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

[Wesley7]

What of the papacy when there is a political situation or a wartime conflict? Do you not see the history of the papacy as being influenced by politics and government.

 

[mercygate]

What of the papacy when there is a political situation or a wartime conflict? Do you not see the papacy as being influenced by politics and government.

You mean like when Pius XII sequestered Jews in the Vatican and ordered the bishops in Nazi territory to issue baptismal certificates for them?

 

[Hesychios]

Unsupported. Responsible opinion is informed opinion.

The OP specifically stated…

I am just wondering how others view this.

And Wesley did just that.

He gave his opinion.

 

[mercygate]

The OP specifically stated… And Wesley did just that.

He gave his opinion.

Well, that’s true if you are defining “opinion” as something you think is true without having worked on figuring out why. I use the first definition of the OED for discussions such as this, otherwise “opinion” is nothing more than spouting:

“a view held about a particular issue; a judgement formed or a conclusion reached; a belief; a religious or political conviction.”

 

[RobHom]

Unam Sanctam

papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

Are you going to apologize for this encyclical?

Why would we want to apologize for it. There is nothing there that is “secret” or anything different than the position the Church has always held. The Catholic Church has never espoused to “approaching religion however you choose” to build your own custom comfort zone.

Of interest…way down on the page is some interesting information on John Wesley…and there is much other good information on this fellow’s blog… socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_06_06_socrates58_archive.html

 

[RobHom]

You mean like when Pius XII sequestered Jews in the Vatican and ordered the bishops in Nazi territory to issue baptismal certificates for them?

BINGO!!!

 

[JRKH]

What of the papacy when there is a political situation or a wartime conflict? Do you not see the history of the papacy as being influenced by politics and government.

“Influence” is a very broad term. Certainly the Papacy is influenced by these things. But in what form? MercyGate provided an example of the pope working to protect individuals from harm during WW II.
Other examples might be speeches and journeys made by Paul VI, and John Paul II to and about areas such as the Middle East to try and foster greater understanding and Peace.

Now if you are refering to the more distant history of the papacy, there we are dealing with political and governmental situations that are not really comparable to today. Every aspect of social and cultural criteria was different than what we would consider to be normal and natural.
For instance in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, the normal form of Government was Kings/Dukes/Princes etc. with absolute power. If a ruler happened to believe a certain way, then his subjects were also to believe that way. Thus, if a King were Catholic, then his subjects would be Catholic. Of course, being Catholic, the King had certian obligations to the Church and, as such, this gave the Church some influence over temporal affairs.

My original post and the discussion I am attempting to engender is related to the world as it exists today, and not trying to look at and/or justify actions from the distant past. I hope everyone will try to keep this in mind and respond in terms of, say the last 100 or so years and not the last 1000 years.

Thus my question to all remains, do Non-Catholics see Grave responsibility when they consider the Papacy or do they see some sort of uncontrolled Power.

Peace
James

 

[Hesychios]

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?
…

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

The church itself specifically uses the word power in describing the exercise of this responsibility, so we must assume that most people will see it that way too.

I am not going to speak of this Pope in particular or any other, but the institution. I see a Papacy that has usurped the responsibility of the bishops at large.

In doing so, it has erected a parallel hierarchy by elevating the responsibilities of the Curia. In other words, the rights or responsibilities claimed on behalf of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter are really too great to be handled by any one man, so the work is delegated by Bishops of Rome to various Dicasteries. So yes, there is responsibility, but it is in the wrong hands.

Ordinary local bishops often have to refer to the appropriate dicastery to get permission or guidance on many things. The dicastery has this authority only by way of delegation (not from the church at large as from a Synod of Bishops, but) from the Pope alone.

So we can see an accumulation of power in this structure which really should be in the hands of the episcopate, where it was in the early church. Modern developments have begun to see a return of some of these functions to the local bishops (such as the cause of Saints being initiated in local dioceses) but the Papacy does not relinquish it’s right to take that back at any time, it retains the ultimate responsibility. It basically delegates this responsibility to the local diocese (where it resided originally by right). This may have been a cost-cutting move more than anything else.

One can see this in the canonical transfer of individuals. Until recently a transfer would be requested through Rome, by writing to the Papal Nucio who would forward the request. About twenty or so years ago that was changed, so that now if the two bishops involved (the one receiving the individual and the one giving up the individual) are in agreement “the approval of Rome can be assumed”. The new rules do not admit that the Pope relinquishes anything, in typical fashion the rule is worded in such a way that the Pope retains the primary responsibility even though he cannot afford the clerical help to process all of those applications, although in the early church it was not like that at all.

Most especially this has been bad in modern times because it has harmed the episcopate. The selection of modern bishops is ultimately in the hands of the Pope and the Papacy must take the responsibility for both the good and the bad appointments. We read a lot of complaints about liberal bishops, but the blame for that rests at the foot of the Pope who appointed him. Naturally the candidates who get training in Rome and exposure to the Curia will have a leg up in the process, it has been highly politicized for a long time. The Bishop of Rome cannot really know all of these candidates well enough to make a good decision. In the early church it was not done this way in east or west.

So to answer your question, I see the responsibility of the whole church assumed in an unbalanced way in the person of the Bishop of Rome, who cannot really handle it well and must delegate this power to secretaries and clerks. Ultimately this has been bad for the church.

 

[Wesley7]

You mean like when Pius XII sequestered Jews in the Vatican and ordered the bishops in Nazi territory to issue baptismal certificates for them?

That’s noble.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

History records yes, there has been men who pursued the office of Pope for power and abused it. By abuse, history indicates that the human will of some Popes acted outside of his authority, thus the divine office of the Pope instituted by Jesus himself is judged by outsiders as no longer valid. Catholics recognize in the Catholic church the body of Jesus Christ is fully human subject to error and fully divine infallible. That is why Jesus told Peter when he gave him personally the keys to the kingdom of God, that the gates of hell will come against his Church but will never prevail, thus we have today 2000 years of Catholicism without unbroken succession from Peter through his successors in the Catholic Popes (see Britannica Encyclopedia under “Papacy”).

Church history also records that heretical priests and bishops entered the magisterium loyal to Islam and Paganism in order to bring down the Church and change church teachings. It was time that weeded these heretics out. So a lot of what non catholics or protestants claim that the Pope or magisterium were corrupt is only half true, for these were exposed and dealt with, while the true members of the Chair of Peter and the magisterium successor to the apostles remained loyal to God’s church and teachings even to the point of death, while the Catholic church battled the power and principalities of evil.

Today I would answer your question No; No Bishop would seek the office of Pope for power or self gain, due to the fact that she has already experienced this through her history. Non catholics and protestants should know that, now that the world is aware of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is clearly defined from antiquity, that the holy spirit protects the Catholic church (body of Jesus Christ) from error, it is safe to believe and accept the 2000 year old Christian teachings and Traditions handed down to her from Jesus and his apostles.

Peace

 

[mercygate]

Today I would answer your question No; No Bishop would seek the office of Pope for power or self gain, due to the fact that she has already experienced this through her history. Non catholics and protestants should know that, now that the world is aware of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is clearly defined from antiquity, that the holy spirit protects the Catholic church (body of Jesus Christ) from error, it is safe to believe and accept the 2000 year old Christian teachings and Traditions handed down to her from Jesus and his apostles.

Peace

The room where the newly elected Pope vests in the white cassock to step out on the balcony to greet the crowd is known as “the chamber of tears.”

No bishop in his right mind wants the job of Pope! I wonder how many of the papabile pray through every ballot: "Lord, if it be thy will, let this cup pass . . . "

 

[TriuneUnity]

The room where the newly elected Pope vests in the white cassock to step out on the balcony to greet the crowd is known as “the chamber of tears.”

No bishop in his right mind wants the job of Pope! I wonder how many of the papabile pray through every ballot: "Lord, if it be thy will, let this cup pass . . . "

Well, if Benedict doesn’t want the job, I’ll gladly take it from him. Pope Gustaf I. How does it sound? Free beer and lutefisk for everyone. And then we can go Baptist huntin’

 

[TriuneUnity]

The church itself specifically uses the word power in describing the exercise of this responsibility, so we must assume that most people will see it that way too.

I am not going to speak of this Pope in particular or any other, but the institution. I see a Papacy that has usurped the responsibility of the bishops at large.

In doing so, it has erected a parallel hierarchy by elevating the responsibilities of the Curia. In other words, the rights or responsibilities claimed on behalf of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter are really too great to be handled by any one man, so the work is delegated by Bishops of Rome to various Dicasteries. So yes, there is responsibility, but it is in the wrong hands.

Ordinary local bishops often have to refer to the appropriate dicastery to get permission or guidance on many things. The dicastery has this authority only by way of delegation (not from the church at large as from a Synod of Bishops, but) from the Pope alone.

So we can see an accumulation of power in this structure which really should be in the hands of the episcopate, where it was in the early church. Modern developments have begun to see a return of some of these functions to the local bishops (such as the cause of Saints being initiated in local dioceses) but the Papacy does not relinquish it’s right to take that back at any time, it retains the ultimate responsibility. It basically delegates this responsibility to the local diocese (where it resided originally by right). This may have been a cost-cutting move more than anything else.

One can see this in the canonical transfer of individuals. Until recently a transfer would be requested through Rome, by writing to the Papal Nucio who would forward the request. About twenty or so years ago that was changed, so that now if the two bishops involved (the one receiving the individual and the one giving up the individual) are in agreement “the approval of Rome can be assumed”. The new rules do not admit that the Pope relinquishes anything, in typical fashion the rule is worded in such a way that the Pope retains the primary responsibility even though he cannot afford the clerical help to process all of those applications, although in the early church it was not like that at all.

Most especially this has been bad in modern times because it has harmed the episcopate. The selection of modern bishops is ultimately in the hands of the Pope and the Papacy must take the responsibility for both the good and the bad appointments. We read a lot of complaints about liberal bishops, but the blame for that rests at the foot of the Pope who appointed him. Naturally the candidates who get training in Rome and exposure to the Curia will have a leg up in the process, it has been highly politicized for a long time. The Bishop of Rome cannot really know all of these candidates well enough to make a good decision. In the early church it was not done this way in east or west.

So to answer your question, I see the responsibility of the whole church assumed in an unbalanced way in the person of the Bishop of Rome, who cannot really handle it well and must delegate this power to secretaries and clerks. Ultimately this has been bad for the church.

Awesome post, Hesy. I just had to say that lol

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The church itself specifically uses the word power in describing the exercise of this responsibility, so we must assume that most people will see it that way too.

I am not going to speak of this Pope in particular or any other, but the institution. I see a Papacy that has usurped the responsibility of the bishops at large.

In doing so, it has erected a parallel hierarchy by elevating the responsibilities of the Curia. In other words, the rights or responsibilities claimed on behalf of the Bishop of Rome as successor of Peter are really too great to be handled by any one man, so the work is delegated by Bishops of Rome to various Dicasteries. So yes, there is responsibility, but it is in the wrong hands.

Ordinary local bishops often have to refer to the appropriate dicastery to get permission or guidance on many things. The dicastery has this authority only by way of delegation (not from the church at large as from a Synod of Bishops, but) from the Pope alone.

So we can see an accumulation of power in this structure which really should be in the hands of the episcopate, where it was in the early church. Modern developments have begun to see a return of some of these functions to the local bishops (such as the cause of Saints being initiated in local dioceses) but the Papacy does not relinquish it’s right to take that back at any time, it retains the ultimate responsibility. It basically delegates this responsibility to the local diocese (where it resided originally by right). This may have been a cost-cutting move more than anything else.

One can see this in the canonical transfer of individuals. Until recently a transfer would be requested through Rome, by writing to the Papal Nucio who would forward the request. About twenty or so years ago that was changed, so that now if the two bishops involved (the one receiving the individual and the one giving up the individual) are in agreement “the approval of Rome can be assumed”. The new rules do not admit that the Pope relinquishes anything, in typical fashion the rule is worded in such a way that the Pope retains the primary responsibility even though he cannot afford the clerical help to process all of those applications, although in the early church it was not like that at all.

Most especially this has been bad in modern times because it has harmed the episcopate. The selection of modern bishops is ultimately in the hands of the Pope and the Papacy must take the responsibility for both the good and the bad appointments. We read a lot of complaints about liberal bishops, but the blame for that rests at the foot of the Pope who appointed him. Naturally the candidates who get training in Rome and exposure to the Curia will have a leg up in the process, it has been highly politicized for a long time. The Bishop of Rome cannot really know all of these candidates well enough to make a good decision. In the early church it was not done this way in east or west.

So to answer your question, I see the responsibility of the whole church assumed in an unbalanced way in the person of the Bishop of Rome, who cannot really handle it well and must delegate this power to secretaries and clerks. Ultimately this has been bad for the church.

I enjoyed reading your summary Hesychios; If I could just add one true element to your opinion from history not doing what the magesterium does today. For one the Catholic church is fulfilling her mission to go out into all the world and baptise, the Church today is much larger than it was from the early Church. This computer age is another element that the Catholic church is using for the Glory of God as one of today’s example, the early church would not have a clue on how to deal with today’s battles against the powers and principalities in this computer age.

The difference in opinion I have with yours about the Pope, is that yes; He delegates, for it is from the head (mind of Christ) that must delegate or know what the body does, according to the divine institution given to the Chair of Peter by Jesus. To delegate the Church decision making to the local Bishop’s will introduce chaos among all believers and doctrines. The local Bishop’s have authority over his flock, but the flock belongs to God, who has given the keys to bind and loose only to Peter. This is a divine act from God that cannot be changed, no matter what history the church survived, or is going to live through in the future.

Peace be with you

 

[mercygate]

Well, if Benedict doesn’t want the job, I’ll gladly take it from him. Pope Gustaf I. How does it sound? Free beer and lutefisk for everyone. And then we can go Baptist huntin’

Well, I would have voted for you on the Lutheran Pope and beer ticket http://www.theteacherscorner.net/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif until you mentioned lutefisk. http://www.theteacherscorner.net/forums/images/smilies/vomit.gif

No wonder there has never been a Swedish Pope!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, I would have voted for you on the Lutheran Pope and beer ticket http://www.theteacherscorner.net/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif until you mentioned lutefisk. http://www.theteacherscorner.net/forums/images/smilies/vomit.gif

No wonder there has never been a Swedish Pope!

No kidding. That stuff will peel paint off walls as well as nail polish. Stick with the German lol

 

[Leeann]

History records yes, there has been men who pursued the office of Pope for power and abused it. By abuse, history indicates that the human will of some Popes acted outside of his authority, thus the divine office of the Pope instituted by Jesus himself is judged by outsiders as no longer valid. Catholics recognize in the Catholic church the body of Jesus Christ is fully human subject to error and fully divine infallible. That is why Jesus told Peter when he gave him personally the keys to the kingdom of God, that the gates of hell will come against his Church but will never prevail, thus we have today 2000 years of Catholicism without unbroken succession from Peter through his successors in the Catholic Popes (see Britannica Encyclopedia under “Papacy”).

Church history also records that heretical priests and bishops entered the magisterium loyal to Islam and Paganism in order to bring down the Church and change church teachings. It was time that weeded these heretics out. So a lot of what non catholics or protestants claim that the Pope or magisterium were corrupt is only half true, for these were exposed and dealt with, while the true members of the Chair of Peter and the magisterium successor to the apostles remained loyal to God’s church and teachings even to the point of death, while the Catholic church battled the power and principalities of evil.

Today I would answer your question No; No Bishop would seek the office of Pope for power or self gain, due to the fact that she has already experienced this through her history.

Maybe some consideration about the old adage: “History repeats itself.” should come into play here…the “race is still being run”…

Non catholics and protestants should know that, now that the world is aware of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is clearly defined from antiquity, that the holy spirit protects the Catholic church (body of Jesus Christ) from error,

Why should anyone “know that” - simply because - "a doctrine of infallibility of the Pope " - which is issued by a highly “biased” authority - the RCChurch itself - says it to be so? And “clearly defined from antiquity” - ? - again - by whom???

it is safe to believe and accept the 2000 year old Christian teachings and Traditions handed down to her from Jesus and his apostles.

Peace

 

[mercygate]

Leeann:

Non catholics and protestants should know that, now that the world is aware of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is clearly defined from antiquity, that the holy spirit protects the Catholic church (body of Jesus Christ) from error,

Why should anyone “know that” - simply because - "a doctrine of infallibility of the Pope " - which is issued by a highly “biased” authority - the RCChurch itself - says it to be so? And “clearly defined from antiquity” - ? - again - by whom???

It is not as if the Catholic Church were merely one of several equally qualified candidates for the title of The Church. If the “true” Church can err, then it is not the Church of Him who is Truth. Indefectibility is an important aspect of the Christian faith. Infallibility is a sub-set of indefectibility. Even before the split with the Orthodox, indefectibility was seen as a critical point of identity. Papal primacy is, indeed, defined from antiquity – by the Church herself. Otherwise the Gnostics could just as well claim equal authority. In fact, they did. We call 'em heretics. And you do too. Why? Because the “biased authority” knew that they were and made it clear to the world that they were.

 

[TriuneUnity]

It is not as if the Catholic Church were merely one of several equally qualified candidates for the title of The Church.

And in this corner, in the white and gold trunks, weighing in at 200 billion pounds, the Terror of the Tiber, the Slayer of Ottomans, the Raging Roman…okay, sorry, let me slip into serious mode now. You’re correct that there is only one church, and it is certainly catholic; just not Roman. It is composed of all those who trust in Christ for their salvation.

If the “true” Church can err, then it is not the Church of Him who is Truth.

This isn’t borne out in the pages of the New Testament and is an alien supposition. The church is only the church as long as it is connected to the vine. Which requires faithful adherence to His commandments.

Indefectibility is an important aspect of the Christian faith. Infallibility is a sub-set of indefectibility.

I agree that the true church as a whole will not defect; though individual members can lose faith. Institutions do not have faith in Christ; they are composed of members who possess faith in Christ. The Church is not a hierarchy, it’s a community.

 

[JRKH]

Today I would answer your question No; No Bishop would seek the office of Pope for power or self gain, due to the fact that she has already experienced this through her history.

So again, by what you say here, your concern re: the papacy is in the “power” that you percieve as being for either good or ill rather than the responsibility that is evident in the office.

It does seem evident that what most protestants see is not a person carrying immense responsibilities for the wellfare of his flock, but rather some perception of uncontrolled and dangerous power.

I was hoping for a few more non-catholic responses here.
maybe a few more will join in.

Peace
James