How many interpretations of Matt 16: 18-19, and who is right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Ghosty:
You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the Papacy. The Pope is not the micromanager of the Church, he is the final arbiter in disputes and doctrines. If there is no dispute, a bishop does not require a personal stamp of approval from the Pope before he opens his mouth. In fact, he needn’t even know who the Pope is, as happened with the Maronite community that was cut off from communication with Rome for some time.

Every Apostle/Bishop speaks on the authority of the Church, on the authority of God. The Pope is simply the dispute settler when Councils can’t easily put an issue to rest. So long as the bishop in question doesn’t delve into heresy, they rest on their own authority as a bishop to speak.
Click to expand...
That all sounds nice and reasonable, but what about the Eucharist? I could start my own congregation and teach nothing that is against Church teaching, but if I don’t have the blessing of the Pope, my congregation will never be able to celebrate a “true” sacrament.

The Pope is more than a final authoritative arbiter.
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
How did they handle the question of Circumcision among Gentiles?
Click to expand...
:tsktsk: I’m sure you think this question very clever.

I am very glad you asked that question anyway. You know as well as I that answer can be found in Acts 15. I’m sure you know what Catholicism thinks of Acts 15, so I will paraphrase it so you know what I think of it. I think it is a wonderful example.

Paul, Barnabas, and the Gentile churches were going along just fine. Elsewhere, some men from Judea thought Christians should be circumcised.

It is now important to note that it could have gone on like this indefinitley. Those men in Judea could have gone on thinking Christians should be circumcised and it wouldn’t have bothered Paul and Barnabas any. However, those men from Judea were not content to just think to themselves that Christians should be circumcised. They decided to come down from Judea and make a nuisance of themselves by telling everyone they need to be circumcised.

There was a conflict that needed to be worked out. The Gentile churhes appointed Paul, Barnabas, and some other believers to “go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

When they arrived, “The apostles and elders met to consider the question.” What happened at this meeting? Peter and James made theological arguments against the necessesity of circumcision. James also quoted the prophets. Paul and Barnabas witnessed to “miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles”. (You will know them by their fruit.)

After all the arguments were heard, a decision was made. By Peter alone? Nay. “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” to send a letter to the Gentile believers that said “…So we all decided…”

“We all decided”. Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas, the elders, with the whole church. The meeting was to seek the truth and they found it together.

Peter was a spiritual leader, no question. He led by persuasion and theological argument. He strove for concensus among his fellow believers. He did not plant a flag in the ground and declare “my word is law”.
 
I could start my own congregation and teach nothing that is against Church teaching, but if I don’t have the blessing of the Pope, my congregation will never be able to celebrate a “true” sacrament.
Click to expand...
That’s completely false. None of the Orthodox have the blessing of the Pope, and they celebrate the Eucharist all the time. The same is true of Schismatic groups like SSPX, which have been formally excommunicated by the Pope. The Pope has no power whatsoever over the Sacramentality of a given church.

Out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that the Pope was involved in any way in the Sacraments of a given church?
 
40.png
Ghosty:
The Pope has no power whatsoever over the Sacramentality of a given church.

Out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that the Pope was involved in any way in the Sacraments of a given church?
Click to expand...
?!?!:ehh:

From [thread=46379]this forum[/thread], for one.

“Protestant denominations do not have the power and the authority to validly ordain priests who can validly consecrate bread and wine.”

I thought that was a given. The Pope declared that Protestants can’t consecrate the Eucharist whatever they do, and that was that.

I wish what you said was true.
 
Angainor said:
?!?!:ehh:

From [thread=46379]this forum[/thread], for one.

“Protestant denominations do not have the power and the authority to validly ordain priests who can validly consecrate bread and wine.”

I thought that was a given. The Pope declared that Protestants can’t consecrate the Eucharist whatever they do, and that was that.

I wish what you said was true.
Click to expand...

Protestants don’t have valid Sacraments that require Holy Orders because they don’t have Holy Orders. This has all of nothing to do with the Pope. Read the answer again, you’ll see that this has to do with Apostalic Succession; the pope isn’t even mentioned.

Any group that has preserved Holy Orders, and therefore Apostalic Succession, has valid Sacraments. The fact that Protestants specifically abandoned the concept of Apostalic Succession and Holy Orders is a quirk of Protestant theology, not with their seperation from the Papacy. You’ll notice that the answer says that the Orthodox, who seperated from the Pope 500 years before Luther was born, have valid Sacraments. The Pope has no power to declare that a person with Holy Orders can’t consecrate the Eucharist.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Protestants don’t have valid Sacraments that require Holy Orders because they don’t have Holy Orders. This has all of nothing to do with the Pope. Read the answer again, you’ll see that this has to do with Apostalic Succession; the pope isn’t even mentioned.

Any group that has preserved Holy Orders, and therefore Apostalic Succession, has valid Sacraments. The fact that Protestants specifically abandoned the concept of Apostalic Succession and Holy Orders is a quirk of Protestant theology, not with their seperation from the Papacy. You’ll notice that the answer says that the Orthodox, who seperated from the Pope 500 years before Luther was born, have valid Sacraments. The Pope has no power to declare that a person with Holy Orders can’t consecrate the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Small comfort. It is by the Pope’s authority that “Apostalic Succession” and “Holy Orders” are said to be valid concepts.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Protestants don’t have valid Sacraments that require Holy Orders because they don’t have Holy Orders. This has all of nothing to do with the Pope. Read the answer again, you’ll see that this has to do with Apostalic Succession; the pope isn’t even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the Pope that decides who is and who is not a member of “Holy Orders”, so it effectively gives him power over the Sacramentality of a given church.

Martin Luther was an ordained member of the Holy Orders, then by Papal Decree, he wasn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top