In Ut Unum Sint Pope John Paul II speaks of his " acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".
- Status
P
PJH_74
Guest
It’s more than you think:
Declaration on the Way
Most notably, the “Declaration on the Way” includes 32 “Statements of Agreement” where Lutherans and Catholics no longer have church-dividing differences on issues of church, ministry and the Eucharist. Those statements previously had been affirmed by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.
So no, this does not mean recognition of papal primacy and I don’t think you’ll ever see.it. But, it represents growth towards each other and both sides affirming the further legitimacy of each other.
H
Hodos
Guest
That is a very thoughtful question. Thank you for posing this. I think that many Protestants, I hesitate to speak for all, would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with an episcopal polity with a clearly defined hierarchy. In fact many Protestant denominations operate precisely in this way. Even if they don’t have a pure episcopal polity, many have a hybrid congregational polity that is overseen by a hierarchical structure. So I don’t think for most people that this is an issue. Most Protestant groups also believe in the judicious use of church discipline, although to be honest I don’t think any denomination, Catholic or Protestant, exercises church discipline consistently or effectively in my experience.
The conservative Reformation never had an issue with Roman Catholic polity. Where we differ is what are the limits of authority under an episcopal polity. The conservative reformers took issue with the claims of infallibility, particularly where doctrine contrasted with the clear revelation of scripture. In other words, what do you do when those in authority in the church come into conflict with scripture. The reformers determined that the nature of scripture, being the god-breathed word of God, is the ultimate authority to which we appeal for guidance in regard to matters of faith and doctrine.
If Roman Catholics and at least conservative Protestants could agree that the Church is submissive to the word of God in matters of faith and doctrine, then much could be done to mend the split that we find ourselves within.
I would disagree here. Even a number of Roman Catholic historians agree that the concept of the primacy of Rome was a development that was formulated over the period of the first 5-600 years of the Church. And the Eastern Orthodox would recognize a traditional primacy of specific sees that carried authority, but believe that this authority was an authority of equals or that it was submissive to ecumenical councils.
As a continuing Anglican, I recognize the Bishop of Rome as being more than just a Bishop. He is the historic leader of the Church Catholic, having primacy within the Church.
That doesn’t mean I think he has universal jurisdiction, or is infallible ex cathedra. I don’t.
And there’s the distinction. If these two teachings were to be understood in a way acceptable to EO and continuing Anglicans, being in full communion with him would be welcome and celebrated
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I respect this so much. I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge at least the primacy of his office.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Every doctrine developed. Even the canon of Scripture developed over several centuries.
But I maintain the notion of Roman primacy, in itself, was always present. That is, if you asked 2nd century Christians: “Which church has primacy? Where should we look?” They’d say Rome. This is expressed in several ways. Some more explicit then others — again, to quote Irenaeus who says Rome is the chief example of apostolic succession, of orthodoxy, and that all Christians must agree with Rome.
As for the Orthodox, well, again, it depends on the Orthodox person you ask. See the above conversation regarding Kallistos Ware. But, ultimately, Orthodox can’t say every bishop is equal in every way when they themselves have an “ecumenical patriarch” who holds primacy in some sense. This role, to them, was in fact held by none other than Rome first, by their own admission!
But anyway, I’m not sure if I see practical recommendations on how a Protestant can in fact acknowledge Rome as having primacy — no matter how you define that primacy. Any ideas?
Last edited:
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
So the real question is, Is this role of divine/apostolic foundation, or merely an ecclesial creation?
I think you’ll find that the earliest theories of primacy were the former.
[In other words, if the primacy is divine/apostolic foundation, then does it make sense for this office to go out of whack to the extent one could separate oneself from this divine/apostolic institution?]
But that’s another thread.
This is more about practical application, not just theoretical. For example, how do you personally – in your everyday life – appropriate the Pope as your own pastor?
Last edited:
First, I wouldn’t use the term “merely” as a descriptor for ecclesial. Polity, ecclesiology are vital to the health of the Church.
To the extent that one can say the Spirit has guided the Church’s ecclesiology, the answer is yes, his primacy has a divine element.
And to reiterate what you said, we speaking of the early thought of the Church, not more recent which includes universal jurisdiction and infallibility ex cathedra.
I don’t know about appropriate, but the Pope is influential in my thinking, in theology and faith.
Popes St John Paul and particularly Benedict XVI have been very influential
H
Hodos
Guest
Protestants cannot submit to Rome with the current doctrines in place regarding Papal primacy and infallibility. I would agree with you, there is no practical recommendation that could be made as Roman doctrine currently stands. As I mentioned before, the issue I see is not necessarily with the hierarchical polity that is the structure of the Roman Church, the issue is with how the polity has been invested with infallibility which we feel allows there to be a contradiction with scripture that cannot be self-corrected. That is where we are coming from. Hope that makes sense.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Not with that attitude.
H
Hodos
Guest
Agreed. I am comfortable with this position as I feel that doctrine is an extraordinarily important issue in the governance of the Church. I am sure that you would agree with that point.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
If Protestants looked to Rome and the Pope, they would cease to be Protestant.
Nonsense. It depends on what you look to the pope for.
Millions of “Protestants” looked to and admired Pope St John Paul for his Christian love, compassion, and faith. They also loved and admired Pope Benedict XVI for his deep knowledge and understanding of Reformation era beliefs and teachings. Many are grateful to Pope St John XXIII for opening the door to modern dialogue and ecumenism.
G
gazelam
Guest
The historical record does not bear this out.
Karl Morrison, then-professor of Medieval History at the University of Chicago, notes that both Cyprian and Tertullian rejected the primacy of Rome.
Regarding Cyprian he notes: “But, in this letter to Pope Cornelius, Cyprian continued to deny that the Bishop of Rome could rightly judge the case appealed to him on the principle that every bishop must judge definitely the cases which arose in his see, and that once his judgment had been given there could be no appeal.”
Regarding Tertullian, Morrison notes: Tertullian once wrote of Rome as the see whence apostolic authority had come to the hands of North Africans (De praescr. haer., 36; Corp. Christ ., ser. Lat., 1, 216f), but in that passage, he also referred to Corinth, Philippi, Thessaloniki, and Ephesus, all “apostolic churches, where the very thrones of the Apostles preside and their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.” Tertullian assigned no administrative headship to these apostolic sees, and in denying Rome adjudication in North African matters, Cyprian indicates that he was of the same mind.
For a more complete read, see this blog entry: Scriptural Mormonism: Karl F. Morrison on Irenaeus, Cyprian, and the Question of Roman Primacy
Last edited:
G
gazelam
Guest
Karl Morrison, then-professor of Medieval History at the University of Chicago, notes the problems with the Irenaeus passage:
Scholars who have thought this section the earliest assertion of papal supremacy have so argued because in their view St. Irenaeus seems to say that the faith of the whole Church has been preserved in the Roman succession, and thus, by implication, that the faith of the Roman Church, or even more the faith of the Roman bishops, is the canon of orthodoxy. This interpretation, however, leaves out of account two factors: the technical question of manuscript tradition and the context of Irenaeus’s remarks. Irenaeus wrote “Against Heresies” in Greek, but soon afterwards a Latin translation of it appeared which, as far as we can tell, was not consistently faithful to the original text. The Greek text only survives in fragments; the translation alone preserves large sections of the treatise. One such section is the passage in question. Any translation of this passage must do violence to the text as it stands. The confused syntax in the critical statement indicates that the translator did not accurately understand Irenaeus’s text, or that the translation itself has become garbled. In either case, the Latin version as it stands does not represent exactly Irenaeus’s thought. Furthermore, the context of the section argues strongly against the strict Romanist interpretations; (Karl F. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church 300-1140 [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969], 24-27)
For a more complete read, see this blog entry: Scriptural Mormonism: Karl F. Morrison on Irenaeus, Cyprian, and the Question of Roman Primacy
V
VeryBlessed
Guest
I wonder if accepting papal primacy is too many steps away. I think some intermediary steps are necessary first. I see SO much good in Protestantism, especially on the evangelical side. But what keeps me Catholic is the Protestant underlying premise that “real Christianity died” from the year 100 or 300 or whatever until the reformation. The premise of a lengthy dormant period flies in the face of scripture, for instance, “the gates of hell will never prevail”, and “I will never leave you or forsake you”. It just doesn’t seem like our God to abandon 1000+ years of humanity. Once you get Protestants to accept that God has always had a faithful church, then some kind of God-guided ecclesiastical authority begins to make sense. I ache for what Jesus prayed for just before the cross in John 17, “that they might be one.”
That is not a “Protestant” underlying premise. It is the premise of a few later groups, but certainly Lutherans and Anglicans never taught that.
Lutherans generally accept at least four but usually all seven of the early ecumenical councils. Anglicans the same. All of them happened after 300 AD.
Again, this is a polemic of a small group, not party to the Reformation era or the formal protest at Speyer from which the term springs.
That isn’t the problem. The problem from the point of view of many is that the leadership of the Church was, in some ways, not faithful to the word of God or the early Tradition of the Church. Few if any doubt the faithfulness of God, as it is a ridiculous claim.
I earnestly share this ache, and join my prayer with yours.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Very well said.
M
mch4970
Guest
As a former baptist, there was a particularly powerful argument that helped me consider (and eventually convert to) the authority of the Church. First, I considered the period when bible was canonized. As I read the how’s and who’s of it’s formation I was forced to consider what the church looked like back then. I realized that there was really only one church at that time, the Church, and that Church is still here. I couldn’t shake that concept and was forced to admit that my source of authority, the Holy Bible, came from a greater source, the Church with Jesus as the head.
With the authority of the Church nailed down, seeing the papacy in the Catholic light was relatively easy. I’ve never looked back.
With the authority of the Church nailed down, seeing the papacy in the Catholic light was relatively easy. I’ve never looked back.
The problem is that then, as well as now, those patriarchates that make up the One Church, do not agree on one canon and never had.
That said, I wish you His grace in word and sacrament where you are.
- Status