Idea to unify all Christians with pope as pastoral leader

[Contarini]

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?

It would make no sense, because the Patriarch of Constantinople has authority solely based on the history of the late Roman Empire. There is no reason for people whose Christian heritage is not deeply rooted in allegiance to the late Roman Empire to acknowledge Constantinople as more than another historically important episcopal See. Antioch or Jerusalem would have a better claim, but the claims of Rome are still superior.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Then what would be the point?

The point would be to be united and have a structure of mutual accountability and fellowship.

Some of us think that Christians who disagree on various issues can still be meaningfully united with each other! And in fact Catholicism has always allowed for disagreement on some doctrinal issues (such as predestination).

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

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.

Correct.

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.

Actually, I would say both. The Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ, but all Baptised Christians are members. My fourth Cousin is still my cousin, even if he has a different name.

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.

I blaim the Baptists and Calvinists.

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.

There are non-Christians who see it the same way you do. When Honda started trying to build a robot that could learn like a human, not to mention move like one, they met with the Pope for guidance on the implications

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

I liked the post. We are not as far apart as we are thought to be on some things.

Let me point out that my post in question applied to the early Church. What I was saying is that prior to any divisions, you only had one option to be Christian: CAtholic. It is simple to see that a baptised, First Century Christian was Catholic (Or EO, I do not want that can of worms opened) and could not be any kind of Baptist, Lutheran, or whatever.

 

[Contarini]

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.

The problem with this is that part of unity involves mutual accountability, and since Christianity is an irreducibly theological religion (i.e., our faith essentially involves commitment to paradoxical beliefs with complex intellectual ramifications), that accountability must include doctrine.

There would have to be some consensus reached that certain historically church-dividing issues did not in fact need to be church-dividing. And that’s where things get sticky, though the Joint Declaration does show that this sort of thing is possible.

I don’t expect Rome to decide that some Catholic dogmas suddenly aren’t needed any more. But what those of us outside the Roman Communion can do is start acting *now *as if the Pope was our chief pastor. I think that would do a lot toward bringing union. The problem is that those of us who see things this way are generally regarded as eccentric and inconsistent by the folks we go to church with. Most people think, as one poster on this thread said, that if they wanted the Pope as their pastor they would just convert to Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

I do think that it would be a good idea for those denominations that agree with the Church on some teachings to be more vocal about it. FOr example, those who agree about abortion should come out and say “Hey. these guys are correct. We can follow their lead on this even if we disagree on other issues.”

 

[Peter_J]

Some of us think that Christians who disagree on various issues can still be meaningfully united with each other!

Certainly, but many of us think that there are significantly fewer issues that that can be applied to now than there were several centuries ago. For example, many people on both sides of the I.C. question now believe that agreement on it is necessary for full communion.

There would have to be some consensus reached that certain historically church-dividing issues did not in fact need to be church-dividing. And that’s where things get sticky, though the Joint Declaration does show that this sort of thing is possible.

As C.S. Lewis said in the introduction of “Mere Christianity”:
Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point “really matters” and the other replies: “Matter? Why, it’s absolutely essential.”

(See also the Theologoumenon thread.)

 

[Contarini]

Certainly, but many of us think that there are significantly fewer issue that that can be applied to now than there were several centuries ago. For example, many people on both sides of the I.C. question now believe that agreement on it is necessary for full communion.

I don’t think that this is a good example. The only reason more people on either side of the issue think it is necessary is the dogmatic definition, which makes orthodox Roman Catholics (and I am going to say “Roman” here, since it’s such a distinctively Western doctrine and Eastern Catholics really seem to struggle with it) say that it is necessary. It is certainly not true that more people who disagree with the IC think agreement is necessary than was the case a hundred or two hundred years ago (except, again, in the sense that before 1854 people who disagreed with it openly could be members of the Roman Communion in good standing, whereas after 1854 people who disagreed with it were by definition regarded as heretics/schismatics).

On the whole, the movement at least among Protestants in the last couple hundred years (and certainly in the last fifty or a hundred–i.e., the movement is accelerating) is toward declaring *fewer *things necessary for intercommunion. Among Catholics there are two movements in that period of time. One, which thankfully seems to have slowed if not ended, is toward defining more and more doctrines precisely (and this seems to be the only support for your claim). The other, evident particularly since Vatican II, is toward finding wiggle room in previous definitions. And there much hope lies, in my opinion.

Edwin

 

[requiemaeturnum]

??? 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.

Since I do not know your religion, I assume you are not Catholic. Did Christ not say to Peter, the first Pope “Whoever rejects you rejects Me”? Deny the Pope and you deny Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

 

[Peter_J]

… Roman Catholics (and I am going to say “Roman” here, since it’s such a distinctively Western doctrine and Eastern Catholics really seem to struggle with it) …

If you’re talking only about Western Catholics, it might be a good idea to use the term “Latin Catholics” (or “Roman-Rite Catholics”) to avoid confusion.

On the whole, the movement at least among Protestants in the last couple hundred years (and certainly in the last fifty or a hundred–i.e., the movement is accelerating) is toward declaring *fewer *things necessary for intercommunion.

I suppose that’s true, if you’re talking about mainline Protestants.

One, which thankfully seems to have slowed if not ended, is toward defining more and more doctrines precisely (and this seems to be the only support for your claim).

Yes, I think it has slowed. For example, although there are some Catholics today who are quite gung-ho about dogmatically defining “co-Redemptrix”, they make up a much smaller portion of the Catholic Church as compared with the portion of the Church that was gung-ho about defining Papal Infallibility back in 1870. (Sorry if that sentence is a bit convoluted.)

The other, evident particularly since Vatican II, is toward finding wiggle room in previous definitions. And there much hope lies, in my opinion.

Edwin

That’s all good and well in-and-of itself, but we do have to be a little bit careful: there’s always a slight danger that “finding wiggle room” will become a code word for putting in wiggle room where there wasn’t any.

 

[universalist]

I as a " MERE CHRISTIAN" “small c” catholic, would have no problem accepting the pope as “First among equals” I already look to the catechism of the Catholic church for most of my moral and theological beliefs unless I feel they do not square with the bible, however i cannot in good conscience accept the pope as infallible at this time. In CHRIST.

 

[CWBetts]

Papal infallibility is grounded in the scriptures.

 

[Contarini]

I suppose that’s true, if you’re talking about mainline Protestants.

No, evangelicals as well (not that “mainline” and “evangelical” are mutually exclusive). Everyone except very hardline fundamentalists and stalwart confessional Protestants. Obviously the number of things that are held to be essential is still going to vary widely, but my point is that for nearly everyone it’s a relatively shorter list than would have been the case even 50 years ago.

That’s all good and well in-and-of itself, but we do have to be a little bit careful: there’s always a slight danger that “finding wiggle room” will become a code word for putting in wiggle room where there wasn’t any.

I agree. One of the ways that I implement the OP’s suggestion is by taking the teaching of the See of Rome as a good guide to when it is safe to “find wiggle room” in traditional Christian doctrines. I.e., I don’t worry about evolution being orthodox, or about the legitimacy of higher criticism in general (though of course the skeptical wing of higher criticism must still be regarded with suspicion), or about affirming the possibility that those who are not explicitly Christians in this life can still be saved, because the Bishops of Rome clearly no longer have a problem with these views (even though some conservative/traditional Catholics disagree or try to interpret papal statements otherwise). I still take some positions that Rome would find “liberal,” such as women’s ordination, but I do so tentatively and with trepidation, precisely because Rome continues to affirm the traditional stance.

In other words, I see Rome as the guardian of tradition. I may think that sometimes Rome holds on to tradition a little too tightly, but if Rome doesn’t hold on to a tradition, I assume that it’s probably because that tradition really wasn’t part of Tradition after all.

I recognize that such a stance probably drives traditionalist Catholics crazy and confirms their worst suspicions about the effect of the relative “liberalism” of recent Popes!

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

I agree. One of the ways that I implement the OP’s suggestion is by taking the teaching of the See of Rome as a good guide to when it is safe to “find wiggle room” in traditional Christian doctrines. I.e., I don’t worry about evolution being orthodox, or about the legitimacy of higher criticism in general (though of course the skeptical wing of higher criticism must still be regarded with suspicion), or about affirming the possibility that those who are not explicitly Christians in this life can still be saved, because the Bishops of Rome clearly no longer have a problem with these views (even though some conservative/traditional Catholics disagree or try to interpret papal statements otherwise). I still take some positions that Rome would find “liberal,” such as women’s ordination, but I do so tentatively and with trepidation, precisely because Rome continues to affirm the traditional stance.

In other words, I see Rome as the guardian of tradition. I may think that sometimes Rome holds on to tradition a little too tightly, but if Rome doesn’t hold on to a tradition, I assume that it’s probably because that tradition really wasn’t part of Tradition after all.

I recognize that such a stance probably drives traditionalist Catholics crazy and confirms their worst suspicions about the effect of the relative “liberalism” of recent Popes!

Edwin

I know what you saying, and I partially sympathize with that approach, but at the same time I think that it can easily be abused.

Some years I had an Anglican friend, with whom I often talked about theology. Anyway, one time the issue of the filioque came up in a group discussion. I don’t remember his exact words, but he basically dismissed the question as a case-closed we’re-not-even-going-to-talk-about-it non-issue – and cited the Pope as conclusive proof of that.

I guess I didn’t really say anything in response (there didn’t seem to be much point in trying to talk with him about it), but in my mind I’m thinking “Okay, so in other words, the Pope is wrong about all kinds of other stuff, but all of a sudden when the filioque comes up, the Pope absolutely must be right?”

 

[jfhh]

When Honda started trying to build a robot that could learn like a human, not to mention move like one, they met with the Pope for guidance on the implications.

Are you serious? If you have time, could you provide me a pointer or links to read more about this?

 

[jfhh]

I still take some positions that Rome would find “liberal,” such as women’s ordination, but I do so tentatively and with trepidation, precisely because Rome continues to affirm the traditional stance.

Not to drag my own thread off topic, but this is more or less how I as a Catholic view my approach in the spectrum of extreme cafeteria Catholicism to extreme orthodox Catholicism. I haven’t given any thought to women’s priestly ordination so at present I have no objection at all to the magisterium teaching on that, but I do support women’s ordination to the diaconate and on this matter Rome seems to have some guarded openness to further study. Your description of doing so “tentatively” or “with trepidation” makes my point that that would not be as extreme as the cafeteria Catholicism of “Let’s pick and choose” or “Let’s feel free to shrug off the magisterium teaching”. There’s an in between area. I do not support Epispocapalian decisions to ordain women priests, especially bishops. That is not something you go about doing since so much is at stake there (namely valid apostolic succession, sacraments) without being truly morally certain. “Tentative” or trepidative certainty is not enough in that area IMHO.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

This sounds nice - but it would not work. Rome is so big that it would swallow up Anglicanism. Rome is good at gaining or exercising power, but very poor at relinquishing it: it is in effect an ecclesiastical prolongation of the Roman Empire.​

BTW, the Queen in not head of the C of E: Christ Alone is the Head of the Church. The Queen is Supreme Governor. I can’t see the Pope being chief pastor if he has to be so ineffective. The weakness in the idea, is that it allows the current status quo to be restored very quickly.

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.

Not possible - they reckon Rome is heretical. I would have to unsay some of its dogmas for them to think differently. This why the two cannot agree - each requires of the other what the other cannot do. I think they might as well agree to differ: perhaps even accept their separation as God’s Will.​

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.

LCD ecumenism is a non-starter. And many Protestants want zero to do with Rome.​

How about this though: allow multiple Church membership ? A Catholic could go to Mass, then, in the afternoon, to a Baptist or Anglican or other church. Eventually, what with everyone going to several churches, the divisions would solve themselves. Perhaps Why have several bodies, when we already believe one another’s doctrines, sing one another’s hymns, read one another’s authors, pray one another’s prayers, & attend one another’s services ? Having competing churches made sense when we were calling down anathemas on one another - but not now.

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.

I like the sound of that - how would it work in practice ?​

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.

Maybe we are making similar suggestions, but from different POVs.​

I don’t see this getting anywhere - OTOH, the Church is one in Christ, & that is where it matters: man’s divisiveness does not extend to Heaven. And that makes our earthly divisions of very slight importance

 

[Peter_J]

How about this though: allow multiple Church membership ?

I don’t know about that. I think that the Melkite “Dual-Communion” proposal makes a certain amount of sense, but the idea you propose seems a little too “out there”:

A Catholic could go to Mass, then, in the afternoon, to a Baptist or Anglican or other church. Eventually, what with everyone going to several churches, the divisions would solve themselves. Perhaps Why have several bodies, when we already believe one another’s doctrines, sing one another’s hymns, read one another’s authors, pray one another’s prayers, & attend one another’s services ? Having competing churches made sense when we were calling down anathemas on one another - but not now.

(I’m guessing that you aren’t quite 100% serious anyway. )

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t know about that. I think that the Melkite “Dual-Communion” proposal makes a certain amount of sense, but the idea you propose seems a little too “out there”:

(I’m guessing that you aren’t quite 100% serious anyway. )

I’m not - I’m 200% serious (so to put it). ​

 

[Ahimsa]

How about this though: allow multiple Church membership ? A Catholic could go to Mass, then, in the afternoon, to a Baptist or Anglican or other church.

Oh, I’ve been doing that for years.

 

[Ahimsa]

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.

Question 1: What does a “chief pastor” actually do?

Question 2: Proposal: allow the “Pope-as-chief-pastor” Catholics to interpret Catholic dogma creatively. E.g., papal infallibility would be defined as “the Pope is infallible, whenever he is infallible.”