clarifies what I mean, the body of christ has one head not two for if it was otherwise it would be a monster, the pope is equally called the head of the church because on earth in matters regarding governance Christ acts through his representative, his vicar, the Pope.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Oops. I probably should have read the previous posts. Yours just stood out.You do realise this is exactly what I said?
'Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
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.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. ’ Unam Sanctam Issued by Pope Boniface VIII
Therefore one can say Christ is the head of the church but equally one can say The Pope is the head of the church as on earth Christ chooses to act (as regards the governance of the church) through his Vicar, The Pope.
J
jmj1984
Guest
No worries I probably should have expressed myself betterOops. I probably should have read the previous posts. Yours just stood out.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
We are using Lumen Gentium today my brother. Its the Constitution. And Pope Benedict stands by V-II. 
New Mass…November.
New Mass…November.
J
jmj1984
Guest
and?We are using Lumen Gentium today my brother. Its the Constitution. And Pope Benedict stands by V-II.
Lumen Gentium says on the subject ‘But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head*’
The First Vatican Council says on the subject ’ ** We teach and declare that,
according to the gospel evidence,
a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
was immediately and directly
promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
conferred on him by Christ the lord.
[PROMISED]
It was to Simon alone,
to whom he had already said
You shall be called Cephas [42] ,
that the Lord,
after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God,
spoke these words:
Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .
[CONFERRED]
And it was to Peter alone that Jesus,
after his resurrection,
confided the jurisdiction of supreme pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
Therefore,
if anyone says that
blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that
it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:
let him be anathema.
And so,
Code:
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.It is clear therefore that the Pope can be called and is the head of the church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I believe I stated all this above
What would you like to say for Pope Benedict today? I choose to allow him to speak, He is capible.Peace
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Gary,
Is it your opinion that he can reverse or otherwise change what has already been authoritatively stated by previous Popes and western Councils?
The Papacy has had hundreds of years to explain itself, and I thought it had.
Is it your opinion that he can reverse or otherwise change what has already been authoritatively stated by previous Popes and western Councils?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Change as far as scripture can’t happen, However he can and will define his role to the other chairs with Apostolic Succession. I believe he has it in perspective, he has had year this month to reflect on the exact issue. Seems to me he would like to do this. Everything indicates he is actively seeking to visit with Patriarch Kirill, its been the most recent news as of last week from ewtn. But he wants to go there also so there lies the complication and what they are working and praying on.
Peace
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Gary,
Scripture will not change, but will the Pope reinterpret his role to be more in agreement with the longstanding Orthodox understanding of the scriptures?
Or is this going to be an attempt to sell the same product with a new label?
I think it is telling that you phrase it as you do, “he can and will define his role to the other chairs …”. It does not sound like dialog, more like monolog. Maybe I did not understand you.
Anyway, once they all get together I am sure they will all be very polite and will have a great time together.
Well, there’s the rub.
Scripture will not change, but will the Pope reinterpret his role to be more in agreement with the longstanding Orthodox understanding of the scriptures?
Or is this going to be an attempt to sell the same product with a new label?
I think it is telling that you phrase it as you do, “he can and will define his role to the other chairs …”. It does not sound like dialog, more like monolog. Maybe I did not understand you.
Anyway, once they all get together I am sure they will all be very polite and will have a great time together.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
When they met last Sept, the issues were placed before Benedict. He has published the issue’s since last Sept. Seems to me he’s ready to speak on them. In person in Russia.Hi Gary,
Well, there’s the rub.
Scripture will not change, but will the Pope reinterpret his role to be more in agreement with the longstanding Orthodox understanding of the scriptures?
Or is this going to be an attempt to sell the same product with a new label?
I think it is telling that you phrase it as you do, “he can and will define his role to the other chairs …”. It does not sound like dialog, more like monolog. Maybe I did not understand you.
Anyway, once they all get together I am sure they will all be very polite and will have a great time together.
I would assume thats the reason he would like to return and to Russia. They have “all” socialized. They are not trying to do that here.
Its my opinion that if he can gain visa to Russia it would go a long way to resolve this issue. I don’t know what the stance will be if he cannot gain access. I’m sure it would be a set-back.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Concerning original sin, I would like to know what you think of this article, jmj.
Respectfully noted, Hesychios.
Yet as has been demonstrated before from Vatican I and its Official Relatio, there are also things the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that the pope does not have the right to do… I don’t deny that there’s nothing in the Catholic Church outside the bounds of the pope’s supreme authority, but when he gets to exercise that supreme authority has more limitations on it than you seem willing to admit.
Did the patriarch of Alexandria have the right to micromanage his patriarchate the way he did even in the early first millennium?
I really don’t see how you can deny that he did so, as it’s an historical fact, and it does demonstrate that at the very least the early Church encompassed diverse and sometimes competing ecclesiological structures.
At the very least, the bishop of Rome could address with some degree of authority Christians outside his See. The epistle of Saint Clement of Rome proves that. Yes, I know that’s far from the kind of authority Vatican I claims, but it’s still enough to show that the bishop of Rome’s authority was not as consistently limited as some Orthodox make it out to be…
But once a patriarchate is established, that patriarch has rights that even the pope can’t retroactively violate. I remember this debate from another thread many months ago, and Marduk proved to my satisfaction that the pope would not have the authority to unilaterally - on a whim - dissolve, say, the Coptic patriarchate of Alexandria.
Pretty sure that’s demonstrably untrue, Hesychios. The patriarchal eastern Catholic churches - and yes, I know it’s only six out of the twenty-two - are truly autonomous: Rome doesn’t even officially confirm the election of a new patriarch - the pope of Rome is simply “informed” of who that church’s bishops in synod have elected. Unless some special circumstance requires additional intervention, Rome literally doesn’t do anything in the day-to-day functioning of those patriarchal eastern Catholic churches, and definitely doesn’t have to confirm every episcopal consecration.
Come to think of it, I even read - though I haven’t fact-checked this - that before the modern era, places like Italy and the United States were unique even within the Latin Church in having papal confirmation of episcopal appointments.
And I noticed that the canons you quoted conspicuously omit any claim that the pope enjoys proper episcopal authority in matters pertaining to particular churches other than the diocese of Rome… probably because he doesn’t.
And as you no doubt would expect from me, I think they’re more fully Orthodox for being in communion with the successor of Saint Peter and his primacy.
That is a fair point.
I suppose I simply maintain that more significantly substantive disagreements - i.e. barriers that are more real - exist between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church than truly do between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
But it is a fair point, Bluegoat. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to share Holy Communion with us Catholics if they truly think we’re heretics.
First we’ll have to convince them that’s not the case.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Hi Fone Bone,
It is hard to find on the internet, although I note that it can be order as a download. There is only one person I know of who appears to have actually read it, and quite frankly he has a way of interpreting things that I cannot rely on without reservation.
I do know that the Ralatio was given in response to objections from the objecting party, as a way of persuading bishops were waffling or unsure. It is not official in the sense that it defines anything, it is Cardinal Gasser’s opinion, or perhaps spin. The definition is in the official decrees of the Council, which are written in very plain language.
The fact is, there may be things the Pope is not officially allowed to do, but it is the Pope himself who decides what that is or whether some subject applies, and no one can question his judgment. Of course Pope John Paul asserted that he has no right to ordain women, but it was he who decided that, no one else can make that call but him. Not even a Council can decide that unless he approves.
Once you make a dogma out of a discipline you are elevating the argument to a whole new level.
Canon 46
Actually, I have never read the Official Relatio, have you?
It is hard to find on the internet, although I note that it can be order as a download. There is only one person I know of who appears to have actually read it, and quite frankly he has a way of interpreting things that I cannot rely on without reservation.
I do know that the Ralatio was given in response to objections from the objecting party, as a way of persuading bishops were waffling or unsure. It is not official in the sense that it defines anything, it is Cardinal Gasser’s opinion, or perhaps spin. The definition is in the official decrees of the Council, which are written in very plain language.
The fact is, there may be things the Pope is not officially allowed to do, but it is the Pope himself who decides what that is or whether some subject applies, and no one can question his judgment. Of course Pope John Paul asserted that he has no right to ordain women, but it was he who decided that, no one else can make that call but him. Not even a Council can decide that unless he approves.
The plain fact is that the Patriarch of Alexandria has always acted within his own synod. He never controlled, or sought to control any other church within the communion. One does not see him claiming to have jurisdiction over the Apostolic church of Armenia, or the Jacobite church of Antioch, for example.
You probably remember me stating somewhere here that this is acceptable within a church as a discipline. In other words, if the church chooses to invest a bishop or a See with overall responsibility for something, they can write their canons and operate in that manner. But the power is delegated to that hierarch by the church, this is not the same as making a dogma out of it.
Once you make a dogma out of a discipline you are elevating the argument to a whole new level.
Actually, that letter doesn’t order the church of Corinth to do anything. It asks them, it tries to persuade them, a clear admission that it does not consider itself to have authority over that church.
In fact, I have shown that the canons clearly indicate that the patriarchs are in place to assist the Pope.
Canon 46
- In exercising his office the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.
- The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms established by the Roman Pontiff.
Canon 57
- The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
- Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
H
Hesychios
Guest
{continued from above}
Anyway, the Pope himself writes and reviews all of the rules and regulations which define ‘proper’ authority. and there is no recourse to his judgment. If someone complains, they have no where to appeal but back to the Pope himself.
Canon 76
- The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.
- The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.
- For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See, the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see
This was because the Papal authority was evolving. The USA was treated as mission territory, Italy was regarded as Rome’s own Metropolia, which in fact it has been from the beginning. Since then the power of the Pope to name bishops has expanded to other countries, most notably in the 19th century.
A decision of the ‘Holy See’ is never refused. The Pope can reassign a doorkeeper in any little parish or mission anywhere, in just the same manner as the local Ordinary (which is what immediate means - it doesn’t mean fast in this case, it means un-mediated by anyone), they are working at that level as partners. But he also functions as the boss of the local bishop, so the bishop can’t move the doorkeeper back without crossing the boss.And I noticed that the canons you quoted conspicuously omit any claim that the pope enjoys proper episcopal authority in matters pertaining to particular churches other than the diocese of Rome… probably because he doesn’t.
Anyway, the Pope himself writes and reviews all of the rules and regulations which define ‘proper’ authority. and there is no recourse to his judgment. If someone complains, they have no where to appeal but back to the Pope himself.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Not much it doesnt deal with the issues I’ve raised, orthodox doctrines on original sin and mostly cites the new catechism rather than the catechism of the council of trent (which deals most clearly with the issue, being the product of the ecumenical council that dealt on the subject) or doctors of the church.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I found it interesting that the author has recently been received into Holy Orthodoxy.
…t. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to share Holy Communion with us Catholics if they truly think we’re heretics.
First we’ll have to convince them that’s not the case.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Looks like he wasn’t convinced by his own arguments 
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Fr. Kimel’s article on Original Sin is very good. He is a a former Anglican minister who became a Roman Catholic but has since found his spiritual home in Orthodoxy.
As for the Pope being the head of the Church on earth - perhaps some of that language could be tempered since Christ still IS with His Church on earth.
He is the “Invisible Head” of the Church, but the Head nonetheless.
The language in which papal primacy is being expressed here sounds too much like trying to put the Pope on a kind of 'even keel" with our Lord or else suggesting that our Lord’s invisibility somehow impedes Him being fully the Head of His Church.
The Pope is called, it is true, to be an “Alter Christus” and to be the Servant of the Servants of God. And so are all the bishops and priests. And so are we, in our different roles.
But Christ is the Head of His Church, which is His Body, and He has not abandoned His Church on earth. Is not the reserved Blessed Sacrament intended to demonstrate visibly that this is so?
Alex
As for the Pope being the head of the Church on earth - perhaps some of that language could be tempered since Christ still IS with His Church on earth.
He is the “Invisible Head” of the Church, but the Head nonetheless.
The language in which papal primacy is being expressed here sounds too much like trying to put the Pope on a kind of 'even keel" with our Lord or else suggesting that our Lord’s invisibility somehow impedes Him being fully the Head of His Church.
The Pope is called, it is true, to be an “Alter Christus” and to be the Servant of the Servants of God. And so are all the bishops and priests. And so are we, in our different roles.
But Christ is the Head of His Church, which is His Body, and He has not abandoned His Church on earth. Is not the reserved Blessed Sacrament intended to demonstrate visibly that this is so?
Alex
- Status