Interesting quote on the Papacy

[dronald]

This Catholic believes the Church’s Teachings do not contradict this guidance from the Lord. Some leaders will fail to become the servant Jesus wishes. Still, they were given authority nevertheless. How they execute that authority can mean all the difference. That is what Jesus was driving at. Consider the Apostle referring to his authority being neglected in 3 John 1
I have written something to the church; but Diot′rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

Remember dronald, Paul also mentioned Jesus along with Peter and Apollos.
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided?
Paul was pointing out that even those who were saying “I belong to Christ” were separating themselves from their brothers. So, I think it’s great that you do bring this passage to attention! Because what was Paul’s response?
Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?.. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Hold on a second here…

The entire point of these few passages about those claiming to follow certain Apostles was to point the people arguing back to Christ. “Was Paul crucified for you, or were baptized in the name of Paul?” Replace with “Was Christ crucified for you?” Those who were claiming “I follow Christ” were correct. That’s what Paul wanted. Let’s read further:

1 corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,”* are you not being merely human?**
*

I’m going to interject here and ask you, rcwitness; are you not acting merely human right now? By saying “I follow Cephas” are you not acting human? Paul thinks you’re acting in a merely human manner. Continuing:

*5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
*
Can you please explain what “Not anything” means? Who plants? Who waters? And what does that make them? Paul says neither who do such things are anything, but rather God who gives the growth. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that is.

Verse 21 says:** So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.**

Again, your interpretation is wrong here, saying that those who say “I follow Christ” were incorrect in their words. They most certainly were correct. And I also ask if through your Roman Church do you boast in men? Do you boast in Peter?

What is the purpose of the Papacy? Unity of mind and judgement! What is the Sacrament of the Cross? His Eucharist! Both of these are meant to bring us together. Paul was admonishing the Corinthians for their division. The remedy is the Crucified Lord. He was broken, so that we may be healed.

Later in Chapter 10 and 11, Paul addresses the need to receive worthily.
I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Chapter 10 warns the Church how with even some of the Israelites, who had Moses, and supernatural food and drink, God was not pleased with! So please, warn Catholics that we are not immune to the fate of some of these Israelites, even though we have the office of St Peter, or the body and blood of the Lord. Both of these things are Christ Himself. But they are a curse, if we partake of them in an unworthy manner. But you do us all harm, if you say they are not of Christ.

I don’t really disagree with this too much.

 

[rcwitness]

Hold on a second here…

The entire point of these few passages about those claiming to follow certain Apostles was to point the people arguing back to Christ. “Was Paul crucified for you, or were baptized in the name of Paul?” Replace with “Was Christ crucified for you?” Those who were claiming “I follow Christ” were correct. That’s what Paul wanted. Let’s read further:

I see your concern, but I hope to comfort you by explaining what I mean. I, obviously, don’t believe “following Christ” is wrong. What I’m saying is that even though some were saying “I follow Christ” if they were separating themselves from the mind and judgment of Jesus, then those words were not really accurate. Same with the others, since we know that if they were truly following Peter or Apollos or Paul, then they would not be divided. Do you believe Peter, Apollos, Paul and Jesus were divided?

1 corin 3:4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,”* are you not being merely human?***

I’m going to interject here and ask you, rcwitness; are you not acting merely human right now? By saying “I follow Cephas” are you not acting human? Paul thinks you’re acting in a merely human manner. Continuing:

I am not acting human by recognizing Peter or his successors an office which is supreme to other Apostles and Bishops. I am following Jesus, if I follow His Judgment given through those men (by virtue of their office). Paul did seek Confirmation through the Peter as Vicar, but he also did not show partiality to Peter. That was the wisdom of the Holy Apostle.

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.

Can you please explain what “Not anything” means? Who plants? Who waters? And what does that make them? Paul says neither who do such things are anything, but rather God who gives the growth. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that is.

Yes, I don’t adore our leaders. Yet, they are to be obeyed and we can and should find Jesus in their Magisterial Teachings.

Verse 21 says:** *So let no one boast in men***. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Again, your interpretation is wrong here, saying that those who say “I follow Christ” were incorrect in their words. They most certainly were correct. And I also ask if through your Roman Church do you boast in men? Do you boast in Peter?

Again, I don’t believe they were “incorrect in their words” but their words did not show they were really following Jesus anymore than some were following Peter, Apollos, or Paul.

I don’t really disagree with this too much.

Awsome!

 

[LionHeart777]

Why should I submit to Rome? I already am living my life in faith. Give me some clear evidence that Saint Linus who you believe is the second pope to exercise any jurisdiction whatsoever?

Most scholarly works I have read on the Papacy (if not every single one of them), admit that the Church’s understanding developed over time (as it did with many doctrines – the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc.) If you are looking for the doctrine(s) taught at Vatican I, in all of their entirety and as they are explicated there, your search was over before it began because that is an anachronistic expectation. To my knowledge, there is not that much extant on St. Linus.\

Assuming you believe in the Hypostatic Union, it would kind of be like you asking for extant written evidence from one of the Bishops ordained directly by an Apostle that shows them stating that “Christ is one Person (a Divine one), with w/2 natures: both a human and a Divine, and with 2 wills - a human one and a Divine one.”

2 Books I would recommend from a Catholic point of view are:

1.) Robert Eno (a Catholic Patrologist), “The Rise of the Papacy”. He is, in places, conciliatory towards Protestant and Orthodox arguments (in some spots I agree with him here), and I disagree with him in some spots, but overall gives a picture of the development of the Church’s understanding of the Papacy up until about the 6th century.

2.) Harder to find, the Catholic Byzantine Scholar Francis Dvornik’s, “Byzantium and the Roman Primacy”, which gives a good account of the different mindsets of both East and West, and offers a view of the development of the Church’s understanding of the Primacy.

 

[LionHeart777]

P.S.

A short article by the 2nd author, same title as the book (which has more info) can be found here:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

 

[rcwitness]

dronald,

Do you think that we should also take into consideration the translation of what St Paul wrote? It seems that the way he wrote “I follow Cephas” and “I follow Christ” is most accurately translated as “I am of Cephas” “I am of Christ”.

So the use of “follow” can be construed as anyone who “follows” Spiritual direction from a Church leader is divided from Jesus. The RSV-CE translates it as “I belong to Cephas” “I belong to Christ”. I think that is a closer translation to express what Paul was saying.

Furthermore, when we (might) say “I follow Francis” we are doing so, not as “I belong to Francis” but I am fed by Jesus through Francis.

Also, there must have been deeper issues than merely saying “I am of Cephas” “I am of Christ”. What was causing them to assert that? Paul says there were dissentions, strife, quarreling…
Or consider Hebrews 13
Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith… *Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

[Peter_J]

Hold on a second here…

The entire point of these few passages about those claiming to follow certain Apostles was to point the people arguing back to Christ. “Was Paul crucified for you, or were baptized in the name of Paul?” Replace with “Was Christ crucified for you?”** Those who were claiming “I follow Christ” were correct. **

Yes they were correct, but if they were implying that the others *don’t *follow Christ, then they were wrong about that.

 

[PluniaZ]

Evidence for the early papacy:

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858047945971

 

[Monica4316]

I think this article shows a very interesting perspective to consider… catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

 

[Augustine]

I think this article shows a very interesting perspective to consider… catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

I think that it commits the common historical mistake of most Latin Catholics of reading the pope’s supremacy into Peter’s Primacy and acknowledgements or Rome’s faithfulness as exclusive to it.

 

[Monica4316]

I think that it commits the common historical mistake of most Latin Catholics of reading the pope’s supremacy into Peter’s Primacy and acknowledgements or Rome’s faithfulness as exclusive to it.

Augustine, I notice you are Eastern Catholic, I’m Eastern Catholic too - but we too believe in the Catholic doctrines of the Papal infallibility and jurisdiction. For this reason I’m having trouble understanding your posts…

Regarding the article, first someone would need to demonstrate that it’s a mistake… There does seem to be evidence that Peter’s primacy was seen as giving the Pope a certain role in the Church and that’s what the article attempts to show…

 

[rcwitness]

I believe the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has to be searched for, by the Christian. It cannot merely be “asserted” or “lorded” over us. We each must discern what Jesus established in Giving Peter the Keys of the Kingdom and the charge to shepherd and feed His sheep. There is evidence through the Scriptures that Peter “stood up” among the brethren and “went here and there among them all” and was given divine visions to receive Gentile believers into the House of God.

Jesus uses the language of Isaiah 22 when He appointed Peter with the keys…
Thus says the LordGodof hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:16What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock?17Behold, theLord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you,18and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house.19I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.20In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah,21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.22And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.23And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.24And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.25In that day, says theLordof hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for theLordhas spoken.”There are so many words in this passage that reveal the significance of what Jesus was doing with Peter!

Who is Jesus referring to that has this kind of jurisdiction?

*“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?*Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing.*Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.*again, Jesus uses the same language with Peter… “give them their food…”

 

[PluniaZ]

Augustine, I notice you are Eastern Catholic, I’m Eastern Catholic too - but we too believe in the Catholic doctrines of the Papal infallibility and jurisdiction. For this reason I’m having trouble understanding your posts…

Regarding the article, first someone would need to demonstrate that it’s a mistake… There does seem to be evidence that Peter’s primacy was seen as giving the Pope a certain role in the Church and that’s what the article attempts to show…

Quite right. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is explicit in its affirmation of universal papal supremacy:

Canon 43/U]:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P17.HTM

 

[Augustine]

Augustine, I notice you are Eastern Catholic, I’m Eastern Catholic too - but we too believe in the Catholic doctrines of the Papal infallibility and jurisdiction. For this reason I’m having trouble understanding your posts.

As Easterners, we have an obligation of thinking with the mind of our respective particular Churches. Thus, I believe that we are in a better position to understand the misconceptions and misunderstandings between the East and the West and to articulate the positions of one side to the other side (except that myself fall short of this ideal).

Many Latin Catholics are comfortable with just quoting the law, whether it’s actually the law, the text of a council or a synod or a just loose quote pulled out of context, as if it were necessary and sufficient. Not only do the Orthodox regard this as the reading of the riot act, but it also fails to be persuasive and respectable. Not to mention that it’s often a mere fallacy of the argument of authority. I think that all Christians are better than the typical level that such discussions fall down to, both intellectually and spiritually.

 

[Monica4316]

As Easterners, we have an obligation of thinking with the mind of our respective particular Churches. Thus, I believe that we are in a better position to understand the misconceptions and misunderstandings between the East and the West and to articulate the positions of one side to the other side (except that myself fall short of this ideal).

Many Latin Catholics are comfortable with just quoting the law, whether it’s actually the law, the text of a council or a synod or a just loose quote pulled out of context, as if it were necessary and sufficient. Not only do the Orthodox regard this as the reading of the riot act, but it also fails to be persuasive and respectable. Not to mention that it’s often a mere fallacy of the argument of authority. I think that all Christians are better than the typical level that such discussions fall down to, both intellectually and spiritually.

I agree with the part in bold, but I think the mind of our respective particular churches includes believing the Catholic teachings about the Pope, considering that these are Catholic churches in union with Rome. Our view of the Pope would not be the same as the Orthodox.

 

[Augustine]

I agree with the part in bold, but I think the mind of our respective particular churches includes believing the Catholic teachings about the Pope, considering that these are Catholic churches in union with Rome. Our view of the Pope would not be the same as the Orthodox.

At times, I tried to articulate the Orthodox positions to show that they are reasonable and not the result of ill will. How else are we supposed to reconcile and become one again? Certainly not by reading them the riot act, as not only CAF posters often do, but also as popes have done in the past, thus disgracefully missing unique opportunities to heal the Body of Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

At times, I tried to articulate the Orthodox positions to show that they are reasonable and not the result of ill will. How else are we supposed to reconcile and become one again? Certainly not by reading them the riot act, as not only CAF posters often do, but also as popes have done in the past, thus disgracefully missing unique opportunities to heal the Body of Christ.

it isn’t the responsibility of the Bishop of Rome, or any other Catholic, to reconcile Orthodox members. It’s always the individual Christian.

 

[Monica4316]

At times, I tried to articulate the Orthodox positions to show that they are reasonable and not the result of ill will. How else are we supposed to reconcile and become one again? Certainly not by reading them the riot act, as not only CAF posters often do, but also as popes have done in the past, thus disgracefully missing unique opportunities to heal the Body of Christ.

I’m all for seeking unity… I’m not sure how the reunification would happen, but I believe it would eventually. I believe it would be a great grace… for now, we can pray for unity and show charity to one another as Catholics and Orthodox.

To be honest, at times I was confused if you are stating your own opinion… I was trying to clarify the Eastern Catholic position on doctrines mostly because I’m also Eastern Catholic and my understanding is that we have our own spirituality but accept all the Catholic doctrines. For a second I was afraid if my understanding is wrong, that’s why I asked. Maybe I’ll check at the Eastern Catholic forum… the question was just something I’ve been wondering about before but forgot about