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

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

But I have already responded to that argument. Just because the time of Christ’s return is not known by you or me, it does not make the duration of time until He returns indefinite. It is definite that He will return. Indefinite means: "Unclear; vague" or "Lacking precise limits". Neither of these definitions fit the time period that this vicar of Christ is going to reign on Earth, according to Catholic belief, because there is a definite beginning and ending. Indefinite does not mean "unknown". The time limits are set, regardless of whether you or I or anyone on Earth is privy to that information. For example, if you and a friend of yours made an agreement where you set limits for it, if I did not know what these limits were, would it make the length of that time period uncertain or indefinite? Hardly. The time period would have precise limits, regardless of whether or not I was privy to the information.
(continued …)

Here you assume something like a platonic meaning for “indefinite.” Christ’s return is definite (it will happen), that is not the point. The point the Chruch makes by “perpetual” is lasting until that time whenever it is–it recognizes that a definite event has no time set for it that we know of–so we can’t give a precise date. You equivocate “definite” and “indefinite”–in logic that means you are using them with more then one meaning which is a bad thing to do in an argument.

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

If you would read my posts you would find an explanation of your mis-use of the dictionary (confusing, for example, what a word may mean with what a word must mean or does mean in a given context),

How do you prove what a word may mean if not with a dictionary or lexicon? Do you just rely on what a person says a word means to verify that the word may have that meaning? If this is the case, then a student in an English class would be able to successfully argue that all the words that the student used in an essay were used correctly. An English teacher would no longer be able to correct the work of his students, because the teacher would have to accept that the student used the meanings of what those words may mean. If a word may mean anything, then there is no need for rules in the English language. As I have already said, such a concept is silly.
David Brown:

a counter-example (I cited another dictionary with a definition of “perpetual” different from yours and one in line with the Catholic understanding),

But in which dictionary did you find this definition for “perpetual”? The American Heritage Dictionary? Guess what? That is the dictionary I used also to get my definition from, including the literal meaning for that word found in the historical part of the definition. And as I have already stated, “an indefinitely, long time” does not describe accurately what the Catholic church believes about the reign or its Vicar of Christ.
David Brown:

and an explanation of the proper use of a dictionary.

I must have missed your lecture on this topic, professor.
David Brown:

You would also find specific passages singled out as being fallacious with the reasons given.

But I believe your reasons are faulty for the reasons that I have given.
David Brown:

For example, forcing a definition on an opponent to make an argument (a definition that they do not accept, for example your “definition” of the “true meaning” of “perpetual”) is a fallacy of poisoning the well or persuasive definition.

I do not believe that I was really forcing a definition on the church as much as I was using a definition for a word that I feel is commonly enough accepted that it is listed under the word in a well-renowned dictionary.

Of course, if I was forcing my own definition on the church, I may have chosen “perpetual” to mean: phony or arrogant. Would you have accepted those definitions, because I could claim that I was only stating what that word may mean?
David Brown:

It is a fallacy because you are putting words in their mouth, not trying to understnd them but to argue against them. Your whole argument depends on this fallacy (which is why it should be redone).

It is very arrogant of the Catholic church to expect the readers or listeners to accept any meaning for a word that the church chooses to derive for that word. If the Catholic church was interested in promoting understanding, it would use the words that convey the meanings that are most generally accepted by the common man.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

I have also pointed out that others have given you the definitions of those terms used by the Church, which is what you should be arguing against. I have even given references to standard works that should be easily accessable. This is about as much as can be done in such a forum.

But since the length of time that your Vicar of Christ will reign in Christ’s stead is an opinion of the Catholic church, what would be the point of arguing against an opinion? An opinion is neither true nor false. I learned that concept in elementary school.
David Brown:

You, on the other hand, have just repeated your claims and engaged in personal attacks on the Church’s motives and on me (which is the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person and not the argument. It is a fallacy because it changes the discussion from the agrument, which should be what is discussed, to the person or persons making the argument, which is irrelevant to the truth of their claims).

You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. You have done a fair amount of personal attacks on me also. It would seem that neither of us is making progress in this argument.

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Here you assume something like a platonic meaning for “indefinite.” Christ’s return is definite (it will happen), that is not the point. The point the Chruch makes by “perpetual” is lasting until that time whenever it is–it recognizes that a definite event has no time set for it that we know of–so we can’t give a precise date. You equivocate “definite” and “indefinite”–in logic that means you are using them with more then one meaning which is a bad thing to do in an argument.

It would appear that you are more interested in criticizing me every step of the way than you are with arguing the point. Is that the way your logic works? Are you better able to successfully argue your point by criticizing the other person than you would be by actually focusing on the point under consideration? Your constant criticisms of me are just proving to me how arrogant you are. You are not gaining any ground with such criticisms. Therefore, I believe it is more beneficial for me to ignore every one of your attempts to criticize or belittle me, because such approaches cannot possibly help the argument or promote understanding.

As for Christ’s return, I must reiterate that it matters not if you know when the event will happen. The time for it to happen has been set by God. He knows when it will happen. Therefore, the length of time is precise, because the limits are precise and certain. Your or my ignorance of the exact length of this period of time does not change the fact that it is a “definite period of time”, not “indefinite”. Regardless of whether you accept it, “perpetual” is not the correct word to describe what the Catholic church is trying to convey about the pope’s reign.

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Ah, but some of them have degrees in linguistics and graduate degrees in English. And if you want to get techinical, linguists depend on logic to get and formulate their rules.

Well, when you feel up to a discussion of linguistics, let me know. Perhaps, you can get your English professor buddies to help you out.
David Brown:

But, as you should know, words don’t always take their “literal meaning” and it is not clear that every word has a single literal meaning. Further, it is far from established that you have that single, for all time, literal meaning.

Oh, I do know that. But that was not the point I was making.
David Brown:

Red Herring–to bring up an issue or point to distract from the question at hand (a free definition).

The Red Herring dictionary? I’ve never heard of that dictionary? I ask you for a name of a dictionary, and you don’t answer me. Instead, you resort to criticizing me again. When will you ever understand that such criticisms are not working?
David Brown:

Here you seem to contradict yourself (again). You used a modern dictionary to define “perpetual,” and then you tried the “literal meaning” based on etymology. You never used, or spoke about, what words meant in the time they were first used by the Church.

But that is what I am asking you for. Where did the Catholic church get the meaning for “perpetual” from, when it used the word in the paragraph quoted by Myrrh? Where did the church get its understand for that word from?

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

Nice personal attack (ad hominem again). First, since your mis-use of a dictionary and related problems indicated that you did not understand language, I suggested works in linguistics to discuss those issues, as you seemed interested in them. (Several English professors here thought you didn’t even have a basic composition course, I will have to tell them they were wrong.) I didn’t know you claimed professional expertise. Second, claiming to have a degree in linguistics, makes those mistakes more egregious as you should be familiar with them–if even a lowly philosophy professor can know about them. Third, it still doesn’t fix the terrible logic of your argument which depends on logical fallacies.

You think you know about linguistics, but your comments show that you do not. Perhaps, it would be necessary for you to actually read those books on linguistics that you are suggesting to me.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Rod of Iron:

[ **

**882 The Pope](http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3EpenWindow%28%27cr/882.htm%27%29

Now, if you are basing your discussion of perpetuity on this passage from the CCC, then please note that perpetuity in this passage has nothing to do with the length of the Pope’s reign, but has everything to do with where we may unfailingly look to find unity within the church. I simply don’t understand your conclusions in this thread!!! Also, as regards the discussion pertaining to the word vicar, you apparently have no understanding of what an agent is. Pull out a simple hornbook on the legal principles of principal/agency, and I think you’ll have your dilemma solved!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[Sherlock]

Rod of Iron,

You’re in over your head. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath or two, as you are not doing your argument any favors.

 

[Myhrr]

David Brown:

Here you assume something like a platonic meaning for “indefinite.” Christ’s return is definite (it will happen), that is not the point. The point the Chruch makes by “perpetual” is lasting until that time whenever it is–it recognizes that a definite event has no time set for it that we know of–so we can’t give a precise date. You equivocate “definite” and “indefinite”–in logic that means you are using them with more then one meaning which is a bad thing to do in an argument.

Well, i don’t have a degree in linguistics or philosphy, but I’m sure as eggs is eggs, and that bread…, that the RCC is very particular in its use of words; whenever it wants to be indefinite about something it manages to find the exact word to convey its meaning and so it does when it wants to give a definite meaning. The CCC is a compilation of the RCC’s doctrines as defined and authorised by the infallible Teaching Authority

By no stretch of the imagination nor stretch of dictionary definition, as we’ve seen above, does perpetual ever mean of a ‘definite limited duration’. I assume that those who wrote, checked and finally sanctioned the CCC said what they meant, I think that’s logical. As is well known, the RCC is expert in legal eagle thinking - do we have anyone here with a degree in law? Would you rather we assumed the infallible teaching authority didn’t know what it was trying to say?

It’s clear that the CCC means perpetual to keep its own particular meaning without the addition of any fuzzy literary additions. That some have qualified the meaning of perpetual by assuming because the CCC also says Christ will return that perpetual here no longer means perpetual is speculation, or wishful thinking.

Those who say vicar doesn’t mean in place of, substitute, are treading on heretical grounds, the whole premise on which the dogma of Infallibility is built rests on this foundation, that as the Vicar of Christ the Bishop of Rome is Infallible (as defined) because he is in place of Christ, not two heads, Christ and the Bishop of Rome, but one head, the Bishop of Rome supreme unhindered authority over the universal Church.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued

Vicar of Christ

(Lat. Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19. In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. “Inter corporalia”, 2, “De trans. ep.”). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. “Quanto”, 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is “the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (cap. “Licet”, 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. “Fundamenta ejus”, 17, “De elect.”, in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

Vicar of God no less, from which my other musing: since the Bishop of Rome cannot cease to exist even at Christ’s return because his office is perpetual and not temporary does this mean that Christ’s return when He returns, which is only known to the Father, will be as the Bishop of rome?

 

[TheTruth]

Corpus Cristi:

Christ is the head, who is in heaven. The Pope is the representative, who is on Earth. It’s as simple as that, nothing more, nothing less. We shouldn’t complicate the matter. If however, you do want to complicate the matter, you can find reference in scripture, the Catechism, and the writings of the early church fathers.

You’ve incorrectly assumed that everyone values the catechism and teachings of catholic church figures as valid informational sources…since they are created by catholicism for the benefit of catholicism they should be veiewed with skepticism…no independant sources can verify the validity of those ‘teachings’…

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

How do you prove what a word may mean if not with a dictionary or lexicon? Do you just rely on what a person says a word means to verify that the word may have that meaning? If this is the case, then a student in an English class would be able to successfully argue that all the words that the student used in an essay were used correctly. An English teacher would no longer be able to correct the work of his students, because the teacher would have to accept that the student used the meanings of what those words may mean. If a word may mean anything, then there is no need for rules in the English language. As I have already said, such a concept is silly.

Well, let’s see. 1. You seem to assume that rules must be absolute and clear or the alternative is no rules and chaos. This is a false dilemma because they are not the only possibilities. I would have thought a linguist would know that there are no perfect translations or perfect definitions. Since you like references, see W. V. Quine’s Word and Object or look at the web site for the Oxford English Dictionary where they explain how they define words (dictionary.oed.com). It is silly to assume “may mean” is the same as “must mean”–and your argument depends on the stronger version. Since you cannot maintain the stronger version, your argument fails–not as a matter of linguistics but as a matter of logic.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

But in which dictionary did you find this definition for “perpetual”? The American Heritage Dictionary? Guess what? That is the dictionary I used also to get my definition from, including the literal meaning for that word found in the historical part of the definition. And as I have already stated, “an indefinitely, long time” does not describe accurately what the Catholic church believes about the reign or its Vicar of Christ.

Strange. You earlier said the word meant “eternal” or “forever” and now you say “indefinite” is Ok. As others has posted, this fits with what the Church intended to say. It does not fit your claim that the “Vicar of Christ” will last forever according to Catholic teaching.

 

[Myhrr]

MariaG:

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.

The Orthodox also believe that, but they don’t believe that Peter was given authority over the other disciples and they still don’t - their traditions aren’t less ancient than yours so who is right here?

You believe your Church because you trust it, that’s no different from an Orthodox believing his Church because he trusts it - the difference is that Orthodox are not bound to submit their will and intellect to someone else’s authority above Christ and they say Christ’s arrangements were exactly that, that he would send, and he did, the Holy Ghost to lead the Church not that he would delegate His authority to Peter. And the Holy Spirit descended on each equally and there were more in that room than the 12 Apostles, it certainly didn’t descend to Peter alone or to Peter more than the others.

(darn I can’t find that one, but it was referring to Paul’s letters I believe).

biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2PET+3:14-16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on

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.

But nothing you say here actually gives any reason for us to believe that Peter had infallibility or authority over the others, nothing to say his ‘sole successors’ as Rome claims itself to be aren’t also in error because they are individuals not the Church.

Do you know the Lerins definition? What’s believed by all everywhere - begs the question what exactly is that…?

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

Well, when you feel up to a discussion of linguistics, let me know. Perhaps, you can get your English professor buddies to help you out.

And if you feel like discussing philosophy and logic, let me know.
rod of iron:

The Red Herring dictionary? I’ve never heard of that dictionary? I ask you for a name of a dictionary, and you don’t answer me. Instead, you resort to criticizing me again. When will you ever understand that such criticisms are not working?

Well, as I said before, look in any logic book for a definition of logical fallacies (who would have thought a logic book would define logic terms?). But since you ignored that, try the Oxford English Dictionary (big version) or the unabridged Webster’s. How many more dictionaries do you want? Try the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, HarperCollins Dictionary of Philosophy, The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (big version).
rod of iron:

But that is what I am asking you for. Where did the Catholic church get the meaning for “perpetual” from, when it used the word in the paragraph quoted by Myrrh? Where did the church get its understand for that word from?

Where did it? You are the person with a degree in linguistics. The Church didn’t get the meaning from you, or the definitions you try to force on it. Shouldn’t you ask "What the Church means by ‘perpetual’? I was making a point of logic about using word games to substitute for arguments–which is in standard logic textbooks as a bad form of reasoning (and in the D.A. Carson book I referenced above).

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

You think you know about linguistics, but your comments show that you do not. Perhaps, it would be necessary for you to actually read those books on linguistics that you are suggesting to me.

You are probably right, though I do have some graduate training in the philosophy of language it is not my strong area. And since you think you know about constructing arguments, but your comments show you do not, perhaps it would be necessary for you to actually read some logic books before you try to argue.

Fortunately, tomorrow I have to start teaching over 200 students and can’t put in time here. Bye.

 

[David_Brown]

Sherlock:

Rod of Iron,

You’re in over your head. I would respectfully suggest that you take a deep breath or two, as you are not doing your argument any favors.

Thank you Sherlock. I am glad I am not the only one who sees it. Unfortunately, or fortunately, school starts tomorrow and I have students who both need and want to learn logic and philosophy to teach. Carry on.

 

[David_Brown]

rod of iron:

But since the length of time that your Vicar of Christ will reign in Christ’s stead is an opinion of the Catholic church, what would be the point of arguing against an opinion? An opinion is neither true nor false. I learned that concept in elementary school.

It is too bad that is where you get your logic from. Actually an opinion can be true or false. Sam can have an opinion that Kerry will win the election. That Kerry will win is either true or false. Sam’s opinon can be said to be true or false, in at least some respect (perhaps you prefer “correct” or “incorrect”). Jane can have an opinion that Hindu’s worship red balloons. Hindu’s may or may not worship red balloons and again her opinion conforms or does not conform to reality (which is the standard correspondence theory of truth–try any of the philosophy dictionaries I mentioned above). Further, one can argue against Jane’s opinion by giving evidence that Hindus do or do not worship red balloons. Perhaps you mean by “opinion” something related only to the speaker or speaker’s tastes (“It is my opinion that strawberrry icecream is the best”). This kind of opinion is neither true nor false, assuming the truthfulness of the speaker. Opinions can come in more than one flavor, but perhaps that came in high school.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Myhrr

The Orthodox also believe that, but they don’t believe that Peter was given authority over the other disciples and they still don’t - their traditions aren’t less ancient than yours so who is right here?

Why do I believe in one bishop with authority over the rest? The Bible tells me so. This argument would be slightly different from other Catholics, but since I came from a Bible alone church, I tend to gravitate to Bible verses when seeking knowledge. However, it is also significant that the break with Orthodox churches did not come over whether or not there should be a Pope, but WHO the pope was.

In the Bible, Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than the rest of the Apostles put together. This alone does not “prove” anything, but taken in conjunction with the rest, it can be considered significant.

Of course, the first verse is Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church.

Mt 16:19 then has Christ giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Keys are the symbol of authority even today.

Lk 22:31-32 - Christ prays for Peter, that his faith shall not fail and he will stregthen his bretheren.

Jn 21:17 - Peter is told to feed My sheep.

Mk 16:7 - Angel specifically tells the women to go tell the disciples and specifically Peter by name, that Christ has risen.

Act 1:13 - 26 - Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias

Acts 2:14 Peter led the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 Peter inflicted first punishment on Ananias and Saphira

There are many more, but Catholics through many, many Bible verses *and *sacred Tradition, hold the belief that Peter was the first Pope, and Christ did set up the church with the authority in this manner. As to the orthodox, they disagreed not on whether there should be a pope, but who the pope was. I certainly am not well versed in this area, but there are others who are if you interested in pursuing this direction. My understanding, as I have already stated is that the disagreement was first about WHO was the pope not whether or not there should be a pope. Everything else worsened from that.

Disagree on the interpretation of the Scripture if you will, but then it comes back to why your interpretation is more correct than Catholics.

As to the wording of the Catechism, and what perpetual means, I hope everyone can accept the explanation of what it means and we can all quit with the useless arguments of whether or not the church should have used those words. Catholics understand it. We’ve explained it. But whether or not different or better words should have been used, is not within our ability to correct. We can only correct the misunderstandings that come from the good or bad word choices.
God Bless,
Maria

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

Well, i don’t have a degree in linguistics or philosphy, . . . .
By no stretch of the imagination nor stretch of dictionary definition, as we’ve seen above, does perpetual ever mean of a ‘definite limited duration’.
continued

Oh my! Havent we gone over this four or five times? Websters Dictionary has several definitions for petual. Here is the sense in which it is intended here1) : valid for all time. You see time ends when Christ returns.

RBushlow:

The fact is that Peterine succession goes on until Christ returns. Time ends when Christ returns…

RBushlow]:
Originally Posted by RBushlow
. . . .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.

---

Pax

You can disagree that this will happen, but this is what we believe, that Peterine succession will go on until Jesus Christ returns in His Glory. You may argue that you do not agree that this is the case but you cannot tell us that we believe something else, though you’d like to. BTW, this may be a little off topic, but the Orthodox Church does recognize the Primacy of the Pope.