Do Non-Catholics See the Papacy as Power or Responsibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mercygate said:
Ah. Before I became Catholic, I felt the same way. But if you walk around to the other side of the tent, and see the context in which that bull was written, it makes perfect sense.

It comes down to Our Lord’s statement “No one comes to the Father except by me.” Of course, a lot of people have a problem with the necessity of Christ as well.
Click to expand...
Well, the papacy would be intent on bulldozing the tent. Not walking around the other side.
 
Wesley7 said:
Well, the papacy would be intent on bulldozing the tent. Not walking around the other side.
Click to expand...
One of the barriers for those outside of Catholicism is they do not see Christ in the Papacy. It’s not the Pope vs. Christ anymore than I would say, “I don’t need Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John…I only need Christ” for example.

But if I could ask again…which docs did you read that apologized for the Papacy?
 
JRKH said:
I am just wondering how others view this.

When non-catholics look at Papal Authority are they looking primarily at the “Power” of that authority or the “Responsibility” of that authority?

Non-catholics, have issues with the Papal Authority. This authority is a large roadblock to them ever becoming Catholic. For Catholics, the aurhority seems completely natural and right. My belief is that this dichotomy arises from a misunderstanding of what this authority entails. I believe that what Non-Catholics percieve in Papal Authority is “Power” and what catholics see is largely “Responsibility”.

Authority can be judged in two ways, the first, the perspective of power, and the second the perspective of responsibility. The first perspective, power, is the perspective of the world. Anyone with “Authority” is in a position of “Power”, and we are automatically leery of that, especially in the U.S.A. The second perspective, responsibility, is the perspective of God. Any one in a position of Authority must be aware of their responsibility to those they have authority over and where the authority comes from. So let us look at these in relation to the Teaching authority of the Church and the Office of the Pope.

Papal Authority carries little in the way of power in the sense that we in the world understand it. The Pope cannot force anyone to convert. He cannot force anyone to accept Church teaching. Even as the head of the Vatican State, he can do little besides use his “moral influence” to effect temporal, international affairs. So the “Power” of the Papacy lies strictly in the realm of “moral” authority to guide the faithful successfully to Heaven.

Papal Authority, on the other hand, carries an unfathomably huge amount of responsibility, particularly when one considers the balance between that responsibility and the corresponding power. The Pope carries the responsibility for church teaching. He carries the responsibility for the proper and correct guiding of over a billion souls. Jesus made it clear when discussing the responsibilities of the Jewish Authorities. He told the Jews to do as their leaders instructed because the leaders sat on the chair of Moses, but He also made it clear that the teachers would be held to account for their teachings. Certainly this teaching is just as true today. He who teaches will be held accountable for the accuracy of that teaching.

So my question to the group is this –
When non-catholics look at Papal Authority are they looking primarily at the “Power” of that authority or the “Responsibility” of that authority?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for any non-RC but myself, so I’m going to do just that 🙂

The time where the bishop of Rome had real temporal power is long gone, and everyone (except a few conspiracy-theory nutcases) knows that.
I understand that what RCs mean when you speak of papal authority is what you describe here - but my opposition to the papacy is not based on a misunderstanding (thinking it’s about power, not responsibility), but rather on the fact that I believe the latter (your explanation about his responsibilities) is counter-scriptural, and therefore, I cannot accept it.

To coin a phrase:
“Here I stand, I can do no other.” 😃
 
KenEOTE said:
…

I have to disagree with the idea that a Catholic would have a hard time running for President, It didn’t Hurt JFK at all. And Kerry didn’t lose cause he was Catholic he lost cause he wasn’t a very good canidate.
Click to expand...
As one who was alive at that time, though young, I can assure you that the “Catholic” issue did play a role in JFK’s campaign. In fact he had to make specific statements that his being catholic would NOT mean that the Pope would really be in charge.

I totally agree on Kerry.

Peace
James
 
MarcoPolo said:
One of the barriers for those outside of Catholicism is they do not see Christ in the Papacy. It’s not the Pope vs. Christ anymore than I would say, “I don’t need Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John…I only need Christ” for example.

But if I could ask again…which docs did you read that apologized for the Papacy?
Click to expand...
The subtle use of language and apologetics are in the papal encyclicals.
 
It is interesting how many view the Chair of Peter today. I have seen many take a negative historical view that according to the eye of the beholder may see “power” being displayed by the Popes, the balance lyes in the outcome of such hisotorical opinioins be it negative or postive, that the divine responsibility placed on the authority of Peter’s Chair to feed God’s sheep, and bring the lost sheep back to God was made many times at the expense of a Popes life. So that the true teachings of Jesus Christ may be fully intact, and not subject to change and man’s influence of the times such as heresies.

What needs to be mentioned here about the Papacy today, is that it is a divine office instituted by Jesus Christ himself. I am one Catholic that does not bow to any man, but I will to submit to the authority placed here on earth not by man, but from God himself. This authority placed on the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, and let no man sin against the holy spirit. The Pope still has his freewill, and the divine office of the Pope (Peter’s chair) is judged unjustly by many non catholics and protestants. Because of the actions of the human will of the Pope is placed on the divine office of the Pope. Causing false assumptions of the Chair of Peter present day Pope and incorrect belief’s of Jesus teachings and divine authority given to the successors of Peter to present day Pope, which is denied or not acknowledged by noncatholics and protestants.

So in summary it is both. The Chair of Peter should be viewed as Power protected infallibly by the Holy Spirit, instituted by Jesus Christ himself in time; to have the responsibility of feeding and tending God’s flock on earth as Jesus is the head (please see John 21:15-23).

The infallibility of the Holy Spirit working through the authority of the Pope is a divine protection against heresies and error from infecting the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic Traditions handed down to the Catholic church. Infallibility does not protect the human personal will of the Pope, infallibility protects the teachings of Jesus Christ to be taught truthfully without error, through the divine office of the Pope as promised by Jesus himself; (please see Mathew 16:16…)

Non Catholics who want to find the true church Jesus built on Peter these last 2000 years should look to the Successors of Peter present day Pope, for where there is the Pope (Peter’s Chair) there is the church of Jesus Christ.

The Pope is here to excercise the keys of the kingdom of God through the divine power and authority given him by Jesus; over the body of Jesus Christ on earth, binding and loosing as Jesus Christ is the head of his body in the Catholic church binding and loosing what Peter present day Pope does on earth and Jesus binding and loosing from heaven. See Mathew 16:19-20.

Non Catholics and Prostestants alike, protest against the power and authority of Jesus Christ placed on Peter present day Pope when they teach or prophecy negative propaganda against the Pope and the body of Jesus Christ in the Catholic church. Jesus makes this clear to Saul of Tarsus while on the way to Damascus, though he is in heaven as the head of his body on earth is still active in his bride present day Catholic church.

Peace be with you
 
Non-Catholics have difficulty understanding that salvation is through the Church – and that Jesus gave the keys of authority to Peter and his successors.
  • The “keys of the kingdom of heaven” are the symbol of authority given only to the most trusted servant. Again, this is not an image which is foreign to Holy Scripture: It is used in Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim is given the key to the house of David (a perpetual office since David has been dead for several hundred years), and in Revelation 1:18 where Jesus, who will judge us, is depicted as holding the keys of death and Hades.
Click to expand...
  • Finally, the “binding” and “loosing.” Very simply put, he who has the ability to bind and loose, has the ability to make the rules. As the visible head of the Church on earth, Peter is given the ability to make the earthly rules for the operation of this Church. This doesn’t mean that he can change the rules that we have received from God (such as the ten commandments and all the others contained in Holy Scripture) but he can make such determinations as the length of the fast before receiving communion and whether priests should be allowed to marry. This binding and loosing also has an Old Testament parallel in Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim, having received the keys, has the power of the keys explained “what he opens, no one can shut, and what he shuts, no one can open.” This means that Eliakim alone among the servants has the ability to determine who is admitted and who is excluded from the house (kingdom) of David. The authority to “bind and loose” is also given to the Apostles in Matthew 18:18, with one significant difference: Only Peter has been given the “keys,” the symbol of ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
from: scborromeo.org/glad/c5.htm
Click to expand...
Also see “The Papacy is Scriptural”
home.inreach.com/bstanley/papacy.htm
 
Do you think of the Papacy as something a person would pursue? That someone would actively seek that power?

Peace
James

Hi James - new to this thread, but went back to read the posts and saw this question at the end of your last posting.

I think “yes”…for me the obvious evidence lies in the claim to being the “true” church to begin with as a whole…all “true” authority over and above any other church’s beliefs/dogmas.

I’m sure documented church history would reveal incidences where there have been individual people who have pursued this position with this one goal in mind…the power. Human nature.
 
Leeann said:
Do you think of the Papacy as something a person would pursue? That someone would actively seek that power?

Peace
James

Hi James - new to this thread, but went back to read the posts and saw this question at the end of your last posting.

I think “yes”…for me the obvious evidence lies in the claim to being the “true” church to begin with as a whole…all “true” authority over and above any other church’s beliefs/dogmas.

I’m sure documented church history would reveal incidences where there have been individual people who have pursued this position with this one goal in mind…the power. Human nature.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you are right. Since the Church is nearly 2000 years old we can certainly find all sorts of people sitting upon the Chair of Peter.
However, you will note that I said “…would a person pursue…” thus indicating a present or future tense. Given the office today, it’s responsibilities and and powers, do you think there are those who would seek the office for the “Power”?

Peace
James
 
As an addendum, if we look at how a person becomes Pope, we see, not a pursuit of power, but obedience to their vows as priests.

I am sure that most men who are called to the priesthood, think primarily in terms of a simple service, at the parish level or perhaps teaching, or at a monastery. Few, I am sure, harbor dreams or plans of advancement to anything approaching the Vatican or the Papacy.

What happens is, certain men stand out to their superiors who then tap them for positions of greater responsibility. If the person is properly suited, this process will continue for some time with the individual eventually being “Selected” for, not “Pursuing”, higher office.

The first time or two a person is elevated, they may find themselves “Proud” but after that the burdens become larger and larger, the responsibility ever greater. There may be some pleasure in the pomp - it is short lived and easily crushed by the weight of responsibility placed on ones shoulders.

Now each elevation is not one of pride, but of submission to the will of God through the Church. Often times these elevations can take a person away from what they would truly prefer to be doing. I know that in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI they wanted to go back to university to teach and write. John Paul I, when elected, said to the college of Cardinals, “May God have mercy on you for what you have done.” Thus indicating how unworthy he felt to hold the office.

So then, if a person reaches the point of becoming a Cardinal, possibly serving in Rome and far from their familiar home and countrymen, they are carrying, not only the responsibilities of their particular office, but the possibility that they could be tapped by the Holy Spirit to Lead the Entire Church. This is not a position they have pursued like a politician seeking office, or a dictator plotting a coup, rather they are there out of obedience to their vows and submission to the will of their superiors and the Holy Spirit.

(Caveat: I am not so foolish as to believe “politics” doesn’t play a certain role in church business, but it is a relatively minor role when compared to obedience.)

In short, the Pope, and those around him are men placed in position of authority, not by their own desire, but by their humble submission to the will and authority of Jesus Christ and the Will of the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James
 
Wesley7 said:
Well, the papacy would be intent on bulldozing the tent. Not walking around the other side.
Click to expand...
40.png
Wesley7:
There are a myriad of papal encyclicals to sift through.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to respond to such broadside accusations unsupported by data.
 
Wesley7 said:
The subtle use of language and apologetics are in the papal encyclicals.
Click to expand...
Without an example, I can’t follow you either. You are saying there are docs that make apologetic (i.e. an argument in favor) statements about the Pope? And you are saying this in a bad way, correct? We should not support the Papacy which we believe Christ instituted, correct?
 
LutheranDK said:
I cannot speak for any non-RC but myself, so I’m going to do just that 🙂

The time where the bishop of Rome had real temporal power is long gone, and everyone (except a few conspiracy-theory nutcases) knows that.
I understand that what RCs mean when you speak of papal authority is what you describe here - but my opposition to the papacy is not based on a misunderstanding (thinking it’s about power, not responsibility), but rather on the fact that I believe the latter (your explanation about his responsibilities) is counter-scriptural, and therefore, I cannot accept it.

To coin a phrase:
“Here I stand, I can do no other.” 😃
Click to expand...
Thank you for this well expressed view.
I am somewhat intriqued by the highlighted section above.
By “Counter-Scriptural” I assume you mean that the Papal responsibility as we understand it today actually goes AGAINST Scripture.
Could you provide examples of that?

Peace
James
 
MarcoPolo said:
Without an example, I can’t follow you either. You are saying there are docs that make apologetic (i.e. an argument in favor) statements about the Pope? And you are saying this in a bad way, correct? We should not support the Papacy which we believe Christ instituted, correct?
Click to expand...
Unam Sanctam is one example.

The papal encyclicals were/are written by the popes for the public.

I’m just reluctant to accept the papacy without question (blind submission to perceived authorities) without careful study and thorough investigation. In other words, I’m going to carefully investigate and study the matter at hand. Catholicism as a subject of interest.
 
KenEOTE said:
I do not view the Pope as having total power over Catholics. Infact in some Catholics he has little if any influence. Those of course are the ones that say I am Catholic because my mom and dad go to church.

I think he is a servant but in servanthood he shows true power. The power of the Holy Spirit is one that humbles himself for Christ.

I have to disagree with the idea that a Catholic would have a hard time running for President, It didn’t Hurt JFK at all. And Kerry didn’t lose cause he was Catholic he lost cause he wasn’t a very good canidate.
Click to expand...
Note that I said at a Catholic who adheres to the teachings of the Church. Kerry was in no danger of people believing he was going to follow the instructions of a pope in that he openly rejected the church’s teaching on homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research and cloning.

On the other hand you may remember that when Justice Roberts was confirmed he was grilled about whether his devoutness to the Catholic faith would interfere is his ability to offer unbiased opinions. The first time in history a Supreme Court nominee was ever questioned about his faith during confirmation hearings
 
Wesley7 said:
I’m going to carefully investigate and study the matter at hand. Catholicism as a subject of interest.
Click to expand...
I think that is wise. 🙂
One of the keys to understanding Catholicism is seeing Christ where we see him. It is important to understand the nature of the Incarnation as well–the fusion of the temporal and the eternal. That is key to understanding sacraments, in which He is perpetuated, and the hierarchical Church, in which He is perpetuated, the lay Church, in which He is perpetuated, etc…
 
Given that “free will” is a clear proponent of Catholicism…we are not “shackled” to anything… I think that most Catholics view the Papacy as leadership and responsibility to keep the Church on the true course that Christ established…

I think that many non-Catholics really don’t know much about what the Pope’s position and duties are…and even fewer understand the meaning of “ex cathedra” and the “infallibility” issue.

Please don’t react poorly to this…but I think that many merely accept what they are told…by someone who knows little and they just repeat it…hence the confusion, ignorance of reality, and this breeds the regeneration of misinformation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top