Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[mardukm]

Hi Marduk,
First, the Pope does have absolute authority in the Church. Why? Because in the end, anything he declares to be infallibly true is infallibly true (on issues of faith and morals). Although he may not choose to exercise this authority at all times, he still has it according to Catholic teachings.

I’m not sure how you conclude the idea of “absolute authority.” I hope you understand that while the Pope indeed has is PERSONAL prerogative to teach infallibly, it is not a UNILATERAL prerogative. Please have a look at the “Papal infallibility simplified and explained” thread. The issues between the Absolutist and High Petrine views are more concisely debated there.

Second, in regards to your understanding of St. Peter and the keys as it relates to papal authority…I have never heard this understanding once from Catholic apologists. Scott Hahn in particular, who has spent a great deal of time making the “keys” argument, is quite clear that the keys symbolize a dynastic office that would be passed down…thus, the keys are passed down. You are saying the keys remain with St. Peter and the successors simply inherit the position…but that doesn’t even fit into the theology of the keys. The keys in Isaiah 22 were passed down as well to the successors…not just the office. I have no idea where you are getting this conception of the keys and the office of the pope, but I would very much like to read it if it is from an official Catholic source.

Please have a look at this thread in the Non-Catholic Forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85147

The issue of the keys is thoroughly discussed there, and it will hopefully demonstrate to you the Church’s true teaching on the matter. It also discusses source documentation (not apologetic material) for the Church’s actual teaching. The debate on the keys starts on page 4 with my post#55, where I make the same assertion to which you are here responding.

Additionally, if your conception of the papacy were the one being taught by the overwhelming majority of Catholics, it would be far easier to accept. This is not, however, the doctrine being propagated by Catholics in America and I am not certain your view is truly the Church’s.

I did not come into the Catholic Church by reading Latin Catholic apologetics, but by reading source documents from the Catholic Magisterium. It matters not what a Catholic apologist might say. It is only what the Church actually teaches from her source documents that concerns me. There was a debate some months back on Filioque wherein a Catholic apologist made statements directly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church according to the official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory. It demonstrated that there are Catholic “apologists” out there who prefer their own opinions over actual Church teaching. It is very possible by your estimation that I am one of those “apologists.” But I ask that you try with thoroughness (to the best of your ability) to read what I (and other similarly-minded Catholics) have written on the matter before deciding who indeed represents the actual teaching of the Catholic Church - the High Petrine advocates, or the Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I offered you a link as a primer for the different Petrine views earlier in this thread (IIRC). I hope you read it.

 

[rfournier103]

jinc1019…

I think that many of the Reformers had a legitimate beef. There was abuse AND corruption. (I do NOT think Henry VIII had a good reason to leave) Just so you know where I stand on that.

Have a good evening, jinc1019.

Respectfully,

~rfournier103

 

[MrSnaith]

Please have a look at this thread in the Non-Catholic Forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85147

I don’t think you meant to post this link.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t think you meant to post this link.

THANK YOU!

Try this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=851473&page=4

Blessings

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Jinc, some interesting replies, as always.

Pope’s can make infallible proclamations on matters of faith and morals, not on matters of discipline. He cannot institute canon law that protects his own person against sinful actions; it’s just not possible, that is to say, other authorities within the Church and the faithful could reprimand or remove him in cases of such gross violations. Consequently, he cannot determine that he has a right to wage war against Muslims and that his ruling cannot be contested, because such a ruling would not be a matter of faith or morals, but a judgement on a present worldly situation. For example, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, he didn’t do so infallibly and the monarchs of Europe and leaders in the Church could have refused him support (as has often been done in Church history), but they supported him because they agreed that it was the right thing to do. Canon Law and infallible proclamations are different things altogether.

Actually, Popes have been removed from office or at least contested. Have you heard of the Avignon Papacy? Anti-popes have contested the position of the pope (and had support from monarchs and Church leaders), not usually because of moral matters but for political ones. Theoretically, it could also happen over moral concerns. Yes, the Pope has authority but that authority relies on the support of the Church, especially other bishops.

Really? What actions and decisions can they declare to be “perfect”? Popes cannot declare items for belief or action contrary to the faith. Yes, they may act like jackasses but they cannot force others to act in the same way through disciplinary rulings.

But there is a way to control the Pope’s power. Again, the Pope’s genuine earthly authority relies on support from other Church leaders. The Pope can declare till his blue in the face that everyone should bow and worship him, but no faithful would follow him. Christians are not obliged to obey the Pope when he preaches contrary to the faith. I think you’ve got a generally skewed impression of what papal authority is, as if he is some kind of all-powerful dictator.

However, even if we grant this, I still can’t see how we escape this in Orthodoxy either, at least on a smaller scale, after all, who can overthrow and replace a patriarch or local bishop?

I would disagree with the suggestion that popes have opposed the idea of separation of Church and state; in fact, I’d say the contrary is true. In most cases, popes have been against the state having control of the Church or vice versa.

I didn’t know about the Magna Carta. Why did the Pope call it “shameful”?

The Pope called the Magna Carta shameful because it took the Church out of civil life, an act many believed would have dire consequences for the faith.

You make many good points in your post, but I don’t agree with your understanding of the pope’s powers. Of course he could theoretically be rejected by all the bishops, but on what grounds? He can, at any time, determine that any of his actions are within the “faith and morals” camp and therefore issue an infallible decree.

And I think you are missing the point…the Pope’s authority is like the President’s power to veto-he doesn’t actually have to use it to have an effect on the rest of the government/church. And while you are right Christians don’t have to follow the pope when his teachings conflict with Christianity, who determines what teachings conflict and which ones don’t? Didn’t Martin Luther argue his teachings conflicted with the Bible and Christianity? Didn’t millions of other Christians? Don’t they still today? And yet, they don’t, according to the Catholic Church, have the authority to dissent. Why? Because the Pope and the Church have determined that their teachings do not conflict. So if the Pope says a particular teaching doesn’t conflict with Christianity, Christians have no right to ignore the Pope’s teaching. So how can anyone actually dissent? Logically, your argument just doesn’t hold up.

 

[jinc1019]

Who decides what conduct is grounds for removal? Is there anything in the Bible that could provide something cononical for such an instance?

**Acts 15:12 **- only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

**Acts 15:13-14 **- then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

You’re right… he DID play a major role. He spoke up in support of Peter. Nice try; and thanks for the assist.

Wow. That’s a HUGE concession on your part. Thanks. :dancing:

Aren’t we talking about ONE office in particular here? Isn’t that the whole point of the thread? ALL the offices are transferrable. Peter has primacy, so would not his successor recieve that authority?

Why not? Do we have evidence to the contrary?

Conjecture on your part. Do you have proof that it isn’t?

Ordination and Holy Orders have EVERYTHING to do with the transfer of authority. That’s why I introduced it into the conversation. Ordination and Holy Orders transfer authority. Unless you think that Sacrament is bogus and does no such thing…

Can you reccomend one? Most of what I know about the Reformation is what I learned in history class in High School and College. (Public, by the way. NOT Catholic schools) However, the history books CLEARLY state that Martin Luther AND Henry VIII LEFT THE CHURCH. THEY EITHER DID, OR THEY DIDN’T. What notable reformers would have stayed? Names, please.

I certainly hope you find a church somewhere that lives up to your lofty standards.

The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others is that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

I honestly don’t have the time to address every single person’s multiple arguments (I am only one person!), but I would like to further discuss the issue of the apostolic seats because I think it’s important and you largely ignored it and defended your position without addressing the point.

If, as you suggest, Peter’s apostolic seat is an office that can be occupied by only one other person at a time and has been in existence for 2,000 years, then explain why the other 11 apostolic seats, which were ABSOLUTELY and without ANY DOUBT distinct apostolic offices by your own calculation, do not today have successors? In other words, the Apostles were 12 specific offices that existed. We know this because Judas’ seat was referred to as an office. So why don’t they all exist today? You would surely say they do as episcopacies, but is that the case? Are you saying that in the early church the Apostles appointed bishops and those bishops were equal to all of them in authority except for Peter? Based on what? What about the power of “binding and loosing” promised to the Apostles alone? What about the promise Jesus made in Matthew 18 that when 2 or 3 gather in His name, He is there with them? Are these promises made to more than just the Apostolic offices? Based on what? Where do we see this? Nowhere. Not in a single place.

In fact, Peter and John were called to Samaria to lay their hands on the people there even after Philip already baptized and preached there. Why? If Philip was basically an equal of Peter and John, why did they need to show up at all? The answer is because Apostle is a separate class above and beyond bishop. And it’s not transferrable after the Apostolic age…At least that has been my position. If it were transferrable after the apostolic age (and I am at least open to that idea) then you would still need to prove that Peter had so much more authority over the other Apostles that he could make unilateral decisions that every other Apostle opposed but had to accept because Peter said so. I don’t see that anywhere. You reference the First Council, but Peter had a revelation in that case and clearly everyone believed it…If Peter had no had a revelation and simply made a decision on his own, your case would be much stronger.

 

[jinc1019]

Please explain the reasons for your statement. Btw, I am having a discussion in a separate thread on this very topic with brother MilesVitae. It is in the Non-Catholic Forum entitled “Divine Institution of the Papacy.” It would be great to have your (name removed by moderator)ut there on this particular topic.

Also, I noticed the great number of posts to which you responded, and I have to commend you for your diligence.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk,

I appreciate the suggestion and the kind remark! I am trying very hard to keep up with it…but it isn’t easy! I wasn’t expecting such a response (which I am very happy about).

The reason the passage doesn’t prove your argument is because it’s not clear that Jesus is saying the passage applies to Peter only. In fact, Peter assumes the passages applies to “us,” meaning the Apostles, and asks Jesus if it ALSO applies to everyone else. So if you wanted to argue that the passage applies to all the Apostles or Apostolic seats, that would be consistent.

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said in post 118.

A council can always arrive at a decision where the majority of the bishops come to a conclusion. I suppose a council could choose NOT to take up an issue…but if it is a major issue, there is no reason for this to occur.

So a 50-50 split or a 40-40 split with 10% undecided cannot occur? You are asserting a democracy as the Divine model.

I am saying that this would be a partial truth, but that is not the whole story.

jinc1019. You also said:

That doesn’t mean the conclusion is 100% correct, nor does it mean it can’t be re-evaluated in the future

NOT Matthew 16:19 (Phantom jinc1019 Prototype Verse) 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth doesn’t mean the conclusion is 100% correct, so maybe it will be bound in heaven, maybe it won’t. And whatever you loose on earth might need to be re-evaluated in the future too."

No. That is NOT the Biblical paradigm jinc1019. You have significantly deviated from the Biblical model, to come up with your prototype.

MATTHEW 16:18-19 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Incidentally. Speaking of the “Biblical” as in “Biblical” model, the Bishops as a whole, never had a vote on what the books are in the “Biblical” Canon included until the Council of Florence in the 1400’s.

If “democracy” was so part and parcel to the Church, why were the Books of Sacred Scripture itself, ratified with regional Bishops synods (Hippo and later Carthage) and Papal approval of such?

Does this mean we don’t REALLY know what Sacred Scripture is?

There were battles in the early Church as to what books belonged in Scripture and what books did NOT belong in Scripture. Yet no democratic poll of Bishops as a whole for THIS?

jinc1019. Why appeal to Scripture at all when the compilation of Scripture itself (the Canon) violates your own foundational principles? And you can’t even appeal to Florence (or later Trent) as the Eastern Orthodox Bishops deny them.

And what about when our Lord Jesus asked the Apostles, “Who do YOU say that I am?”

They were ALL silent except for Simon Peter.

Why didn’t Jesus just say:

“Well Simon you said I am the Christ, the son of the living God. But I want you to see the authoritative silence of your colleagues here. After all, although I am still here, this is a teaching moment. And since I want you guys to assert a democratic process, I guess I am NOT the Son of God because only you Simon said it and all the other guys did not say this. On the other hand, it also doesn’t mean the conclusion is 100% correct because someday Bishops might reverse the vote.”

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not sure how you conclude the idea of “absolute authority.” I hope you understand that while the Pope indeed has is PERSONAL prerogative to teach infallibly, it is not a UNILATERAL prerogative. Please have a look at the “Papal infallibility simplified and explained” thread. The issues between the Absolutist and High Petrine views are more concisely debated there.

Please have a look at this thread in the Non-Catholic Forum:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85147

The issue of the keys is thoroughly discussed there, and it will hopefully demonstrate to you the Church’s true teaching on the matter. It also discusses source documentation (not apologetic material) for the Church’s actual teaching. The debate on the keys starts on page 4 with my post#55, where I make the same assertion to which you are here responding.

I did not come into the Catholic Church by reading Latin Catholic apologetics, but by reading source documents from the Catholic Magisterium. It matters not what a Catholic apologist might say. It is only what the Church actually teaches from her source documents that concerns me. There was a debate some months back on Filioque wherein a Catholic apologist made statements directly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church according to the official Clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory. It demonstrated that there are Catholic “apologists” out there who prefer their own opinions over actual Church teaching. It is very possible by your estimation that I am one of those “apologists.” But I ask that you try with thoroughness (to the best of your ability) to read what I (and other similarly-minded Catholics) have written on the matter before deciding who indeed represents the actual teaching of the Catholic Church - the High Petrine advocates, or the Absolutist Petrine advocates.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I offered you a link as a primer for the different Petrine views earlier in this thread (IIRC). I hope you read it.

Your statements are fair. I have primarily read Catholic apologetics, although the CCC seems to support their positions.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019…

I think that many of the Reformers had a legitimate beef. There was abuse AND corruption. (I do NOT think Henry VIII had a good reason to leave) Just so you know where I stand on that.

Have a good evening, jinc1019.

Respectfully,

~rfournier103

I am glad we can agree on that!

 

[mardukm]

He can, at any time, determine that any of his actions are within the “faith and morals” camp and therefore issue an infallible decree.

That’s a rather irresponsible statement. If you are going to challenge Catholic teaching, then challenge Catholic teaching, not a caricature of it. Please quote a Magisterial document that states that the Pope can “determine that any of his actions are within “faith and morals” and therefore issue an infallible decree.” Please don’t bother with statements from singular theologians.

And I think you are missing the point…the Pope’s authority is like the President’s power to veto-he doesn’t actually have to use it to have an effect on the rest of the government/church.

The power of veto means the power to UNILATERALLY cancel what all other authorities say. The Pope has no such UNILATERAL authority. He is a member of a College of bishops. He has a PERSONAL, not unilateral authority to make certain decisions, but those personal decisions must always be made in communion with his brother orthodox bishops in the College. He has no authority to act outside of the context of the College, because, contrary to the claims of some Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy, the College is of divine institution just as much as the papacy is of divine institution. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and if you disagree, we’d like to see you produce the Magisterial documents that say contrariwise. Since you have come on here and made the claim of “absolute power,” the onus is on you to prove it from our Magisterial documents.

And while you are right Christians don’t have to follow the pope when his teachings conflict with Christianity, who determines what teachings conflict and which ones don’t?

The episcopal Magisterium of the Church - the College of bishops. What other answer would you expect?

Didn’t Martin Luther argue his teachings conflicted with the Bible and Christianity? Didn’t millions of other Christians? Don’t they still today? And yet, they don’t, according to the Catholic Church, have the authority to dissent. Why? Because the Pope and the Church have determined…

Ok. So you admit it is not the Pope ALONE. So where do you get the idea of “absolute power?”

So if the Pope says a particular teaching doesn’t conflict with Christianity, Christians have no right to ignore the Pope’s teaching. So how can anyone actually dissent? Logically, your argument just doesn’t hold up.

Christians have a right to dissent from a Pope’s teaching that is contrary to Sacred Tradition. The problem with your argument is that you forget that the Pope is not the only bishop in the Church. His brother bishops can correct him. The most recent example was at Vatican 1. The Pope was known to be a neo-ultramontanist before and during the Council. But he eventually accepted the correction of his brother bishops against the neo-ultramontanist excesses as enshrined in Pastor Aeternus, and confirmed the Council. It’s almost like what happened at the Fifth Ecum. You really need to study the debates that went on behind the scenes at the Council to understand that the purpose of the Council - as far as the papal prerogatives were concerned - was in fact to decrease the power of the Pope in opposition to the exaggerations of the neo-ultramontanists…

Blessings

 

[Cathoholic]

Correction to my post 128.

a 40-40 split with 10% undecided cannot . . .

I meant:

a 40-40 split with 20% undecided cannot . . .

Sorry about that.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #109
Yeah, but who decides what “faith and morals” are? The Pope. Thus, the Pope can effectively have authority over anything.

Who gave St Peter the power to teach truths on what to believe and how to act morally, infallibly? God alone. [Posts #41,75]. “Anything” is not included.

#112
The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others that have committed grave errors is that they don’t claim to be perfect on “faith and morals” and they don’t claim to have supreme authority over all other Christians and they don’t claim to be “infallible on faith and morals.”

That is precisely why they do not have the authority which Christ gave His Church and cannot teach the fullness of faith and morals with which Christ empowered His Church.

Sins committed by members of the Church whether prelates or laity cannot nullify the freedom from teaching error on faith and morals which Christ gave to His Magisterium. He did not give anyone impeccability.

#116
I don’t disagree with Peter’s authority or the authority of the Twelve. The issue is whether the authority has been passed down or not.

Peter’s authority has been passed down
‘For the historical fact of continued succession in the office Christ had conferred on St. Peter we naturally have to look to early Church history. The New Testament records Christ’s promise that His Church as He instituted it would last all days till the end of time. This promise implied the constitutional permanence of the office of head of the Church which He had bestowed upon Peter.

‘For subsequent events we can scarcely find a better authority than that of St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp who, in turn, had been a disciple of St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaeus wrote his great work “Adversus Haereses” during the time of Pope Eleutherius, who held office 177A.D. to 189 A.D. and whom Irenaeus described as the “twelfth from the Apostles.” In Bk. 3, sect. 2, St. Irenaeus expressly says: “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up of the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop. Paul mentions this Linus in his epistles to
Timothy (2 Tim., 4:21).” Irenaeus then lists the successive Bishops of Rome as Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius, adding: “It is in this order and in this line of succession that the tradition has come down in the Church from the time of the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth has come down to our own day.”

‘Eusebius, in his “History of the Church”, Book 5, c. 58, says that Pope Victor, the successor of Eleutherius, “was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after Peter.” ’
[See DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972].

 

[Abu]

jinc1019
#125
I don’t agree with your understanding of the pope’s powers. Of course he could theoretically be rejected by all the bishops, but on what grounds? He can, at any time, determine that any of his actions are within the “faith and morals” camp and therefore issue an infallible decree.

Such a supposition makes a mockery of the Christ, who is God, by assuming He did not know what He was doing in so clearly mandating Peter’s powers, protected from error by His own power as God.

#126
Are you saying that in the early church the Apostles appointed bishops and those bishops were equal to all of them in authority except for Peter? Based on what? What about the power of “binding and loosing” promised to the Apostles alone?
prove that Peter had so much more authority over the other Apostles that he could make unilateral decisions that every other Apostle opposed but had to accept because Peter said so

Proof that the Apostles appointed bishops
In fact “Clement, the third bishop of Rome (c. 92-101 A.D.), whom Epiphanius said was ordained by Peter, wrote to the Church of Corinth…(which was disorderly in Paul’s lifetime)…‘The apostles are from Christ….they appointed their first fruits – after having tested them through the Spirit – to be the bishops and deacons of the believers.’ Apostolic succession thereby is confirmed in New Testament times by a non-New Testament source.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 77-78].

**'Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)? **
'Although it was later extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren.”

‘The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: “To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence … no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised. Where they go wrong, and I say it with all respect to their learning and acuteness, is in the assumption that the commission given Peter includes successors.” The real assumption, however, for which no sound reasons exist, is that the supreme spiritual authority conferred upon St. Peter was not meant to be transmitted to successors. Are we to hold that the Church had a visible head on earth only so long as St. Peter was alive, but that it had to continue in a decapitated state all days from St. Peter’s death until the end of the world?’
[FROM DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972]

That would make a mockery of the Son of God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Abu,

You post #134 is your second post which I find highly satisfying. I would clarify just one thing, however:

**'Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)? **
'Although it was later extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others.

The power of binding and loosing refers not just to the government of the Church, but also to the power of teaching and the power of sanctifying.

As far as the power of teaching and the power of sanctifying, all bishops are equal. It is in the power of governance that their is an hierarchy. Metropolitans have a greater power of governance than the local bishop; Patriarchs have a greater power of governance than a Metropolitan; and the Pope has a greater power of governance than a Patriarch. But though there is an hierarchy of the power of governance, all are bound by the divine constitution of the Church to work in communion with each other for the good of the Church.

At first glance, it might seem that the Pope has a greater power of teaching than the bishops. But this is not true. ALL bishops have the same fonts of Scripture and Tradition from which their teaching flows, and it is the same Holy Spirit Who establishes and guards their teaching authority. It is only in the power of governance that the distinction lies. whereby the distinction of primacy is realized.

Blessings

 

[jonathan_hili]

Once again, thanks for the responses, Jinc. My kudos to you for replying to so many people on this forum - don’t let it keep you from living life!!!

The Pope called the Magna Carta shameful because it took the Church out of civil life, an act many believed would have dire consequences for the faith.

I didn’t know that, and just looked it up. Very interesting. But I think such an episode shows the limited authority of the Pope (in this case, Innocent III), even in the Church-centred world of the early Middle Ages. After all, Pope Innocent III thought the Magna Carta was an affront to both King John and the Church and condemned it, but he didn’t get his way. A good example of the fact that the Pope is not all-powerful but actually in a very dependent position.

You make many good points in your post, but I don’t agree with your understanding of the pope’s powers. Of course he could theoretically be rejected by all the bishops, but on what grounds? He can, at any time, determine that any of his actions are within the “faith and morals” camp and therefore issue an infallible decree.

He can’t just do that. The Pope is not infallible when it comes to disciplinary matters (even when it comes to excommunication). So even if he told off all the bishops and ordered they obey him, they are within their ecclesial rights to refuse. I guess, an easier way to look at it is that the Pope has doctrinal infallibility but not administrative infallibility and consequently there is not reason why he cannot be opposed on such grounds.

And I think you are missing the point…the Pope’s authority is like the President’s power to veto-he doesn’t actually have to use it to have an effect on the rest of the government/church.

I agree. But it also means that the President relies on the support of others. He can’t do it alone.

And while you are right Christians don’t have to follow the pope when his teachings conflict with Christianity, who determines what teachings conflict and which ones don’t? Didn’t Martin Luther argue his teachings conflicted with the Bible and Christianity?

It would be the bishops of the Church as the successors of the apostles - it is their province, especially when in a Church Council. I think Martin Luther is a good example of this too - how many Catholic bishops supported Luther as opposed to the Pope? Very few. Even though the papacy was very corrupt at that stage and a number of prominent bishops and cardinals wanted reform, they also knew that Luther taught doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith.

Didn’t millions of other Christians? Don’t they still today? And yet, they don’t, according to the Catholic Church, have the authority to dissent. Why? Because the Pope and the Church have determined that their teachings do not conflict.

Correct. Protestant dissenters against the Church are to greater or lesser degrees heretics. They are in protest against, not only the Pope, but the vast majority of Catholic bishops.

Again, Jinc, I’d ask you - transport this idea to any other Christian group, what would be the difference? The Orthodox Church thinks very similarly, as do many Protestant groups.

So if the Pope says a particular teaching doesn’t conflict with Christianity, Christians have no right to ignore the Pope’s teaching. So how can anyone actually dissent? Logically, your argument just doesn’t hold up.

If the Pope teaches ex-cathedra that a certain item of faith is Catholic doctrine, then yes, Christians cannot ignore his teaching. But this is not the problem you raised before - you were talking about his immoral actions or disciplinary issues? The Pope is essentially in the place of Jesus’ steward here on earth - to reject the Pope on such doctrinal matters, is to reject Jesus.

I’d ask you, would you support Christians dissenting against Jesus? Do you think Christians have a right to dissent?

 

[Deconi]

In fairness to Abu, he never said “absolute authority”. He said “supreme authoirty” which is Church language from Lumen Gentium. When some see “supreme” they automatically think “absolute”. And in this case Abu was imputed as saying absolute when he didn’t say that.

Thank you, Steve, but I am/was aware at the time, as I underlined a part of a quote, of a quote Abu had posted!

(I wasn’t faulting - nor meant any harm to - him

No worries.

 

[coptsoldier]

Hello,

As a Recent Convert from Coptic Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholic I thought I Would share my views. First off all of this discussion has been quite good, and respectful. But I will keep my posts to your initial questions.

1. The Oriental Orthodox haven’t had an ecumenical Council in over 1500 years, and the Orthodox in 1000 years. This is because the Orthodox dont have a system of authority to decide what is and isn’t a council. This is a huge problem. There have been heaps of heresies springing up, and the lack of complete unity amongst the Orthodox jurisdictions has meant that they really need a council, but without the Bishop of Rome its impossible. Thats the only thing that has changed.
2. The Early Church taught that when the Bishop of Rome speaks, St Peter is speaking. Even in recent dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics they have acknowledged his first among equals. Also both catholics and Orthodox believe that the authority passed down to a successor is the same as the Predecessor. For instance, the Coptic Church Patriarch has ST mark’s line, so we will say St Mark walks amongst us.
3. Papal infalliability and supremacy are misinterpereted on both the Orthodox line, and even Catholic people. The times in which a pope can speak infalliability are very, very rare. In all of history, a Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra twice, and despite popular opinion it is not ex-cathedra every time he speaks of the faith and morals, but rather when a decision has to be made regarding the faith and the Bishop of Rome is called upon to resolve a dispute and uphold the faith, This is when his supremacy and Infalliability apply. Also Papal infalliability only applies to doctorine always held by the Church, not to new pseudo-Theology, so in that the Orthodox and Catholics are in agreement, that the Churches Dogma is infalliable.
4. Papal supremacy between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch’s of the Eastern Churches is not one of servant/Master. UNfortunately some Bishops of Rome have had a “Im the Bishop, Bow” mentality, but this is not the Churches teaching. Vatican II went into this even more, raising the authority of the Eastern Rites, and effectively giving them complete Self-Rule. Also in his Letter Orientale Lumin, Pope John Paul II of blessed memory writes “The Church Must once again breathe with both lungs of he Church”. Therefore, when the Bishop of Rome, Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of Constantinople, Bishop of Antioch, and Bishop of Jerusalem meet, they meet as brothers. The Bishop of Rome only imposes on the East in Contraversies, and this is the ancient teaching of the Church.

I love the Orthodox Church, but the unity that appears strong unfortunately isnt. Church unity needs to Centre around not only the Head of the Church Christ, but also the First of the Apostles St Peter.

 

[spina1953]

Hello,

As a Recent Convert from Coptic Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholic I thought I Would share my views. First off all of this discussion has been quite good, and respectful. But I will keep my posts to your initial questions.

1. The Oriental Orthodox haven’t had an ecumenical Council in over 1500 years, and the Orthodox in 1000 years. This is because the Orthodox dont have a system of authority to decide what is and isn’t a council. This is a huge problem. There have been heaps of heresies springing up, and the lack of complete unity amongst the Orthodox jurisdictions has meant that they really need a council, but without the Bishop of Rome its impossible. Thats the only thing that has changed.
2. The Early Church taught that when the Bishop of Rome speaks, St Peter is speaking. Even in recent dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics they have acknowledged his first among equals. Also both catholics and Orthodox believe that the authority passed down to a successor is the same as the Predecessor. For instance, the Coptic Church Patriarch has ST mark’s line, so we will say St Mark walks amongst us.
3. Papal infalliability and supremacy are misinterpereted on both the Orthodox line, and even Catholic people. The times in which a pope can speak infalliability are very, very rare. In all of history, a Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra twice, and despite popular opinion it is not ex-cathedra every time he speaks of the faith and morals, but rather when a decision has to be made regarding the faith and the Bishop of Rome is called upon to resolve a dispute and uphold the faith, This is when his supremacy and Infalliability apply. Also Papal infalliability only applies to doctorine always held by the Church, not to new pseudo-Theology, so in that the Orthodox and Catholics are in agreement, that the Churches Dogma is infalliable.
4. Papal supremacy between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch’s of the Eastern Churches is not one of servant/Master. UNfortunately some Bishops of Rome have had a “Im the Bishop, Bow” mentality, but this is not the Churches teaching. Vatican II went into this even more, raising the authority of the Eastern Rites, and effectively giving them complete Self-Rule. Also in his Letter Orientale Lumin, Pope John Paul II of blessed memory writes “The Church Must once again breathe with both lungs of he Church”. Therefore, when the Bishop of Rome, Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of Constantinople, Bishop of Antioch, and Bishop of Jerusalem meet, they meet as brothers. The Bishop of Rome only imposes on the East in Contraversies, and this is the ancient teaching of the Church.

I love the Orthodox Church, but the unity that appears strong unfortunately isnt. Church unity needs to Centre around not only the Head of the Church Christ, but also the First of the Apostles St Peter.

Very informative on your part and learned a lot from your post thanks

 

[Deconi]

Hello,

As a Recent Convert from Coptic Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholic I thought I Would share my views. First off all of this discussion has been quite good, and respectful. But I will keep my posts to your initial questions.

1. The Oriental Orthodox haven’t had an ecumenical Council in over 1500 years, and the Orthodox in 1000 years. This is because the Orthodox dont have a system of authority to decide what is and isn’t a council. This is a huge problem. There have been heaps of heresies springing up, and the lack of complete unity amongst the Orthodox jurisdictions has meant that they really need a council, but without the Bishop of Rome its impossible. Thats the only thing that has changed.
2. The Early Church taught that when the Bishop of Rome speaks, St Peter is speaking. Even in recent dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics they have acknowledged his first among equals. Also both catholics and Orthodox believe that the authority passed down to a successor is the same as the Predecessor. For instance, the Coptic Church Patriarch has ST mark’s line, so we will say St Mark walks amongst us.
3. Papal infalliability and supremacy are misinterpereted on both the Orthodox line, and even Catholic people. The times in which a pope can speak infalliability are very, very rare. In all of history, a Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra twice, and despite popular opinion it is not ex-cathedra every time he speaks of the faith and morals, but rather when a decision has to be made regarding the faith and the Bishop of Rome is called upon to resolve a dispute and uphold the faith, This is when his supremacy and Infalliability apply. Also Papal infalliability only applies to doctorine always held by the Church, not to new pseudo-Theology, so in that the Orthodox and Catholics are in agreement, that the Churches Dogma is infalliable.
4. Papal supremacy between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch’s of the Eastern Churches is not one of servant/Master. UNfortunately some Bishops of Rome have had a “Im the Bishop, Bow” mentality, but this is not the Churches teaching. Vatican II went into this even more, raising the authority of the Eastern Rites, and effectively giving them complete Self-Rule. Also in his Letter Orientale Lumin, Pope John Paul II of blessed memory writes “The Church Must once again breathe with both lungs of he Church”. Therefore, when the Bishop of Rome, Bishop of Alexandria, Bishop of Constantinople, Bishop of Antioch, and Bishop of Jerusalem meet, they meet as brothers. The Bishop of Rome only imposes on the East in Contraversies, and this is the ancient teaching of the Church.

I love the Orthodox Church, but the unity that appears strong unfortunately isnt. Church unity needs to Centre around not only the Head of the Church Christ, but also the First of the Apostles St Peter.

THIS, is as it IS!
Thanks 'Soldier’

Like most who look at Catholicism, Jincs, sees the Papacy and focus’s on him and think we hold the Pope in such esteem as the Head of The Church as though he is The Church or started the faith!

The ONLY reason we see the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, is because of his BOSS Who happens to be The One we believe to be Second Person of the Holy Trinity!

Jesus is the one Who gave Peter the Keys of The Kingdom. Francis is the one in the line of Peter. Catholics listen to Francis, because we’re FOLLOWING Jesus. Our eyes are firmly fixed of the one ‘behind’ the Papacy; NOT the Pope!, per se.

Not every Catholic drew their first breath as Catholic when the doctor slapped them! Many found The Church by ‘following’ their noses and looking for Christ, and are now listening to Francis and his predecessors - because that’s where following Christ takes you!

Jinc, you’re in a room with the Pope as a pencil in your hand; hold that up and focus on the pencil…and you’ll see the pencil and all it’s faults/use/properties/colour…as the background blurs and goes out of focus!

NOW, Catholics see the same pencil, except we fully understand with ABSOLUTE certainty that Jesus is the one holding the pencil TOWARD us!!.. and most can hear Him say, ‘Use mine! It draws better and never breaks!’ (Matt 16)

Your entire beef is that the Pope can fault; might fault; has faulted; and shouldn’t have his AUTHORITY!! You don’t TRUST him or his office. That’s because you don’t have the understanding of the faith - before you’ve discarded it - that it’s NOT the man we hold to, but our absolute trust and faith in the One Who is ‘BEHIND’ him!

HE IS THE ONE WE ARE FOLLOWING and LISTEN TO!