Hierarchal v. Congregational Authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Madaglan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Skipssong:
When I say ‘no evidence’ what I am trying to explain is that whilst we all want to accept that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (avoiding the title of Pope) there is nothing written down that confirms this. Moreover, the idea of a Bishop of Rome was not established for quite sometime after Peter’s death (which was probably but not definitely in Rome). The first Bishop of Rome was probably Urban 1 in the year 222; quite a long time after Peter and with no clear succession from him.
Click to expand...
Clement says he was ordained by Peter – and Clement clearly acted as Pope, even during the life of the Apostle John.
 
40.png
Madaglan:
He points to the church of Jerusalem and how its decisions were according to what everyone thought, and not so much on what individual leaders viewed as authority.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Decision-making in Jerusalem:

Peter, what do you think?
James, what do you think?
John, you good widdat? Great; we have a decision.
 
vern humphry -

please help by telling where it says that ‘Clement clearly acted as Pope’

Many thanks
 
40.png
Skipssong:
vern humphry -

please help by telling where it says that ‘Clement clearly acted as Pope’

Many thanks
Click to expand...
Read the First Epistle of Clement. earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html

The background is the Corinthians (always squabbling, as Paul’s epistles show) had deposed their bishop and priests. John, in a long and loving letter, ordered them to take them back and submit to their authority. They obeyed.

I was once in a debate with an ultra Protestant who was outraged by this – "They SHOULDN’T have obeyed him!!"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif
 
40.png
Skipssong:
Sherlock - please keep going, it is helping.

maybe it would help to know that the Church doesn’t really decide per sey about what it believes, it recognizes what has already been shown.

In regards of the Chair of Peter, the Church found it necessary to proclaim what was already recognized as true, and that was that matters of dispute weren’t settled until the Bishop of Rome spoke.
That is how the Holy Spirit worked within the Church, the Holy Fathers responded faithfully to the prompt to take matters to Rome, and the Chair of Peter was established.
That’s why it seems like a later developement when in fact by the time it is proclaimed it is well matured.

Peace

Benadam
Click to expand...
 
Benadam,

In regards of the Chair of Peter, the Church found it necessary to proclaim what was already recognized as true,

This is the very bit I struggle with. How was it already recognised as true? There is nothing written down that says that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome; we just seem to accept that this is the case. I’m not challenging Peter’s authority in the Church or the importance of the Pope. I’m just trying to understand where this irrevocable link comes from.

Thanks
 
40.png
Skipssong:
Benadam,

In regards of the Chair of Peter, the Church found it necessary to proclaim what was already recognized as true,

This is the very bit I struggle with. How was it already recognised as true? There is nothing written down that says that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome; we just seem to accept that this is the case. I’m not challenging Peter’s authority in the Church or the importance of the Pope. I’m just trying to understand where this irrevocable link comes from.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Hi Skipssong,
There is a great deal written down about all these things. They are the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECF). These are the men (bishops mostly) who were ordained by the apostles as their successors, or were ordained by those who were ordained by the apostles.

Many of them wrote during the first 200 years after the resurrection of Christ. They still remembered very well what the apostles taught and how they governed the Church.

The ECFs who wrote before 325 AD (when the emperor Constantine requested that the Council of Nicea be convened) are called the Ante-Nicean Fathers (ante means before). They are important because many non-Catholics charge that Constantine “created” the Catholic religion in 325 AD as a mixture of Christianity and paganism. The writings of the Ante-Nicean Fathers demonstrate very clearly that the doctrines of Catholicism are in harmony with the apostles and are the same before and after Nicea.

The ECFs are very clear about who the popes were and what their role was (including Peter). They are also very clear about the kind of government the Church had and the role of the bishops in governing the local churches.

It sounds like you are at the point in your questioning when you really need to read the Early Church Fathers.

A great place to get started is here:
catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

God bless you,
Paul
 
Ok guys I’m going to go and shut up for a while and do some more reading.

Many thanks for all your help and support.
 
40.png
Skipssong:
Benadam,

In regards of the Chair of Peter, the Church found it necessary to proclaim what was already recognized as true,

This is the very bit I struggle with. How was it already recognised as true? There is nothing written down that says that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome; we just seem to accept that this is the case. I’m not challenging Peter’s authority in the Church or the importance of the Pope. I’m just trying to understand where this irrevocable link comes from.

Thanks
Click to expand...
The Early Church Experienced this truth, circumstances unfolded in such a way that the dynamic within the bonds between persons followed the pattern originally experienced with Jesus when He was physically on earth. Those who trully shared in the apostolic bond experienced the relations between the apostles as the apostles themselves did. Of course for those Fathers experiencing that frateran bond , they knew exactly what it was, and for them scripture very clearly points out Peter in that role. I’ll point out one to show you it’s characteristics as scripture reveals it.

Peter was the only apostle satan ‘wished’ to sift, of course because the Father chose Peter as the first to see His Son. This opens a door that IS Peter symbolized by keys. Jesus acknowledges what He sees the Father doing in heaven and does His will on earth. This is the reason Satan wants to sift Peter. Jesus warns Peter that Satan has gotten his wish to sift him. Again, because Peter is that doorway Satan wants closed. Jesus tells Peter that he has asked the Father to support his faith and that he will recover. He also lets him know that that faith will be needed by the others and that he is expected to support them with it as the Father in heaven supported him. Father to father to fathers. . What the Father shared with Peter in revealing His only begotten is a bond that the Father Himself has for His children( note Peters fatherly stance with Jesus emmediately after that bond is shared ) now in Peter raising it’s fallen counterpart to the eternal characteristic only Our Father in heaven can share, we call it the Apostolic bond.

The Primacy of Peter finds it’s source in that a particular charactertic of the bond (the apostolic bond ) between persons of the Trinity was shared with Peter first, in that way making Peter it’s source eternally.

I hope this helps you with your reading of the Fathers as well as the scriptures.
 
Hi all,

I think that many Protestants (and Catholics) are turned off by the perceived complete authority of a Pastor over his parish.

It is MicroManagement of every aspect of parish life that turns off so many people.

We may also want to consider what our authorities practice over.

Why not let the Laity / members of the congregation - Pastoral councils control most of the Parish activities and leave the Pastor Free to Minister to the Truth ?

Hierarchal Authority is essential with Doctrines and Dogmas.
Canon Law - Liturgical Practices.

But –

Congregational Authority would be fine to
Manage much of the Temporal Church.
Facilities Management.
Bank Accounts
Scheduling
Buildings
Ministry Coordination

todd
 
Uncleoberon, you wrote:

**Hierarchal Authority ** is essential with Doctrines and Dogmas.
Canon Law - Liturgical Practices.

But –

**Congregational Authority ** would be fine to
Manage much of the Temporal Church.
Facilities Management.
Bank Accounts
Scheduling
Buildings
Ministry Coordination

As far as I am aware, this is exactly what is happening in the majority of parishes, at least in Victoria Australia. There would be very few, if any, one man band type priests these days. Of necessity bank accounts need to be overseen by an accountant.
 
40.png
yinekka:
As far as I am aware, this is exactly what is happening in the majority of parishes, at least in Victoria Australia. There would be very few, if any, one man band type priests these days. Of necessity bank accounts need to be overseen by an accountant.
Click to expand...
That’s the way it is almost everywhere. Here in Mounrtain View, Arkansas, we do not have a resident pastor – we are served by two priests from another town. We collected the money, arrainged financing, and did everything necessary to build our church – with approval of the pastor and bishop, of course.

Everything that gets done here – apart from sacramental duties – is done by the parishoners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top