"First among equals"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Catholic_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roman_Catholic_1

Guest
I have heard this phrase (first among equals) used by Lutherans, Anglicans and EO as to what their view of the Pope is (or,rather, what they would be willing to accept). Can anyone tell me how exactly the application of this would play out? What would it mean for the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, to be the first (bishop) among equal (bishops)? How would his role as* first among equals *differ from his role in the Catholic Church?

Any reading that you can suggest would be appreciated as well.

God bless you
 
Roman_Catholic said:
I have heard this phrase (first among equals) used by Lutherans, Anglicans and EO as to what their view of the Pope is (or,rather, what they would be willing to accept). Can anyone tell me how exactly the application of this would play out? What would it mean for the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, to be the first (bishop) among equal (bishops)? How would his role as* first among equals *differ from his role in the Catholic Church?

Any reading that you can suggest would be appreciated as well.

God bless you
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=T1An0kzGTnY

The Orthodox view, I think, explains what most non-Catholics believe the papacy should be.
 
It’s amazing how the Holy Father was the final authority even in the early church days on so many matters of heresy, discipline in the Church, and in most matters in general. It was the popes that wiped out and fought against the iconoclasts in the East and ironically saved the icon devotions that Orthodox enjoy so much. I am always bold over by the “Rome has spoken” statements we read by men like Augustine and how final determinations like in the lapsi situation with Cyprian by Pope Stephen were the final word. For being just a frater, a first among equals or a gavel-banger, he sure wielded enormous power and decision-making. I see little to indicate the pope as some wimpy facilitator or co-equal arbitrator, etc. That’s why I stay Catholic.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
I have heard this phrase (first among equals) used by Lutherans, Anglicans and EO as to what their view of the Pope is (or,rather, what they would be willing to accept). Can anyone tell me how exactly the application of this would play out? What would it mean for the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, to be the first (bishop) among equal (bishops)? How would his role as* first among equals *differ from his role in the Catholic Church?

Any reading that you can suggest would be appreciated as well.

God bless you
Click to expand...
From what I have read, First of Equals is not the problem. Acting in Love doing it, seems to be a grey area.🤷
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
It’s amazing how the Holy Father was the final authority even in the early church days on so many matters of heresy, discipline in the Church, and in most matters in general. It was the popes that wiped out and fought against the iconoclasts in the East and ironically saved the icon devotions that Orthodox enjoy so much. I am always bold over by the “Rome has spoken” statements we read by men like Augustine and how final determinations like in the lapsi situation with Cyprian by Pope Stephen were the final word. For being just a frater, a first among equals or a gavel-banger, he sure wielded enormous power and decision-making. I see little to indicate the pope as some wimpy facilitator or co-equal arbitrator, etc. That’s why I stay Catholic.
Click to expand...
The difference is that, according to non-Catholics, the pope, aware of his own power, changed from the “loving older brother” who manages disputes among brother patriarchs to an “authoritarian father” who wants to rule the Church.
 
It is my opinion, that most non_Catholics and quite a few Catholics, have a hard time understanding/accepting the Church teachings on Infallibility.

It is quite difficult when we look at history and see the past transgressions and scandals that have arisen in the Church, to embrace an Infallible Leader. Most non- Catholics who are involved in Apologetics will point to the Bible and site the denial of Christ by Peter as proof that the Pope is not infallible. The Church does not state that the Pope is Impeccable.

Infallible is that which is unable to err in teaching the truth. Guided by the Holy Spirit,* the Catholic Church is infallible. *Likewise, the Pope is infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals from the Chair of Peter …“ex cathedra.” Which throughout history has been done very few times.

The Pope is not impeccable. He can and does sin. Impeccable and infallible are not synonymous. Only Jesus embodies the fullness of both words.

Jesus passed the Keys to Peter and along with it the authority to lead, He specifically told Peter to strengthen the other Apostles. When the Church elects a new Pope, She is passing on those Keys just as Christ first did.

The charism of infallibility does not keep the Pope from making mistakes in his personal life or in his role as leader of the Church; but it does ensure the Church will accurately proclaim the Gospel.

The Church has been doing so for 2000 years, protected by The Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top