Is the Catholic Church Supreme?

[Semper_Fi_1]

I think that same hand has been extended now to the Orthodox with JPII and Benedict. I think we are blessed indeed to have Holy popes in our time, and I pray that their labors will facilitate reunification. I see that both of these men carry their apostolate in humility, without arrogance, unbending from the truth, but conciliatory. What a great grace!

I think it’s a bad assumption to say that we have been blessed with good Popes just in our time, the great majority of Popes throughout history have been good.

 

[guanophore]

I think it’s a bad assumption to say that we have been blessed with good Popes just in our time, the great majority of Popes throughout history have been good.

Oh, you are adding a “just” that does not exist. I am fully aware that there have been many holy popes, and I am not making any assumption to the contrary. In fact, I am saying that I feel blessed to be able to have these popes during my lifetime so that I can witness their good deeds.

 

[nerfherder]

I went back through several recent threads to pick up the sense among posters of the Church’s supremacy. I think for the most part, the assumption is innocent perhaps - part of cradle Catholic’s belief, and ignorance of other denominations and even other religions. But the supremacy or sole authority assumption is a central belief for many:

…if one considers that there is only One Church and that that Church has “things” the other so-called churches do not….OK, go visit your friends at Good Book Baptist down the street. Contramundum7

These people DO indeed have some inkling of a piece of “the Truth” (Christianity), as the Catholic catechism admits (842-843 and environs), because all humans are drawn toward God. They are NOT as blessed as we are, as they have not been given a more thorough measure of the truth (as we Christians have), and no one is more blessed than the Catholic person, as they have the fullest measure of the truth. Keikiolu

This does not mean I do not love and respect protestants… I simply think it is of utmost importance to their salvation that they understand they are wrong and have been conditioned to ignore the far more grounded and correct teachings of the church built upon the Rock of St. Peter. Colliric

Before Luther, there was no distinction between “Christian” and “Catholic” and there were no “denominations”. It was only when Protestants decided that they were not “Catholic” that they suddenly relabeled everything as anything but Catholic. It’s not unlike a bunch of brats who left home and decided that their father’s surname is no longer Smith. Strange, isn’t it? Chancellare

As it comes to non-Catholics using scripture against us, I think they are stuck on themselves, they want to control themselves and others and don’t want to submit fully to the will of the God, unless it is on their terms. many are also ignorant on the history of scripture or the Church. Bennie P-----

What is clear is that the Scriptures were written by the Church and for the Church. Nothing else makes any difference. It’s nice that non-Apostolic people wish to use them but it is not nice when they are used against the Church whose Scriptures they are. That is my analogy to the offensive tactics employed by the Protestants since their revolt. The point I’ve made has nothing to do with emotions. It has everything to do with my objection to non Apostolic christians misusing our Scriptures. GregoryPalamas

I admit many do not understand that Christ speaks through His Church on matters of faith and morals. That folks do not perceive that yet does not make their understanding correct. fix

We certainly know that everyone and anyone can speak on the subject of faith and morals, and do so! However, only the Magesterium has the authority, given by Christ, to speak on His behalf on those faith and morals. Guanophore

In the second posting, I have chosen observations which tend to refute an assumption of Catholic supremacy.

 

[nerfherder]

In a second batch of comments, posters have taken issue with the assumption of the so-called scripture-based authority of the RCC:

This church that Jesus founds on Peter is Jesus’ church, not the Catholic Church. You may think they are the same. You may have been taught that they are the same for more than 1000 years. But that does not make it so. And to say that it is true because the Catholic Church says it is true is the epitome of a circular argument….Whatever you think of Paul’s “body of Christ”, it is clear that Jesus’ “church” from Matthew 16, belongs to Jesus, not to some future institution. All who belong to Jesus belong to it. As the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of all Christians, then it recognizes that all Christians belong to Christ. If all Christians belong to Christ, then they are part of his Church, even if not part of the Catholic Church. So this assembly of all who belong to Christ is what the gates of Hell cannot prevail against. No mention is made of the Catholic Church at all. We shall just have to pray for its continuous existence as a subset within the Church which belongs to Christ. Grace Seeker.

Believe me, everyone who belongs to another Christian denomination considers the Roman Catholic Church to be a denomination. The Catholic position on this issue is like citizens of the United States considering that they are the only “Americans” and ignoring the fact that the citizens of the Latin American countries also consider themselves to be Americans. In their eyes, United States’ citizens are only one, among many, varieties of Americans. Likewise the Catholic Church. Rr1213

I was speaking of the Catholic Church’s concept of the Church being only a physical body, and that it is not an invisible body of all Christians. If it is a physical body, the Orthodox have as much right to claim this presence in their organization as do the Catholics. And the Catholics should grant it. This would make for Christ’s physical body to be divided, for it is in schism. But Christ is not divided. Because in truth, when talking about the Church as the body of Christ, Paul is not talking about the same thing that the Catholic Church is talking about. Thus if one is forced to understand the Church as the body of Christ in either the understanding used by Paul or the understanding used by the Catholic Church, I will go with what Paul spoke about. I would rather teach contrary to the Catholic Church on this matter and be labeled a heretic, than to teach contrary to the scriptures. *Grace *Seeker

You simply cannot continue to rely, through millennia, on the arcane argument that Christ gave his Church to Peter and the apostles. Too much has happened down the centuries, in terms of experience, religious scholarship, scholarship of other kinds, new knowledge and understanding and faith. You are treading on dangerous and divisive ground when you insist on dragging out one, single, not always inherently persuasive argument for the authority of the RCC. I think you are going to have to do a lot better than this. It is not enough for a lot of us within and without the Catholic paradigm. I sense that there is a rebellion fomenting on this one. Not good enough any more. nerfherder

In the current version of the Nicene Creed, we all say *We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. * Small c catholic is like small c communism: a concept, an idea. In this case catholic refers to the universal church, the body of Christ. Big C Catholic is the Church of Rome. Big C Communism was the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) or the People’s Republic of China. They are/were organisations. The Nicene Creed, when it says we believe in *one catholic church *clearly says that we believe in the universal church of Christ - and that is the body of all those redeemed by Christ. nerfherder

I have tried to select more moderate statements on both sides of the schism. I hope giving the opinions expressed on the Forum - many of which are startling in their frankness - would help move discussion along.

Is it possible that th ‘supremacists’ will not come out here? Perhaps they do not understand they are indeed supremacists. This is not to make any judgement.

 

[kellie]

I, too, never understand the attacks on the Papacy.

The Pope is a man, just as St Peter was. And all men sin.

Just because a pope may appear arrogant, worldly, power hungry, does not mean he is leading the teachings of the church in this way, as his teachings are infallible as they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I agree the pope should not act in this way, that is power hungry etc, as we are all called to act like Jesus.

However ,we all sin.

It seems as if this thread is saying it is due to the bad behaviour of past popes led to people leaving the church and forming their own churches.

People still do this today.

The problem with this is, these people aren’t looking at the Truth the church teaches, which cannot be argued with, but rather they are looking at the outwardly appearance of the church, which is shown through popes, bishops, priests, and members.

All of these people sin, all of these people are not perfect like Jesus was.

If this can be looked past, people would stay with the church, as the church holds the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

I went back through several recent threads to pick up the sense among posters of the Church’s supremacy. I think for the most part, the assumption is innocent perhaps - part of cradle Catholic’s belief, and ignorance of other denominations and even other religions. But the supremacy or sole authority assumption is a central belief for many:

…if one considers that there is only One Church and that that Church has “things” the other so-called churches do not….OK, go visit your friends at Good Book Baptist down the street. Contramundum7

These people DO indeed have some inkling of a piece of “the Truth” (Christianity), as the Catholic catechism admits (842-843 and environs), because all humans are drawn toward God. They are NOT as blessed as we are, as they have not been given a more thorough measure of the truth (as we Christians have), and no one is more blessed than the Catholic person, as they have the fullest measure of the truth. Keikiolu

This does not mean I do not love and respect protestants… I simply think it is of utmost importance to their salvation that they understand they are wrong and have been conditioned to ignore the far more grounded and correct teachings of the church built upon the Rock of St. Peter. Colliric

Before Luther, there was no distinction between “Christian” and “Catholic” and there were no “denominations”. It was only when Protestants decided that they were not “Catholic” that they suddenly relabeled everything as anything but Catholic. It’s not unlike a bunch of brats who left home and decided that their father’s surname is no longer Smith. Strange, isn’t it? Chancellare

As it comes to non-Catholics using scripture against us, I think they are stuck on themselves, they want to control themselves and others and don’t want to submit fully to the will of the God, unless it is on their terms. many are also ignorant on the history of scripture or the Church. Bennie P-----

What is clear is that the Scriptures were written by the Church and for the Church. Nothing else makes any difference. It’s nice that non-Apostolic people wish to use them but it is not nice when they are used against the Church whose Scriptures they are. That is my analogy to the offensive tactics employed by the Protestants since their revolt. The point I’ve made has nothing to do with emotions. It has everything to do with my objection to non Apostolic christians misusing our Scriptures. GregoryPalamas

I admit many do not understand that Christ speaks through His Church on matters of faith and morals. That folks do not perceive that yet does not make their understanding correct. fix

We certainly know that everyone and anyone can speak on the subject of faith and morals, and do so! However, only the Magesterium has the authority, given by Christ, to speak on His behalf on those faith and morals. Guanophore

In the second posting, I have chosen observations which tend to refute an assumption of Catholic supremacy.

An excellent set of examples! That took a lot of work

I think a distinction needs to be made between treasuring the deposit of faith, and the gift of the magesterium, and the notion of “supremacy”. As I have stated on another thread, it is not appropriate to “lord it over” others. If Catholics believe they have the fullness of truth, it is not necessary to put down others that do not have it, and I see that happens often. I get defensive myself when I think I am being insulted by non-Catholics. I just had to post an apology to Grace Seeker on that matter.

 

[guanophore]

I, too, never understand the attacks on the Papacy.

The Pope is a man, just as St Peter was. And all men sin.

Just because a pope may appear arrogant, worldly, power hungry, does not mean he is leading the teachings of the church in this way, as his teachings are infallible as they are guided by the Holy Spirit.

I agree the pope should not act in this way, that is power hungry etc, as we are all called to act like Jesus.

However ,we all sin.

It seems as if this thread is saying it is due to the bad behaviour of past popes led to people leaving the church and forming their own churches.

People still do this today.

The problem with this is, these people aren’t looking at the Truth the church teaches, which cannot be argued with, but rather they are looking at the outwardly appearance of the church, which is shown through popes, bishops, priests, and members.

All of these people sin, all of these people are not perfect like Jesus was.

If this can be looked past, people would stay with the church, as the church holds the Truth.

I think there are several reasons for this. One being that most folks don’t understand the meaning of infallible, and equate it with personal inerrancy. Also, since the Pope is the most visible sign of unity for Catholics, when he behaves badly, then his action is attributed to the whole flock.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I have tried to select more moderate statements on both sides of the schism. I hope giving the opinions expressed on the Forum - many of which are startling in their frankness - would help move discussion along… Is it possible that th ‘supremacists’ will not come out here? Perhaps they do not understand they are indeed supremacists. This is not to make any judgement.

Um… to ask the obvious… what does the Church say?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Not at all. I am just saying that some of the Popes acted like kings of this world

Please define authority.

Are you saying that servant leaders have no authority? Yes or no, please.

 

[guanophore]

Um… to ask the obvious… what does the Church say?

I think the point the OP was making is that it is not relevant what the church says. What is relevant is what most people think.

Please define authority.

Hmmm…I think, from the standpoint of the title, it would mean that the Catholic Church gets to be the one to say what is right, an what is wrong. What is acceptable and what is not. The OP seemed to indicate that the CC does not necessarily have any more right to be “supreme” than any other denomination.

Please define authority.

Are you saying that servant leaders have no authority? Yes or no, please.

I already answered this in another post. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that a leader with a servant heart does not “rule over” people by abuse of power after the manner of “the kings of this world”.

Here is an example of what a good servant leader has to say about authority:

1 Peter 2:13-17

" Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. "

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by sandmountainsli
It is my opinion that the Holy Catholic Church constitutes ALL churches with belief in the Trinity, Resurrection of Christ and his Divinity.

Because what you have posted is completely incorrect, I’m glad to see that it’s only your opinion.

 

[guanophore]

Because what you have posted is completely incorrect, I’m glad to see that it’s only your opinion.

Since the scripture is inerrant, and scripture says there is only "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Eph 4:5-8

Then there must only be “one church”. However, I note that Vat.2 calls the gatherings of separated brethren “ecclesial communities”.

 

[sandmountainsli]

However, I note that Vat.2 calls the gatherings of separated brethren “ecclesial communities”.

Vatican II is as valid as a plastic nickel.
The Palmerian Catholics will agree with me on that.
WP

 

[Ani_Ibi]

guanophore:

I think the point the OP was making is that it is not relevant what the church says. What is relevant is what most people think.

Ah! The authority of what most people think. This of course is the ad populem fallacy.

guanophore:

Hmmm…I think, from the standpoint of the title, it would mean that the Catholic Church gets to be the one to say what is right, an what is wrong. What is acceptable and what is not.

On faith and morals.

guanophore:

The OP seemed to indicate that the CC does not necessarily have any more right to be “supreme” than any other denomination.

The point is that your point has not been substantiated. Only tautologized.

guanophore:

I already answered this in another post.

I asked for clarity.

guanophore:

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that a leader with a servant heart does not “rule over” people by abuse of power after the manner of “the kings of this world”.

The fallacy of euphemism. You are attempting to equate “authority” with “rule over people by abuse of power after the manner of the kings of this world.” And that equation is invalid.

guanophore:

Here is an example of what a good servant leader has to say about authority: 1 Peter 2:13-17

Proof-texting. Selective interpretation and therefore based on incomplete premises. No attempt to define authority and therefore once again a euphemistic interpretation. Therefore invalid reasoning.

It also implies that the Church – because it has authority – is not a servant leader and that implication is unsubstantiated. But at least we can agree that the Church has authority. Or at least it seems that way from what you have said thus far.

So, if the Church has authority, then what is the problem?

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by guanophore
Then there must only be “one church”. However, I note that Vat.2 calls the gatherings of separated brethren “ecclesial communities”.

Correct. There IS only ONE church. The Holy Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.
That is way the “ecclesical communities” made up of every Christian outside of the one Church can not be part of that One Holy Catholic Church.

 

[nerfherder]

Guanophore has written:

There is only One Church, One Lord, One faith, One baptism. There is no other Church except the one Christ founded. If any have established what they believe is such a thing, then it is counterfeit, and is not, in truth, part of the Body of Christ.

I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) **or **the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, **or **is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, **or **is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, **or **is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

I shall add

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, **or **are they the Scriptures belonging only to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

Is there a brave Catholic who can give me a succinct and true answer: no sophistry allowed!

Ever,

 

[nerfherder]

From another thread.

MrS

**Re: The Catholic Church is just another denomination **

---

Originally Posted by nerfherder
I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

Yes
*he “Roman” Catholic Church is the Catholic Church…Roman Rite.
The Church is
[a] The Body of Christ… those who are baptized into that body… some remain in a state of grace , some wither and die off… some gravely sin and are out of a state of grace but return in true repentance.
** The visable, growing entity founded as ONE by Jesus Christ on Peter the Rock, His Vicar (representative or "prime minister re:Isaah if you will). This Church is perfect and without sin as it is Jesus Himself… whereas [a] is full of sinners.
[c] the Bride of Christ, the Spouse of the Lord.

And surely the Church {a} is Jesus Himself as the Head… per Paul’s conversion story in ACTS

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Lord, or Dominus, means Master. God is our master in that he created and owns us. How wonderful HE chooses to then give us the grace to become His brothers and sisters.
The Catholic Church has always affirmed that all worship belongs to the Triune God – only and alone. Some Catholics may not understand that word when they “admit” that they “worship” Mary or the saints. It is quite different to worship than to simply venerate.

So your or is quite misleading and shows a bit of misunderstanding of the Catholic Faith

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

The Deposit of Faith lies with the Apostles and their Successors as taught in so many places in the Scriptures. If your faith community, or another’s faith community believes something different that what The Catholic Church defines as Doctrine (not to be mistaken with practices or disciplines), then you are missing out.

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

The One baptism is that as spoken of by the Lord to Nicodemus… born again of water and the spirit. It cannot be re-done. The Lord provides that grace, and He does not do it wrong the first time. The Great Commission further gives the “form” to accompany that baptism.

I shall add

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging only to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

The Scripture human authors were most certainly all Catholic. There was no other form of authentic Christianity … and there still is not.

The Catholic Church was/is the vehicle for dispensing the written word to the world. The Bible is the Book of the Catholic Church. I guess we are the “original Bible Christians”

Today’s Bible Christian may belong to a “church of the Bible”… but that is of their own doing… and not of the Holy Spirit Who would not divide the One Church.

__________________**

 

[Valke2]

I really don’t think Mark 10: 41-45 supports your position very well, if at all. You should read the parts of the Bible were Jesus is speaking directly to Peter and you should be able to pick up on Peter being sinled out as the leader of Christs Church.

May God bless and protect us,
JLC

Even so. Peter is long dead and gone. I’m assuming you can trace papal lineage back to Peter. But why should that mean that the Church is the one true church? If I could trace my rabbi’s lineage back to Moses, that would be interesting. It would not mean that his interpetation of Judaism was supreme or the most correct.

What did Peter say about the trinity?

 

[nerfherder]

From another thread:

jmcrae
Senior Member

Re: The Catholic Church is just another denomination

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerfherder
I am asking:

(1) One Church:
Is that the universal body of Christ (catholic church) or the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome (Catholic Church)?

These are normally one and the same thing.

There are people who are “invisibly joined” to the Church. This being Christ’s Church, Christ having appointed Peter to be its chief shepherd, and Peter having appointed Linus, etc., on down to Pope Benedict XVI and beyond, for as long as there are human beings on the earth.

Quote:

(2) One Lord:
Is that Yaweh, the God worshipped by all Christians, or is that the Lord as defined and adored by the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

Again, one and the same thing. Yahweh (I AM) is God the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Quote:

(3) One Faith:
Is that the Christian faith, interpreted variously by Christian denominations, or is that the Catholic Christian faith of which the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome is the principal keeper?

That faith which was given by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles to their successors, on down to the present-day Bishops of that Catholic Church that has its headquarters at the Vatican in Rome.

Quote:

(4) One baptism
Is that the baptism of any Christian believer who follows the teachings of Christ, or is that the baptism and confirmation of believers into the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome?

All Trinitarian Baptism is Catholic Baptism. We don’t re-baptize converts.

Quote:

(5) The Scriptures
Are these the Christian books (never mind the number) that form the Bible which sets out the core of belief for all Christians, or are they the Scriptures belonging only to the Roman Catholic Church/Church of Rome.

They are the same Scriptures that were discerned by the Bishops of the Catholic Church who attended the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo during the late 300s AD, whose findings were anticipated by Pope Damasus (Catholic Pope) and infallibly promulgated to the Catholic Church by Pope Innocent I (who was the Catholic Pope who took over from Pope Damasus, when he died).

Which, as it turns out, (minus a few books and verses here and there) are also used by every other organization that calls itself “Christian.”

 

[nerfherder]

Continued from another thread (see above)

jmcrae
Senior Member

**Re: The Catholic Church is just another denomination **​

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerfherder

Very many thanks - and, in anticipation, to any others who care to comment. There is much here to think about.

And there are of course further implications:

Did Christ found the Church of Rome - the Roman Catholic Church - or did he found the universal catholic church - the body of Christ?

The headquarters of the visible, organizational Church that Christ established is today found in the city of Rome, at the Vatican. Its Dioceses and parishes are found throughout the world, where ever there are human beings (and even in some places where there are not currently any human beings).

The sequence was, Christ gave the Church to → Peter and The Apostles who gave it to → The Early Church who gave it to → the modern-day Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:

Are all other major Christian denominations ‘counterfeit’, in your interpretation or opinion or according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome?

As organizational entities, they were founded by human beings; not by God. (The RC Church was founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of God the Trinity.) Furthermore, their starting dates, in most cases, are more than 1500 years after the death resurrection, and ascension into Heaven of Christ - not to mention 1500 years after He gave the church to Peter, and then Peter gave it to Pope Linus, who then gave it to Pope Anacletus, who then gave it to Pope Clement, etc., until Pope John Paul II gave it to Pope Benedict XVI.

The individuals within them are invisibly joined to the Catholic Church through their Trinitarian baptism, and because they intend to follow Jesus Christ, and are doing so to the best of their ability and understanding.

Quote:

Am I to understand that having been cradled in the Christian church - Canadian Convention Baptist, mainstream, conservative, founded by dour Scots in Canada in the 1830s - and baptised (total immersion) at 12, having worked in Africa for forty years according to the examples and values taught by Christ and now contemplating conversion, I have been utterly misled? That I am not, and never have been a Christian? That I am not one of those who might, just might have a look-in at heaven (whatever)? That I am a counterfeit Christian, belonging to a counterfeit Church?

Let’s put it this way: You are a real Christian (because you have a Trinitarian baptism and you are doing your best to follow Jesus Christ), invisibly and unbeknownst to yourself, joined to the Christ’s Church, who has somehow ended up attending the worship services of a man-made schismatic and possibly heretical institution. (If it makes you feel any better, I’m sure that those born into paganism who find out about Christianity when they are adults find it difficult to believe that everything they were taught to believe in as children is false, too. )

Are you truly saying that over 100 million Christians worldwide are in the same bag - counterfeit believers, not worthy to wash His feet?

While also not forgetting that there are more than 4 billion atheists, Hindus, pagans, Muslims, Communists, Jews, etc. who are in even worse trouble, having never so much as heard the name of Jesus, or if they have, not having had the Gospel proclaimed to them in a comprehensible and convincing manner.

Nobody likes to believe that their parents didn’t teach them correctly about God.