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

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

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.

Our Father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven(s)
…
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen.

Who says that time ends when Christ returns? So what is this new heaven and new earth in this timeless and spaceless event of Christ’s arrival? Where’s the earth if there’s no space for it? etc.

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.

You might like to think you’re the authority, but your belief is speculation, unproven. Your catechism forces you to agree with those of us who disagree with you, it comes from the infallible teaching authority of the Pope together with his magesterium. They use the word perpetual not the word temporary.

BTW, this may be a little off topic, but the Orthodox Church does recognize the Primacy of the Pope.

I think it’s on topic. The Orthodox Church in the famous and remembered words of one of her Fathers, still not in the oblivion to which your Church consigned him, sums it up thus: the pope is as any of the other patriarchs and then only if he’s Orthodox, as spoken by St Mark of Ephesus, Pillar of Orthodoxy.

Interestingly he and his ilk were consigned to oblivion by the EP Athenagoras whose successor Bartholomew is getting quite a reputation as the ‘neo-papist’, he’s playing the equal in honour to old Rome card.

Constantinople was accorded equal honour with Old Rome at the fourth council because the New rome had become the all singing, all dancing capital of the whole Roman Empire and ‘levels’ of honour were decided on how important the place was within the Roman Empire, it had nothing to do with spiritual primacy, everything to do with ease of administration in a growing Church.

Not sure of the dates, but maybe this was before old Rome reverted to the size and importance of a village, or if it had already become that the decision not to demote it to last in pecking order might have been out of politeness.

 

[morashb]

One more comment on the use of the word, “perpetual.”

The Roman Catholic Church can ues the word “perpetual” in a Biblical sense. The Jews were instructed by God to celebarte Passover as a “perpetual” institution and a “perpetual” ordinance. Does that mean they were to keep the particular type of Passover they were instructed to observe even after Christ became the sacrificial Lamb of God? Does “perpetual” as applied by God to the Jewish Passover mean “forever and eternity”? No.

 

[Myhrr]

Tanais:

My question is, please clarify what you mean by contract and how between whom is the contract in place?

Apologies for taking so long in replying directly. The RCC as a Church is an institution entry into which is through baptism and confirmation. This Church has its own rules and regulations and the member accepts these by agreeing to enter. The first, most important one, is the dogma that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church:

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

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

and from this:

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

There is a ‘form’ of agreement which has dogmatic approval, listing those things needed to be accepted, but I can’t find it at the moment. Anyway, the contract into the RCC exists from agreement to enter and each member is required to accept the rules etc.

Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”

 

[Myhrr]

morashb:

One more comment on the use of the word, “perpetual.”

The Roman Catholic Church can ues the word “perpetual” in a Biblical sense. The Jews were instructed by God to celebarte Passover as a “perpetual” institution and a “perpetual” ordinance. Does that mean they were to keep the particular type of Passover they were instructed to observe even after Christ became the sacrificial Lamb of God? Does “perpetual” as applied by God to the Jewish Passover mean “forever and eternity”? No.

On the contrary, Yes.

God is not a liar.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Myhrr:

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

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404.

Just to jump in here and then straight out again. Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, we are familiar with the above but in disagreement. It will have to be dismantled before there is any hope of union of East and West.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”

Now all the three above quotes are not so familiar, and I have to say honestly that they scare the heck out of me. The substitution of a “magisterium” for the Church is a frightening thought. We shall never see any unity between East and West. You’ve ruined my night… I won’t be able to sleep…

 

[Myhrr]

MariaG:

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.

I’ll try to oblige…

According to the Orthodox Church, Scripture is part and parcel of its Holy Tradition, but that also includes the other writings of the Church which are not used by other Christians. It’s also important to note that the Orthodox OT is the primarily the Septuagint which differs from that used in the West.

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.

That’s not true, where did this come from? The Church has never accepted that one bishop could have spiritual or administrative authority over another which is the characteristic of papacy, the structure of authority is worked out according to this and agreement is by consensus, sobornost. This is shown in the history of the Church, in councils, in letters etc. and in the continuing reality of that to the present, no matter how great an effort is being made at this moment to destroy that in the Orthodox Church.

This is from post 17:

This is not how the early Church understood Christ’s presence in the Church as explained by the Orthodox (Pomazansky):

The leading personality of the Third Ecumenical Council, St Cyril of Alexandria, in his “Epistle on the Holy Symbol,” which is included in the Acts of this Council, writes: “The most holy Fathers … who once gathered in Nicaea, composed the venerable Ecumenical Symbol (Creed). With them Christ Himself presided, for He said, *Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them *(Matt 18:20). For how can there be any doubt that Christ presided at this Holy and Ecumenical Council? Because there a certain basis and a firm, unvanquishable foundation was laid, and even extended to the whole universe, that is, this holy and irreproachable confession. If it is thus, then can Christ be absent, when He is the Foundation, according to the words of the most wise Paul, *Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” *(ICor. 3.11)

Christ presides and is the foundation of the Church. If Christ is not the continuing, present, foundation a council is built on something else or nothing. “…and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

The bishops of this council did not put themselves above Christ nor did they in total or individually claim to be in place of Christ. On the prototype of the First Council in Jerusalem they ended with the same words, it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us. Good being the operative word, they were not claiming infallibility. Constantine who called this council also thought of himself as a bishop, not ordained, but as understood by the word, as overseer. He actually supported the opposing Arian position, but did not put himself or his views above the council.

A council could well be a only a physical gathering of bishops, but it is instrinsic to a bishop’s understanding that he speaks for the Church around him of which he is the pastor and not against it or without it; let nothing be done without the bishop let the bishop not do anything without the people. An orthodox council is composed of both ordained and non-ordained laity.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to MariaG

Here it’s important to understand another critical difference between the RCC and the Church, the whole Church in heaven and earth is with each bishop in the Church and the only head of the Church with each bishop and with all bishops is Christ.

This is how the early Church always understood this and the writings of that period must be read within this context if they’re to be understood. They didn’t have to compose a defence against the un-orthodox idea of papacy because it didn’t exist then, however, there are reminders of this in the letters of the time, they’re easy to dismiss as irrelevant by those who are looking only for confirmation of their own view.

There is this lovely greeting from St Ignatius of Antioch, successor of Peter and Paul in the first See of Peter, to St Polycarp bishop of Smyrna who was brought up in the company of the Church around St John the Divine, yet even so the good St Ignatius is careful to remember the authority over him, as much it appears for his own sake as for Polycarp’s:

Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, or rather, who has as his own bishop God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-24.htm#TopOfPage

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.

I still can’t make out what you’re referring to in saying this, but I hope from what I’ve posted above you can see that there is another way of looking at this.

I’ve been through these arguments re the verses what seems like countless times…

…so I hope you’ll accept only one reply at this time as an example, to:

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

It’s interesting here that the women were actually too frightened by the experience with the angel to do what he’d said and so said nothing. It wasn’t until Christ himself appeared to St Mary Magdalene and instructed her personally to convey the message of his Resurrection that the others got to hear about it; for this reason she is called Apostle to the Apostles. They didn’t believe her - I wonder what they would have thought if the women had come rushing back to tell them what they’d seen and what they’d been told, probably that they were nuts or something…

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to MariaG

St Mary Magdalene is called Apostle to Apostles and Equal-to-the-Apostles. She was in Rome before Paul’s arrival and is mentioned in his letter to them there. I think it terribly sad that we’ve lost so much of the history of the early Church in Rome, most were martyred, but Gregory I has the greatest amount of blame for this. He burned documents from the library as ‘heretical’ during his campaign in Britain to get the bishops there under his control, he mentions this a letter to Augustine who he sent on this errand. The Church in Britain was very closely connected with Rome in the early days, its first bishop Linus, ordained by Paul, was British.

Consequent to the continuing promotion of this un-orthodox Christian ecclesiology of supremacy by Rome’s bishops over the centuries not only Paul, equal to Peter, had to be ignored, but all the history of the early Church there.

biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MARK+16&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on

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

Because as I’ve given examples above, the Church simply wasn’t understood in terms of the later claims to supremacy, the verses about Peter are taken out of context in Scripture and out of context of the Church’s ecclesiology as defined in Scripture and shown in the practice and communications of the Church in various places.

These verses can only be taken out of context to mean Peter has authority over the Church, but most of the time they’re simply ignored as are all the other verses which show any contradiction to this papal claim. No one in the Church denies that Peter had standing, he was the foremost of those who understood Christ, early bishops thought of themselves as in the ‘chair of Peter’ as they remained faithful to Peter’s confession.

Writings in which this idea occurs are taken as ‘proof’ that the early bishops acknowledged Rome’s supremacy - but that can only be done by rejecting the rest of the writings, in other words out of context. The example I’ve been discussing recently is Rome’s claims to the Cyril of Carthage mention of the petrine throne even though he of all people can’t be used to prove any of Rome’s claims because he stated what was understood by the Church, that any claim to supremacy by one bishop was arrogance, even Augustine quoted him. His words were famous and at that time squashed these pretentions, but when they’re forgotten history has a tendency to repeat itself…

biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?search=gentile+lords&SearchType=AND&version=KJV&restrict=Gospels&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=11&y=7

continued

 

[fentonsteve]

rod of iron:

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.

Let’s just say then that the Catholic church uses the word “temporary” instead of “perpetual”, I’m sure your argument then would be that since it was “temporary” it began and ended with Peter, therefore the current Pope is not valid…
May the Holy Spirit fill you with God’s grace
Steve

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to MariaG

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

Not good enough though because your explanation doesn’t have authority, what can you quote with equal authority to the CCC to prove your view to us?

The authority proving our view comes from the wording of the CCC itself which has been prepared and authorised by the Teaching Authority of the RCC and this uses the word perpetual and not the word temporary. Until this is changed perpetual cannot mean anything but perpetual and that never means of limited duration, in or out of time. This work took some thirty years to prepare, I wouldn’t bet on there being a comma out of place let alone a word.

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

They use the word perpetual not the word temporary.QUOTE]
I apoligize if I did not explain myself clearly. This part of the discussion is about what the Catholic Church believes. Once again

RBushlow:

Websters Dictionary has several definitions for perpetual. . . . . 1) : valid for all time. . . . .

We believe that Christ will come at the end of time. You are trying to argue that this is not our belief. I am trying to explain that your understanding of our belief is incorrect. We believe that the primacy of the seat of Peter does end when Christ returns at the end of the age(see definition above).

 

[rod_of_iron]

David Brown:

It is too bad that is where you get your logic from.

Well, I am not embarrassed to admit that I learned important things in elementary school. I guess I am not as arrogant as you are, with your claims of all those years of studying man-made logic.
David Brown:

Actually an opinion can be true or false.

Apparently, you do not understand what an opinion is.
David Brown:

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”).

You are speaking of references to future events. If the event happens, then it would be true. But until then, it is not true. It is only an opinion. Such an opinion of the future cannot be determined correct or incorrect until the time comes when it will happen. Opinions of the future are only opinions until they are verified. You cannot verify something if it hasn’t happened yet or doesn’t yet exist.
David Brown:

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.

In the given scenario, Jane does not have an opinion. She has a misunderstanding. The evidence of such worship or the lack thereof could be ruled true or false, but not her opinion.
David Brown:

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.

Yes, that is what I mean by opinion. If you say that “the sky is pretty today”, and I say that “the sky is not pretty”, both of us are giving our opinions. A statement that “the sky is pretty” is neither true nor false.

 

[rod_of_iron]

RBushlow:

We believe that Christ will come at the end of time. You are trying to argue that this is not our belief. I am trying to explain that your understanding of our belief is incorrect. We believe that the primacy of the seat of Peter does end when Christ returns at the end of the age(see definition above).

If this is true, then perhaps, you can teach the leaders of the Catholic church to use the correct words, rather than using the wrong words and then trying to redefine them to mean the opposite of what they really mean.

But all your claims that the church does not mean “lasting for eternity” when speaking of the Vicar of Christ, does not make it so. As Myrrh said, the ones who wrote the Catechism would have spent too long and have been too precise for them to use an incorrect word.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Rod of Iron (and Myrrh?)

 It IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S MISUSE OF THE WORD perpetual, but it is YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING of the object of perpetuity!  The passage from the catechism very clearly points out that the office of the papacy provides a source from which the bishops of the Church may perpetually look for unity!!!!  I fail to see how you are concluding that this passage means that the pope is perpetual!!!?????!!!!

In Jesus and Mary

Fiat

 

[JGC]

Going back to post three where the first mention of ‘Vicar of Christ’ comes up (that I can see) there has been extensive debate about the word vicar.

As I think all would acknowledge, words can change meaning or have others added over time.

‘Gay’'s primary definition has changed over the last 40 years. The fact worship has changed in meaning and that the greek root has three distinct meanings has caused the trouble with the ‘worship’ of Mary. Words mean different things to different people. When I announced in the U.S. I was getting my piece ( a sandwich here) this was greated with great consternation and alarm by all around as they expected a firearm to be produced. All this expressed more intellectually above:bowdown:

I don’t know when the term vicar of christ originated ,or where, but if you are going to argue about what it means then find out and get a dictionary from that time, and that location and see what it says. And you may still get it out of context. Especially if you have already decided what you want it to say!

Having skimmed back up (it’s a big thread!), its perpetual that gets more attention. Also worth considering - instead of assuming what the writer means to convey by the word you should go to the source. In this case, its not necessary to speak to author, a priest or bishop who speaks for the Church will do.

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

If this is true, then perhaps, you can teach the leaders of the Catholic church to use the correct words, rather than using the wrong words and then trying to redefine them to mean the opposite of what they really mean.

Our use of perpetuity is straight from Websters which you oddly fail to include in your Quote from my post. I’m beginning to suspect that you might not be being intellectually honest here. Anyway Fr. Ambrose seems to understand the concept and could probably explain it better than I.
Fr Ambrose:
Can you help us come to an understanding here? Thank you.

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

But all your claims that the church does not mean “lasting for eternity” . . . . does not make it so.

Once again, we believe that when Christ comes at the end of time Peterine succession ends. Falsely stating that we do not believe this does not constitute a valid argument.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

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

The Fathers of the Church do not see this singling out of Peter here as a mark of his supremacy but as an astonishing example of the divine condescension of Christ…

“Go and tell the apostles, *and *Peter.”

Christ was telling Peter in this way that Peter was forgiven of his serious sin of cowardice and betrayal. The last time when Peter had seen Christ alive Peter had betrayed him in the courtyard three times. “No, I do not know the man.” Peter was in the same state as Judas, a traitor to his Lord. Judas had betrayed Christ out of love of money. Peter had betrayed Him out of cowardice. Imagine the despair that had gripped Peter’s soul since that Friday afternoon…

And now, at the tomb early on Sunday morning, Christ sends a special message to Peter through the women- one which would have comforted him and released him from his self-loathing and despair… “Go and tell the apostles, AND Peter” In other words: “Tell Peter who betrayed me that I forgive him. Tell Peter who denied me three times that I have not forgotten him, and that I love him.”

 

[Myhrr]

Thank you Father Ambrose! Likewise the explanation of the verses where Christ asked Simon bar Jonah if he really loves Him more than these (pointing to the food on the table… joke…), reminding Peter of that horrible trial he went through tested to the limit, and his failure already known. What a dark night for him, and I always feel sorry for Judas who repented but couldn’t bear to live with the consequences.

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

We believe that Christ will come at the end of time. You are trying to argue that this is not our belief. I am trying to explain that your understanding of our belief is incorrect. We believe that the primacy of the seat of Peter does end when Christ returns at the end of the age(see definition above).

No, I’m not saying that and I’m not arguing that you don’t believe this. I’m bringing to your attention what is actually meant by this according to your Church’s understanding of itself and its dogmas of petrine succession and papal infallibility.