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

[Myhrr]

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

It says its in perpetuity, it goes on to say that unity with the Bishop of Rome is with the supreme head of the Church, in another words, the Vicar of Christ is the supreme head of the Church not Christ Himself. Nowhere does it state anything contrary to this. This is what the Orthodox have been arguing about for centuries, if you don’t like what it says - join the club!

Take back your Church! Write to your bishops!

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

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.

Sorry to be a broken record with this. What we believe is what the Churches teaching of Peterine succession. Peterine succession ends with the return of Christ. I understand that you think the Churches belief is different; it is not. If your interpretation of what we believe is that Papacy continues after the return of Christ the King, this is incorrect.

 

[Myhrr]

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.
…
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!

…

In post 70, I’m sorry it’s a bit difficult to read because it took all the links live, I put in bold the accepted RCC meaning - **in his own place. **

**"**by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar…"

I have found an explanation of this from a recent Pope to the ordained and other members of the RCC and Churches acknowledging the Pope as their supreme head which shows without a doubt that this is the accepted use of it by the papacy and so the magesterium and so in the CCC.

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE MISTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

1. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden [59] or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the “little flock” [60] Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
2. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Pope John Paul II’s use of ‘vicars of Christ’ in various encyclicals is not to be confused with the dogmatic understanding of the Vicar of Christ which is a title only of the Bishop of Rome.

I hope this doesn’t give Father Ambrose another sleepless night…

 

[Fiat]

Dear Myrrh:

Again…WHAT’S in perpetuity? Read the passage again…

**[

---

](http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E<img%20src=)882%between% 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

**
It is not the pope who is perpetual, it is the office that provides a perpetual “SOURCE OF UNITY”!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

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.”

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.”

I can not see how this is condecension. This is love and forgiveness you are talking about.

And why was Peter so special that he deserved special mention? Didn’t all of the disciples ran away and forsook the Lord?

Ah, Peter must then be special or there was a special role to be assigned to him for him to be given special strengthening.

Truly the Early Church Fathers were wiser than us.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I can not see how this is condecension. This is love and forgiveness you are talking about.

Dear Aris,

I maybe should have added a note that the “divine condescension” does not have the negative meaning of “condescension” which we normally give it these days. I am used to the term because it runs through our daily services time and again, and also in the writings of the Church Fathers. It is a very beautiful expression of God’s love for us.

We have just had the Service to Saint Oswald of York… looking through it we find:

“Glory to Thine ineffable condescension, O Master!”

“We may hymn the condescension of thy Son.” (a prayer to Mary the Mother of God)

“O my Son, I hymn Thy divine condescension!” (Mary speaking to her Son)

We can find a multitude of times when the term is used and it means something like the humility of God who stooped down to our level to save us. The divine condescension of the self-emptying of Christ who became man for oru sake… etc., etc.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

We can find a multitude of times when the term is used and it means something like the humility of God who stooped down to our level to save us. The divine condescension of the self-emptying of Christ who became man for oru sake… etc., etc.

So why the special mention of Peter in this case? Why would Peter be mentioned in particular when the rest of the Apostles deserved this divine condescension no less than Peter?

 

[Myhrr]

Fiat:

Dear Myrrh:

Again…WHAT’S in perpetuity? Read the passage again…

It is not the pope who is perpetual, it is the office that provides a perpetual “SOURCE OF UNITY”!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

My Dear Fiat, I have read that passage many times already, but since you order me to read it again…

The Office is the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ is currently Pope John Paul II is the Pontiff who "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

The classic response, shrugging into my leather jacket, is ‘…yeah?.. sez who?’

Vicar of Christ as I noted in my last post is understood as being Christ, in place of Christ, in his place; not two heads, Pope John Paul II and Christ, but one head in the office of Bishop of Rome which is the Pope, a position, not a building, in the person of the Bishop of Rome.

After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.

*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.*

…hmm, just a thought for the rebellious among you, and a way of out this impasse for the die-hards, and a relief for the Orthodox who could sleep peacefully again at nights…

Abolish the Office of Bishop of Rome!! Take back your Church!!

 

[Fiat]

Dear Myrrh:

The classic response, shrugging into my leather jacket, is ‘…yeah?.. sez who?’

Sez Christ. You suggest abolishing the office of the Bishop of Rome…for what purpose? Did the Roman Pontiff hijack Christianity in a way that the Bishop of Constantinople did not? Does the caucophonyof orthodoxy speak a truth in a voice more singular than one voice?

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

 

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Question: Is Jesus Christ on Earth in body? Is the tangible, visible, living Jesus Christ on Earth? No. So who is to lead His Church on Earth? We humans are physical, tangible beings which need a visible, physical guide to lead us. Denying this denies that humans are both physical and spiritual. Can God work with us via only spiritual means? Yes, but (as the ancient Jews attest), this does not work. We need a physical, human leader who we can look to for absolute Truth given through the Holy Spirit (when the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals). This is what the papacy is. When Christ returns in glory (in the flesh), the papacy will be unnecessary. In this case, the papcy is perpetual, lasting for all time. Time ends when Christ returns, but the glory of Christ’s kingdom is eternal, which the english language cannot describe.

 

[Myhrr]

Andrew Larkoski:

Question: Is Jesus Christ on Earth in body? Is the tangible, visible, living Jesus Christ on Earth? No.

Matthew 25:36
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Matthew 25:43
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

So who is to lead His Church on Earth? We humans are physical, tangible beings which need a visible, physical guide to lead us. Denying this denies that humans are both physical and spiritual. Can God work with us via only spiritual means? Yes, but (as the ancient Jews attest), this does not work. We need a physical, human leader who we can look to for absolute Truth given through the Holy Spirit (when the pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals).

Luke 24:49
And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 14:26
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.

This is what the papacy is.

Acts 7:51
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

When Christ returns in glory (in the flesh), the papacy will be unnecessary. In this case, the papcy is perpetual, lasting for all time.

**Matthew 13
**51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

Time ends when Christ returns, but the glory of Christ’s kingdom is eternal, which the english language cannot describe.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fiat:

Does the caucophony of orthodoxy speak a truth in a voice more singular than one voice?
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat

Tsk, tsk, Fiat! There is full doctrinal unity in Orthodoxy - in sharp contrast to the disarray within modern Roman Catholicism, both doctrinal and liturgical.

Here in New Zealand the Catholic clergy openly speak of ignoring the teachings of the Pope especially on matters of morals and sexuality. They disdain the idea of papal infallibility. Older clergy who prefer the traditional Latin Mass have been prevented, contrary to the decrees of Vatican II and the present Pope, from saying Mass. I think of my beloved headmaster who was actually manhandled out of the sacristy by younger liberal priests and then forbidden to say Mass for the last 10 years of his life, and he died brokenhearted after a lifetime of self-sacrifice devoted to the Church. I think of the scorn which priests can pour on those who want such things as Exposition. I remember hearing a sermon where the priest spoke of Catholics being idolatrous in their worship of the Blessed Sacrament. Marian devotions, such as saying the rosary in church? - forget it!

The chaos of the Roman Catholic Church today is sad to see. We may pray and hope that God will take the broken pieces and rebuild it.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Fr. Ambrose:

Thanks for your reply. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know a great deal about the Orthodox Church. I am also unwilling to believe as you suggest that there is absolutely no dissension between and among all those within the Orthodox church, from laymen to ordained. I would point out that it is the papacy and the magisterium of the Church which allows you even to pass judgments about the “disarray” within the Catholic Church in the first place. Without the clear teaching from Rome…without that objective standard…no such judgment could possibly lie for you to make. The issues you seem to be referring to in New Zealand (and I assure you occur here in the United States) seem to have more to do with matters of discipline and enforcement and less to do with doctrine. As I indicated, the teaching of the Church is clear because of the Church’s single voice, notwithstanding whatever the dissidents (priests, laymen, etc) may be doing or teaching. When there is dissension within the Orthodox Church, how is the problem handled? Is there a majority rules sort of approach among the patriarchs? (I’m not trying to be facetious here; I’m just trying to gain a better understanding of the Orthodox communion.)

In Jesus and Mary

Fiat