Is the pope the head of the Church or is Christ?

[Socrates]

So you’re not expecting Christ to return? Or are you saying that when Christ returns He and Bishop of Rome will slug it out and the Vicar of Christ will win, because your infallible teaching is that the Vicar of Christ is the perpetual and visible head of the Church?

I might suggest that before you post something as absurd as this based on an out of context snippet from the Catechism, you look up what the Catechism says about Christ’s return (paragraphs 668-679). The CCC is a systematic presentation of the entire faith and it does not contradict itself. So if your interpretation of a single paragraph contradicts the whole profession of faith as it is laid out in detail, it’s likely that your interpretation is wrong.

You seem to be using the Catechism as a way to “debunk” the Catholic Church in exactly the same manner in which atheists use the bible to “debunk” Christianity. In both cases it’s disingenuous. You simply cannot make credible assertions based on a little piece when you obviously do not understand the whole.

What you’re doing is no different than the anti-Christian who condemns Jesus as a warmonger when He says “Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Lk 12:51) That anti-Christian takes a piece and interprets it in a manner most in tune with his false presuppositions. He does so without making the attempt to understand the whole gospel.

It’s very easy to take a small piece of something large, interpret it in the most damning way possible in order to create a false impression. If it’s unintentional, then I suggest trying to understand the whole before throwing stones. If it’s intentional then you’re just bearing false witness and you don’t really deserve any sort of thoughtful response.

 

[RBushlow]

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The first meaning of ‘perpetual’, I’ve just looked it up on a handy Encarta, is 1.** . . . . **lasting for all time.

That’s right, at the end of time Jesus returns in Glory and Majesty. You see, Our Lord set up the Church to lead men to Him until the end of the age. Maybe someone here can help. What is it that you don’t understand about this?

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

Even the Orthodox believe that Christ gave men the authority to speak in his name.

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Luke 10:16

In Christ’s name I refer you back to post 17 and Cyril of Alexander.

 

[Myhrr]

Wildgraywolf:

The Pope is the visible head of the church on earth, but Jesus is his boss.

That’s debatable…

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

This doesn’t say Christ has full, supreme, universal power over the whole Church, it says the Bishop of Rome has it and he can always exercise it unhindered - unhindered even by Christ?

But the Bishop of rome says he is Christ here…

 

[Myhrr]

Socrates:

I might suggest that before you post something as absurd as this based on an out of context snippet from the Catechism, you look up what the Catechism says about Christ’s return (paragraphs 668-679). The CCC is a systematic presentation of the entire faith and it does not contradict itself. So if your interpretation of a single paragraph contradicts the whole profession of faith as it is laid out in detail, it’s likely that your interpretation is wrong.

You seem to be using the Catechism as a way to “debunk” the Catholic Church in exactly the same manner in which atheists use the bible to “debunk” Christianity. In both cases it’s disingenuous. You simply cannot make credible assertions based on a little piece when you obviously do not understand the whole.

What you’re doing is no different than the anti-Christian who condemns Jesus as a warmonger when He says “Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Lk 12:51) That anti-Christian takes a piece and interprets it in a manner most in tune with his false presuppositions. He does so without making the attempt to understand the whole gospel.

It’s very easy to take a small piece of something large, interpret it in the most damning way possible in order to create a false impression. If it’s unintentional, then I suggest trying to understand the whole before throwing stones. If it’s intentional then you’re just bearing false witness and you don’t really deserve any sort of thoughtful response.

Then why not write ‘temporary’ instead of ‘perpetual’ ?

I have yet to come across anything written by the Teaching Authority that isn’t written with great attention to detail.

**668 **"Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."548 Christ’s Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God’s power and authority. Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”, for the Father "has put all things under his feet."549 Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history. In him human history and indeed all creation are “set forth” and transcendently fulfilled.550 **669 **As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body.551 Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”.552

Christ dwells on earth in his Church whose head is the Bishop of rome in place of Christ, perpetually.

I can’t find anything in the rest to 679 to contradict this. It even appears to be saying that the King on his return will be the bishop of Rome. But please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m taking this seriously, I hoped my ‘style’ in presenting this would lighten it somewhat - I don’t actually see anything humourous in this.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm#I

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Myrrh,

It seems Rbushlow did explain it, but perhaps you missed it. I also explained it in my post. The word “perpetual” ACCORDING TO THE VERY DEFINITION YOU GAVE YOURSELF, is a word that relates to the TEMPORAL - it does not relate to the ETERNAL. What more do you need? When Christ returns, it will be at THE END OF TIME.

Can you grasp and apply the rather simple syllogism here? If “perpetual” refers to temporal matters - i.e., matters related to time - then when time ends, then such a situation to which the adjective “perpetual” is attached will no longer exist.

If you need FURTHER explanation, just let us know.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Myhrr]

GAssisi:

Dear Myrrh,

Why do you post things without any knowledge of what you speak? You are trying to sensationalize the word “perpetual” to mean “eternal,” but everyone knows there is a difference between the two words. Perpetual does not mean “for ever” in the manner you are proposing - i.e., “eternal” in the hopes of establishing some off-the-wall exact and complete identity between Christ and the Pope. “Perpetual” means “for ever” as in “permanent” - as when God exhorted His people through His Prophets many times by saying “this sacrifice shall be offered in perpetuity.” “Perpetual” is used exactly because it is distinct from “eternal.” When “perpetual” is used, it means merely that it is permanent UNTIL CHRIST RETURNS.

You obviously do not have a clue about the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence if you assume that the Catholic Church believes that Christ is absent from His Church.

Myrrh, please be more responsible with your posts. You are merely exposing your own ignorance, aside from the fact that your posts are not edifying at all for the Christian.

God bless,
Greg

"“Perpetual” means “for ever” as in “permanent” -

In the definition I gave, the words in bold are explained by the words not in bold. It is one definition.

And this is my objection, I think it unedifying for Christians that one bishop claims he is Christ on earth in the Apostolic Church and your bishop of rome claims he will be that for ever.

“When “perpetual” is used, it means merely that it is permanent UNTIL CHRIST RETURNS.”

Then why not use the word “temporary”?

It doesn’t say that, that’s speculation on your part.

And as I posted to Socrates, I can’t find any relinquishing of the Bishop of Rome’s claim to supreme authority over the Church EVEN ON CHRIST’S RETURN.

I find this a more than a little disconcerting.

 

[Myhrr]

GAssisi:

Dear Myrrh,

It seems Rbushlow did explain it, but perhaps you missed it. I also explained it in my post. The word “perpetual” ACCORDING TO THE VERY DEFINITION YOU GAVE YOURSELF, is a word that relates to the TEMPORAL - it does not relate to the ETERNAL. What more do you need? When Christ returns, it will be at THE END OF TIME.

Can you grasp and apply the rather simple syllogism here? If “perpetual” refers to temporal matters - i.e., matters related to time - then when time ends, then such a situation to which the adjective “perpetual” is attached will no longer exist.

If you need FURTHER explanation, just let us know.

God bless,
Greg

But, but… we pray … for ever and ever Amen, unto the ages of ages, Amen. Forever is a long time for orthodox Christians…

…an eternity one might say…

And, if it didn’t mean perpetual to mean eternal then it should have said temporary and have had done with it. It doesn’t say that. You can think what you like but it doesn’t say that.

Temporary, clearly of time.

Encarta 1. HAVING A LIMITED DURATION lasting for or relating to a limited time

(my use of bold is as Encarta’s)

 

[MariaG]

When someone gives you the authority to “stand in”, if you will, for them, it is completely understood that when they get back, they are in charge. Like a Vice-President acting for the President. The VP is in charge while the President is in surgery, or such, but that doesn’t mean he is president when the real President is out of surgery and recovered. Can you truly not see the difference? This is an honest question, no malice, bad will or sarcasm involved. Just honest discussion sought.

God Bless
Maria

 

[RobedWithLight]

Myhrr:

That’s debatable…

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

This doesn’t say Christ has full, supreme, universal power over the whole Church, it says the Bishop of Rome has it and he can always exercise it unhindered - unhindered even by Christ?

But the Bishop of rome says he is Christ here…

I don’t see any problem here. Perpetual here is applied to mean that the Papacy, and hence the Church will endure until the end of time, when Christ returns. The end of time is not **eternity. **

While the Pope may exercise full authority over the Church, it likewise affirms his subordination to Christ by clearly stating that said authority comes by virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ.

Gerry

 

[Socrates]

Myhrr:

Then why not write ‘temporary’ instead of ‘perpetual’ ?

I have yet to come across anything written by the Teaching Authority that isn’t written with great attention to detail.

It is indeed written with great attention to detail, so if your interpretation were the correct one, I would expect to find something in the CCC which actually states that the bishop of Rome would still be the head even upon Christ’s return, but it is not there in the CCC or any other authentic Catholic document.

*Perpetual * and *temporary * simply do not mean the same thing. Neither do *perpetual * and eternal…especially in Catholic parlance. When I read “perpetual” with Catholic eyes, I think “until the end of time.” When I read “eternal” with Catholic eyes, I think “*beyond * the end of time” (and, to be thorough, “*beyond * the *beginning * of time” as well).

Part of the problem here is semantics. This is why official Church documents are still written in Latin. The meanings of words in Latin have solidified and are no longer in flux as they are in English. It is amazing how many difficulties with Catholic doctrine arise from issues of vocabulary.

Christ dwells on earth in his Church whose head is the Bishop of rome in place of Christ, perpetually.

I can’t find anything in the rest to 679 to contradict this. It even appears to be saying that the King on his return will be the bishop of Rome.

Something that is being missed here is that there is a distinction between the Church militant and the Church triumphant. The Church militant is the members of the Church who are on earth at any given time in history. The Church triumphant are the saints now in heaven.

The pope is the head of the Church militant. Christ is the head of the Church triumphant. The Church militant is in a sense a subset of the Church triumphant, but the Church militant has not completed it’s pilgrimage.

Upon Christ’s return, this world will pass away. There will no longer even be a Church militant because all will be fulfilled. There will only be a Church triumphant with Christ as it’s head.

Temporary, clearly of time.

Encarta 1. HAVING A LIMITED DURATION lasting for or relating to a limited time

And in this respect “perpetual” would mean having unlimited duration, or until the END of time. Eternity is outside of time, so “duration” has no meaning whatsoever in eternity.

So are you now just being a literary critic and simply saying that different words should have been used to express the concept? Or are you insisting that the concept is indeed what you think it is regardless of the fact that no Catholic actually believes what you say Catholics believe? The first position is reasonable, the second is not.

 

[Socrates]

This doesn’t say Christ has full, supreme, universal power over the whole Church, it says the Bishop of Rome has it and he can always exercise it unhindered - unhindered even by Christ?

But the Bishop of rome says he is Christ here…

Nonsense. You need to exercise a little common sense here. What is the purpose of the document you are interpreting. Who is the intended audience?

The CCC is a systematic presentation of Catholic doctrine for Catholics, primarily the bishops of the Church. It is not a work of apologetics. If you are beginning from a position that you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong, there is much in the CCC that you can misinterpret (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

If you’re really interested in untying this knot, don’t use the CCC as your only resource. Read the work of Catholic apologists who present Catholic teaching without assuming that their audience already has a reasonably sufficient Catholic formation. You’re arguing calculus without having ever understood algebra-1. Persisting in such an argument makes you look like a bomb thrower rather than someone who is genuinely trying to understand.

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

Forever is a long time for orthodox Christians…
…an eternity one might say…

Dear Myhrr,
I realize that you have the idea that the office of Pope will go on forever, even past the end of time. This is incorrect. The office of the Pope will be vacated when Our Lord returns in Glory to judge the living and the dead. That’s the way it is.

 

[Myhrr]

MariaG:

When someone gives you the authority to “stand in”, if you will, for them, it is completely understood that when they get back, they are in charge. Like a Vice-President acting for the President. The VP is in charge while the President is in surgery, or such, but that doesn’t mean he is president when the real President is out of surgery and recovered. Can you truly not see the difference? This is an honest question, no malice, bad will or sarcasm involved. Just honest discussion sought.

God Bless
Maria

I take it honestly! This is the point I’m still trying to get across, not very well, but I don’t mind muddling through this if you don’t.

All the bits I’ve pointed out actually deny that, deny that it’s a thing that will happen in some future time or even can happen in some future time. All the words used together with the dogma of the unhindered power of supremacy over the Church actually denies Christ’s availability outside of the Bishop of rome’s Vicariate and it goes on for ever and ever.

The Orthodox Church was established in Jerusalem where St James the brother of our Lord was bishop for thirty years, he headed the first council. This Church teaches that only Christ is the Head of the Church.

For each member, for every bishop, for every patriarch, for every pope, the same Christ is head of each and all. As Christians we believe that Christ is our God, so are we really saying that God is incapable of keeping his word to us that he is always with us? That wherever two or three are gathered in His name there He is?

If he had truly put one of the apostles as head over the others I’m sure we’d have that clear and obvious in every teaching, in every letter among the Church members, but we don’t. All we have supports a Church with each member equally baptised into the body of Christ on which he continues to have his own head.

It doesn’t make any difference who claims to speak in his name, even to the extent of claiming this right over the whole Church, we, as baptised members according to his teaching all share the same relationship to him, it’s often described as being individual cells in his Body. The idea that one of these cells thinks himself the head is nothing more than an ego trip, which started when one such cell thought himself superior and in authority over a group of such cells, the bishops.

I’ve rather a lot on for a couple of days, hope to look in to read, but might not have time to answer posts until the weekend.

See you all then.

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Myhrr

I take it honestly! This is the point I’m still trying to get across, not very well, but I don’t mind muddling through this if you don’t.

Fabulous. With so much bad will on the boards lately, I just wanted to make sure you understood the “tone” of my letter.

Of course we are not saying that God cannot keep His promises. But all we have to do is look at the early churches to see that there was discension. Because of that, Christ and then the Apostles laid the groundwork for the Authority of the church.

We see in the Bible (Titus 1:5, Act 14:23, 1 Tim 3:1,8; 5:17) the creation of the office of bishop, deacon and priet(presbyters). We also see that there were replacements for people. Here is that word , it was meant to be perpetual, as in until Christ returned.

In my opinion, the difference is that Catholics believe Christ made the promises about His Church and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. In Mal 2:7 we are suppossed to seek instruction from priest. Catholics do not believe this has changed. We still need to seek that instruction. In the NT is tells us not all Scripture is easily understood (darn I can’t find that one, but it was referring to Paul’s letters I believe).

Whereas, Protestants tend to believe that Christ will lead each individual to all truth. I think Scripture shows us that people will make mistakes. The apostles made mistakes. Peter denied Christ 3 times. History shows us that when a central authority is denied as it was during the reformation, Many “truths” spring from the “Holy Spirit” leading each individual to all truth. But Catholics believe that even though individuals can be wrong, God can keep His Church free from error. Not necessarily the people in it, but its teaching will be true to God.
God Bless
Maria

 

[rod_of_iron]

Myrrh is most correct. Perpetual means: lasting for eternity. The synonyms given for perpetual are: eternal, nonstop, ceaseless, constant, continuous, endless, enduring, everlasting, infinite, never-ending, and timeless. There is no way that this word could mean: temporary. But leave it to Catholics to redefine that word so that it will mean quite the opposite of what it really means.

Myrrh posted:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

This tells us that the pope will be the visible replacement for Christ for eternity. You may disagree with me, but if we use the true accepted English meanings for perpetual and vicar, we can have no doubt that the above paragraph means what I said it means.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

Myrrh is most correct. Perpetual means: lasting for eternity. The synonyms given for perpetual are: eternal, nonstop, ceaseless, constant, continuous, endless, enduring, everlasting, infinite, never-ending, and timeless. There is no way that this word could mean: temporary. But leave it to Catholics to redefine that word so that it will mean quite the opposite of what it really means.

Myrrh posted:

This tells us that the pope will be the visible replacement for Christ for eternity. You may disagree with me, but if we use the true accepted English meanings for perpetual and vicar, we can have no doubt that the above paragraph means what I said it means.

Quite wrong, on several counts. 1. Dictionaries don’t prove anything, they just give what the editors consider common meanings. And, as you seem to consistently ignore, different dictionaries have different definitions in different orders for the terms you are focusing on. No dictionary can tell what a given author means by a word in a given context. 2. There is no such thing as “true accepted English meanings.” Meanings are not “true” or “false” and they come from use/context/intention and not some dictionary. You are trying to argue from authority and then creating that authority on your say-so out of thin air. No lexicographer or linguist (or philosopher of language) would be silly enough to speak of “true accepted meanings”–which is why you won’t find them using such language. 3. You have focused on the meaning of “English” words. This also isn’t right. The official language of the Church is not English. English words are used to translate other words and those other words take their meaning from their languages and uses (which are often very precise and technical). The fact that you are not familiar with those meanings is not a failing of the Chruch. 4. The fact that you claim your confusion as arguing against the Chruch (“Why don’t they use ____, if that is what they really mean”) shows that you are not trying to understand what the Church says and arguing against what the Church actually teaches, but instead you are trying “persuasive definitions,” “poisoning the well,” “straw man,” and a host of other logical fallacies to make your point. 5. The very most you could be said to show by that line of fallacious reasoning is that you don’t understand what the Church means by certain words and that you don’t like it. Hardly something to be proud about.

Sorry if others have already made these points.

 

[Faith_is_First]

This tells us that the pope will be the visible replacement for Christ for eternity.

That is not what was meant to be infferred from the reading at all. You know this, you just want to start a controversy. Dont tell us what we believe. This only means that the pope will be necessary until time ends.

Plus, as Augustine said, eternity cannot be described as perpetual, in the sense that you are using it, because eternity is only outside time. Time has a begining and an end.

You may disagree with me, but if we use the true accepted English meanings for perpetual and vicar, we can have no doubt that the above paragraph means what I said it means.

Ecclesiastical definitions are very different from contemporary ones. It isnt ok for people to use a colloqial dictinary for ecclesiastical terms.

 

[Aris]

There should be no problem with perpetual - meaning eternal. That meaning is bounded by our laws and understanding.

However as have been pointed out, Catholics believe that at the End of Time, Christ will come back to reclaim His Throne. Then everything we know as reality ceases. Every definition of what we have will not hold true anymore even time. The only thing that is certain is His Promise.

It should be understood that there should be a visible head to lead the Church because the Church itself is visible. Otherwise, you have all these strange beliefs sprouting up every day and no way of knowing which is true without the visible head telling you otherwise.

 

[homer]

Andrew Larkoski:

When Christ ascended, He realized that He needed a human to act in His place ON EARTH through which Christ would work through to lead His Church.

When exactly did he realize that? Please tell me and show me where and when he realized that? This is just BLASPHEMY!

The Bible not only doesn’t mention anything about Christ realizing that he needs a “Pope” to replace him on earth but also tells who will be with us when Jesus goes to heaven. God sent you his Holy Spirit to lead you and help you and make you feel the real presence of Jesus Christ. But NOOO this is not enough for some people. They need a sinner human being just like the rest of us to replace Jesus on earth!

Honestly can’t you realize that your sentence (When Christ ascended, He realized that He needed a human to act in His place **ON EARTH) **is an exact and perfect definition of the work and the role of Holy Spirit??? And yet …

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Matthew 12:31)

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14: 25-26)