Oh, That Arrogant Pope

[guanophore]

The point under consideration was whether Peter’s primacy can be considered one of rebuke. Here we see Jesus rebuking Peter. We see Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians.

Do you mean by that, being the first in getting rebuked all the time?

On this thread I am not contesting the historical primacy of Peter or the apostolic succession. The contest is rather on how justified those in the office are in the direction they have taken it as opposed to perhaps a better direction it should have been taken.

What might that have been?

In reading the ECFs I see a church that developed into the Catholic/Orthodox church we see today. But it is a fallacy to read back into Ignatius, for example, and assume that what he meant by “bishop” is identical to what we mean by “bishop” today, or that “presbyter” means “priest” in an exclusively Catholic/Orthodox meaning.

Maybe not a fallacy, but certainly incorrect understanding of the historical record.

Is the plan done? Is everything perfect, so we dare change nothing? Are there no faults in the Church that need correcting, that you have no responsibility to work towards and pray for (not necessarily in that order)?

Clearly not, since we are still here! The revelation of truth given to the Apostles is perfect, and should not be changed. However, there are faults in practice, discipline, and in teaching that faith that certainly leave room for growth.

The range of meaning of the terms would have allowed for a development into Prebyterianism - that does not mean that Presbyterianism was God’s plan, or that the C/O model was never intended, it simply means you can’t force the documents to say something they actually do not say in favor of your predetermined position.

Well, one certainly “can”, however improperly this is done.

I mean to say that there is a complex relationship between providence and human sin and our responsibility to fix things. Things clergy do wrong need to be rebuked, as we have seen (thank you, JF, for one).

In both examples of rebuke, Peter was being corrected about his personal behavior, and not instruction in faith and morals. The two are different.

 

[Truthstalker]

Do you mean by that, being the first in getting rebuked all the time?

“To whom much is given, much will be required.” It is reasoable to assume that if Catholics are right about Peter, this particular teacher will be subject to an extremely strict standard of judgement.

What might that have been?

I don’t want to speculate particularly, not now, anyway. Perhaps no popes going to war as head of the armies, no assumption of political powers (there was a time in the west, however, when it may have almost been forced on the church due to the shattering of the Roman empire and no one else was around to govern.

Maybe not a fallacy, but certainly incorrect understanding of the historical record.

Clearly not, since we are still here! The revelation of truth given to the Apostles is perfect, and should not be changed. However, there are faults in practice, discipline, and in teaching that faith that certainly leave room for growth.

Well, one certainly “can”, however improperly this is done.

In both examples of rebuke, Peter was being corrected about his personal behavior, and not instruction in faith and morals. The two are different.

In the first example, Peter was telling Jesus what he should and should not do - I don’t think he earned a “Get thee behind me, Satan” purely on personal grounds. He dared challenge the Savior on His mission. In Galatia, he was making more than a personal statement by his choice of eating companions.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…I have not, by the way, looked into all the occaisions on which Popes have been accused of arrogant overextension of power. I am not sure what an arrogant overextension of power is on the part of a pope…

Here is one occasion: Letter to Pope Benedict

You are cramping my style… Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority… Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II.

:coffeeread:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

I think the Catholic position is that he has every right to be an arrogant power hungry bully should he wish (like every other human being) but he is answerable only to God (unlike every other human being).

Your opinion. As for your carefully worded foray into the realm of namecalling: it’s your decision; it’s your thread; your decision may operate to pull the level of your thread down a few notches.

Truthstalker:

I get the feeling I hit a nerve with some people.

Not really. Did you want to? :coffeeread:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

Perhaps the focus should be on a much more serious charge than a big diamond ring. That focus would be that the Popes had, during the rise of the papacy, taken the office of bishop of Rome and shrewdly worked it into a world-dominating position by using the authority of the office in an illegitimate manner for the illegitimate purpose of obtaining power. This is a very serious charge

In the absence of substantive evidence, it is no more than another day on the Apologetics Forum. Pot shots against the Church are a dime a dozen.

Truthstalker:

but one that many Protestants accept as a presupposition.

And this is logical, credible, and admirable in what way?

Truthstalker:

I think Schaff and Calvin would both agree to that as the problem in a nutshell from a Protestant perspective, one that I am not sure I have even seen expressed as succinctly as I just did.

Wow: Calvin, no less. Pot? Kettle?

Truthstalker:

…Protestant clergy are totally irrelevant to this thread…

Why?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I accept the fact that for the Catholic Church, the goal of ecumenism is not acceptance of “other churches” as such but assimilation.

I could just as well say that I accept the fact that, for the Reformers, the goal of ecumenism is not acceptance of the other denominations and of the Catholic Church but of assimilating the other denominations and marginalizing the Catholic Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

How many people told JPII he was the greatest? How much adulation did he receive from crowds?

Have you bothered to answer my questions?

Truthstalker:

I don’t know if he was surrounded by yes-men, but I can see it is possible that a pope could select advisors and promote people who agreed with and praised him, and punish those who don’t. It happens in the corporate world.

The point is, TS, and the point which you have sidestepped is that there are so many critics of the Pope in the media, from non-Catholic faiths, and even from within the Church that to say that the Pope is surrounded by yes men is to practically be admitting to living on Mars for all the sense it makes.

The fact of the matter is that the Pope cannot do his job by ignoring criticism.

Truthstalker:

Human beings are human beings regardless of whether they are the pope and he is subject to temptation and corruption like anyone else.

Who has denied this?

Truthstalker:

Catholics argue that a pope is infallible only under narrow conditions.

We argue this because it is true.

Truthstalker:

At all other times is he protected?

Your opinion.

Truthstalker:

Propoganda involves what one says about oneself: image that one broadcasts. That can be reflected back and reinforced.

How do you think your own -]excesses/-] posts stand up in this regard?

Truthstalker:

I thought dissent was ruthlessly crushed in the Catholic Church.

You might want to examine the -]impartiality/-] partiality of your sources then.

Truthstalker:

submission is absolutely required.

‘Submission’ and ‘subjection’ are two different things. As for ‘absolutely’: that is your attribution, not ours.

Truthstalker:

Dissent is at best tolerated and dissenters are not regarded as good Catholics.

Truthstalker:

What is the Cardinal Newman Society?

So you have said all this without knowing what the Cardinal Newman Society is.