Idea to unify all Christians with pope as pastoral leader

[jfhh]

JPII asked people to think about and even give him ideas on new ways to think about and exercise the Petrine ministry.

I don’t expect my idea to come to fruition ever, but I think it’s a good idea anyway

My idea is that all Christians would accept him as chief pastor. But no belief would be required for membership besides accepting him as chief pastor and a spirit of unity.

Then the traditional Catholic part of the new church would function just as it did always. Women wouild not be ordained, people not adhereing to Real Presence would not receive Communion, etc. And the pope would be recognized as chief pastor BUT the pope would STILL issue edicts just for these Catholics – so the pope would relate to the traditional Catholic Church just as before.

And the Anglican part of the new church would function a little differently. It would do as it does now except that the pope would be accepted as the head of the church instead of the Queen. Pastoral decisions of the pope would accomodate Anglican practice and views or if pastoral decisions would involve formal cooperation in evil (ex. appointing a woman as a bishop), then the pope could just let parts of the church be semi-autonomous.

And the Orthodox Churches would be in the same relationship to the pope as before the schism as they understand it. So they would view the pope of Rome as first among equals and the pope would respect that view. The only change would be that the Orthodox would have a practical acknowledgement of the pope in that special role of honor and apostolic authority and the pope could intervene when there is a dispute as the first among equals. Basically it would be exactly what the Orthodox want in their dialogue with Rome. Only difference is that the Anglicans would be given what they want too. The church would be a diverse organic unity with some parts (ex. Catholic and Orthodox) united in ways that other parts (ex. Catholic and Anglican) are not. IOW, there would be a lowest common denominator (acceptable to Protestants too), of pope as chief pastor and a spirit of unity. But there would be sub-ecclessial communities and communities of communities that have higher common denominators within the Big Tent. So in the Big Tent, there’s MidSize Tents that are in it and within the MidSize maybe some Little Tents too.

In a nut shell, everything in terms of beliefs would stay the same but structurally there would be greater unity and spiritually there would be a greater cohesion amongst all Christians.

 

[CWBetts]

Only problem I see with your idea is the fundamentalists who see the pope as the Anti-Christ.

 

[rossum]

Only problem I see with your idea is the fundamentalists who see the pope as the Anti-Christ.

Perhaps the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople might be a better candidate for pastoral leader than the Pope. There seems to be less fundamentalist anger directed at the Orthodox than at Catholics.

How would Catholics see that as an option?

rossum

 

[TomaszA]

My idea is that all Christians would accept him as chief pastor. But no belief would be required for membership besides accepting him as chief pastor and a spirit of unity

This is exactly what we call false ecumenism.

Honesty and respect for ourselves and our separated brethren demands that we reveal what we actually believe, and not hide our beliefs so as to foster some sort of pseudo unity.

A real unity will have to be based on beliefs.

 

[rad]

This is exactly what we call false ecumenism.

Honesty and respect for ourselves and our separated brethren demands that we reveal what we actually believe, and not hide our beliefs so as to foster some sort of pseudo unity.

A real unity will have to be based on beliefs.

There is no supreme earthly Shepherd ,Christ is the supreme head and shepherd only…orthodoxy wouldn’t want it …
History it self reads volumes what happened in rome , with there supreme shepherds,and it isn’t a pretty picture… God save us from rome and keep it far away from us protestants and orthodox christians…

 

[JonNC]

There is no supreme earthly Shepherd ,Christ is the supreme head and shepherd only…orthodoxy wouldn’t want it …
History it self reads volumes what happened in rome , with there supreme shepherds,and it isn’t a pretty picture… God save us from rome and keep it far away from us protestants and orthodox christians…

Actually, I pray God would bring all of us, including Rome, together.

As to the OP, I think this approach has many pitfalls we would need to be careful of. But the notion of a more relaxed relationship is not a bad idea, and could lead to greater unity in the future. I, personally, would have no problem viewing the pope or the patriarch as a spiritual leader, and in fact, in many ways, already do.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Perhaps the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople might be a better candidate for pastoral leader than the Pope. There seems to be less fundamentalist anger directed at the Orthodox than at Catholics.

How would Catholics see that as an option?

rossum

There would be two issues with that. First, the EO would NEVER go for it. Tons of reasons.

Second, the only reason that Fundamentalists have little angeer towards them is because they do not know about them

 

[avenger]

JPII asked people to think about and even give him ideas on new ways to think about and exercise the Petrine ministry.

I don’t expect my idea to come to fruition ever, but I think it’s a good idea anyway

My idea is that all Christians would accept him as chief pastor. But no belief would be required for membership besides accepting him as chief pastor and a spirit of unity.

Then the traditional Catholic part of the new church would function just as it did always. Women wouild not be ordained, people not adhereing to Real Presence would not receive Communion, etc. And the pope would be recognized as chief pastor BUT the pope would STILL issue edicts just for these Catholics – so the pope would relate to the traditional Catholic Church just as before.

And the Anglican part of the new church would function a little differently. It would do as it does now except that the pope would be accepted as the head of the church instead of the Queen. Pastoral decisions of the pope would accomodate Anglican practice and views or if pastoral decisions would involve formal cooperation in evil (ex. appointing a woman as a bishop), then the pope could just let parts of the church be semi-autonomous.

And the Orthodox Churches would be in the same relationship to the pope as before the schism as they understand it. So they would view the pope of Rome as first among equals and the pope would respect that view. The only change would be that the Orthodox would have a practical acknowledgement of the pope in that special role of honor and apostolic authority and the pope could intervene when there is a dispute as the first among equals. Basically it would be exactly what the Orthodox want in their dialogue with Rome. Only difference is that the Anglicans would be given what they want too. The church would be a diverse organic unity with some parts (ex. Catholic and Orthodox) united in ways that other parts (ex. Catholic and Anglican) are not. IOW, there would be a lowest common denominator (acceptable to Protestants too), of pope as chief pastor and a spirit of unity. But there would be sub-ecclessial communities and communities of communities that have higher common denominators within the Big Tent. So in the Big Tent, there’s MidSize Tents that are in it and within the MidSize maybe some Little Tents too.

In a nut shell, everything in terms of beliefs would stay the same but structurally there would be greater unity and spiritually there would be a greater cohesion amongst all Christians.

If I wanted the Pope as my chief pastor, I’d be Catholic!

 

[Peter_J]

If I wanted the Pope as my chief pastor, I’d be Catholic!

Not necessarily. It’s possible to want the Pope as one’s chief pastor, but not agree with Catholic dogmas like Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.

 

[Peter_J]

My idea is that all Christians would accept him as chief pastor. But no belief would be required for membership besides accepting him as chief pastor and a spirit of unity

I don’t agree with this assessment, but I do agree that there is a problem with the OP’s proposal.

Jfhh never said anything about “hiding our beliefs”, but rather about not requiring them as a condition for full communion. Why is that problematic? Because the particular beliefs in question are not only true, but are truths which have been dogmatically defined. (If they were truths which had never been dogmatically defined, then it might not be necessary to require agreement with them as a condition for full communion.)

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Christian unity already exists in the Holy Catholic Church- although one could technically someone outside the Church a “Christian”, Saint Augustine would say to that, it is like comparing a broken branch to a tree limb. Although the branch has the same form, what good is it as it is not connected to the tree?

 

[peary]

Perhaps the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople might be a better candidate for pastoral leader than the Pope. There seems to be less fundamentalist anger directed at the Orthodox than at Catholics.

How would Catholics see that as an option?

rossum

Not a very good option, in my opinion.

 

[Lujack]

Perhaps a less extensive version of this would be possible. A yearly…well, synod or council wouldn’t be the word, because those have Catholic meanings…gathering to discuss theology with the ultimate goal of reunion wouldn’t imply full communion in any way.

It wouldn’t be false ecumenism (I suspect there would be some heavy disputes), but it could smooth the process to reunion, especially if it occasionally produces things like the Joint Declaration on Justification.

The Pope would preside as spiritual leader, but accepting his infallibility wouldn’t necessary to attend the conference (accepting his primacy probably would). Like I said, there’d be no false ecumenism involved, but it would eliminate the more pernicious myths about Catholicism (and other denominations).

 

[avenger]

Not necessarily. It’s possible to want the Pope as one’s chief pastor, but not agree with Catholic dogmas like Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Then what would be the point?

 

[avenger]

Christian unity already exists in the Holy Catholic Church- although one could technically someone outside the Church a “Christian”, Saint Augustine would say to that, it is like comparing a broken branch to a tree limb. Although the branch has the same form, what good is it as it is not connected to the tree?

??? a Christian is one who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior…PERIOD. No where in Scripture does salvation depend on belonging to your church.

 

[Catholic29]

Something tells me this idea isn’t going to fly, for more reasons than there are hands on earth to count them.

 

[Eucharisted]

The Church is one in faith, sacrament, and worship. We can’t mess with that. Especially since there is the Church in Heaven and in Purgatory.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J;4463818:

Not necessarily. It’s possible to want the Pope as one’s chief pastor, but not agree with Catholic dogmas like Papal Infallibility and Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Then what would be the point?

The point of what? Life?

 

[ralphinal]

??? a Christian is one who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior…PERIOD. No where in Scripture does salvation depend on belonging to your church.

This is a misconception created by modern reading without proper understanding. There was only One Chuch founded by Jesus. It was impossible in the first centuries of the Church to be Christian and not belong to this Church. Modern readers ignore the fact that there were no denominations at all and every Chirstian was Catholic.

Think about it. How could you be a member of the Body of Christ and not be a member of the Body of Christ?

 

[gcnuss]

This is a misconception created by modern reading without proper understanding. There was only One Chuch founded by Jesus. It was impossible in the first centuries of the Church to be Christian and not belong to this Church. Modern readers ignore the fact that there were no denominations at all and every Chirstian was Catholic.

Think about it. How could you be a member of the Body of Christ and not be a member of the Body of Christ?

Ralph,

Warning!!! Lutheran jumping in where the angels fear to tread!!!

To reverse your question, how can one not be a member of the Body of Christ if one is a member of the Body of Christ? Here we get into a question of what the Body of Christ is and who (or what) defines it.

A very simple definition is that the Body of Christ consists of all who, throughout all time, have been baptized. I think that would also include those who, although not baptized in the normal Trinitarian fashion, received the Baptism of Desire or the Baptism of Blood.

Of course, that simple definition runs afoul of the human desire for exclusivity. I, as a Lutheran, can work with the above definition. You, as a Catholic, (correct me if I’m wrong) would say that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.

Then we have some other members of the Body of Christ (as defined above) will insist that one is not baptized unless one is fully immersed in the water. Others will insist that infant baptism is invalid because one must first make a personal decision to follow Christ before being baptized.

And we talk about, and pray for, unity. We can’t even agree on what the Body of Christ is or how (in physical actions and/or spiritual preparation) one becomes a member of the Body of Christ.

As far as the Pope being a pastoral leader, I would say that he is in an unofficial way for many non-Catholics. (Of course, there are quite a number who feel otherwise, too.) I have in my library writings of John Paul II and I am currently reading Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth.

Just a few thoughts. I’m beginning to understand why the angels fear to tread here.