Papacy Unnecessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WhiteDove

Guest
My priest says that the papacy as we know it is not a necessary expression of the Petrine Ministry. He says that this ministry was handled differently in the church in the past. He says that we don’t live for the Pope but for Christ.

What do you think?
 
He is right that we live for Christ and not the Pope.But the nature of his comments make me wonder if he might have a tiny problem with authority.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
My priest says that the papacy as we know it is not a necessary expression of the Petrine Ministry. He says that this ministry was handled differently in the church in the past. He says that we don’t live for the Pope but for Christ.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you are in an Anglican church. They think they have everything Catholics have but without the necessity of a Pope.
 
No, I’m in a Catholic Church. He said that the Petrine Ministry doesn’t need the Papacy as we know it to exist. He said this after the death of our Pope from the pulpit. He is a faithful priest I believe, although opinionated at times. He is very scholarly. I respect his intellect. I’m not well versed in Church history, but he says that the Petrine Ministry was expressed quite differently before Constintine.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
I think you are in an Anglican church. They think they have everything Catholics have but without the necessity of a Pope.
Click to expand...
That’s not quite true, Bro. We’ve never had a really good football team. Seems like Sewanee won a regional championship in the late 1800s, but that’s about it.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
My priest says that the papacy as we know it is not a necessary expression of the Petrine Ministry. He says that this ministry was handled differently in the church in the past. He says that we don’t live for the Pope but for Christ.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think that you might have to have a little talk with him to see if he is with Rome or not. If you get any questions in your heart, contact your spiritual advisor. You might have to report this priest to the chancellory.

Geesh, I hope that’s not the case.
 
40.png
SusanL:
I think that you might have to have a little talk with him to see if he is with Rome or not. If you get any questions in your heart, contact your spiritual advisor. You might have to report this priest to the chancellory.

Geesh, I hope that’s not the case.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder if the chancery agrees that the bishop is necessary. 😉
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
My priest says that the papacy as we know it is not a necessary expression of the Petrine Ministry. He says that this ministry was handled differently in the church in the past. He says that we don’t live for the Pope but for Christ.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think your priest is losing it. Ask why he thinks so, though a priest saying that should question himself why he’s still in the Catholic Church if he believes that way.
 
40.png
SusanL:
I think that you might have to have a little talk with him to see if he is with Rome or not. If you get any questions in your heart, contact your spiritual advisor. You might have to report this priest to the chancellory.

Geesh, I hope that’s not the case.
Click to expand...
Actually, he is the one I’ve gone to for advise. He is a good counselor. I mentioned it to another priest whom I keep in touch with by email. I described the whole homily. He understood the intellectual point that Father was making but agreed with me that it was a little disrespectful to say that the day after the Holy Father died.

I suspect my priest wasn’t a big fan of JPII, although he said that he was a very good man. I think he may have disagreed with him over some issues.
 
He said that during WWII they were even talking about moving the Church headquarters to Quebec. He said that it doesn’t have to be set up the way it is now.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
No, I’m in a Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I think that the Anglican comment was tongue in cheek.
He said that the Petrine Ministry doesn’t need the Papacy as we know it to exist. He said this after the death of our Pope from the pulpit. He is a faithful priest I believe, although opinionated at times. He is very scholarly. I respect his intellect. I’m not well versed in Church history, but he says that the Petrine Ministry was expressed quite differently before Constintine.
Click to expand...
Well, there is some truth to that. And, actually, Pope John Paul II postualted the same thing. Often, when a comment like what you originally posted is mentioned, it is usually due to a person having an authority problem who wants to just democratize everything. However, it may be the case here that your priest is taking up a discussion about what the most appropriate role of the Petrine ministry is in our day and how it could, perhaps, be best positively reshaped for our times. That is a legitimate discussion and something that the pope encouraged, particularly concerning relations with the Eastern and Orthodox Churches.
 
Hi WhiteDove,

I think I would ask this priest exactly *why *he believes the Papacy is unnecessary, and exactly *what *was so different prior to Constantine, because if he is going to make such statements (in a homily, no less) then he needs to answer those questions pronto! I don’t think it is fair of him to offer no detailed explanation for his views, especially when he is proclaiming them in public during a Mass!!

God bless,

Geraldine
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
He said that during WWII they were even talking about moving the Church headquarters to Quebec. He said that it doesn’t have to be set up the way it is now.
Click to expand...
*Quebec??? *Because of the war? This sounds mighty suspect to me…but who knows? The Vatican may have been quite concerned about protecting itself and its most holy contents at that time. Nonetheless, I’m still wondering why your priest thinks the Vatican doesn’t have to be set up the way it is now. :confused: Very odd…
 
He might be referring to the time in the first century before the development of the monepiscopate in Rome.
 
Dear Nightrider,
He went into some interesting detail in the homily. He is a very excelllent and articulate speaker, as I’ve mentioned to you before. I don’t remember all the facts he laid out, but it was definately food for thought. I just felt that it was somewhat inapporpriate to make a homily questioning the papacy after JPII died, since some people didn’t like the way JPII handled the papacy regarding the centralization of power, etc… So, I thought it was somewhat disrespectful.

I think folks have a right not to totally adulate JPII, disagree with his style of leadership, etc, and still be considered devout and faithful Catholics. According to my priest, there has only been one infallible proclamation by a Pope in the history of the church which wax that of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I thought that was interesting. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
No, I’m in a Catholic Church. He said that the Petrine Ministry doesn’t need the Papacy as we know it to exist. He said this after the death of our Pope from the pulpit. He is a faithful priest I believe, although opinionated at times. He is very scholarly. I respect his intellect. I’m not well versed in Church history, but he says that the Petrine Ministry was expressed quite differently before Constintine.
Click to expand...
Of course it was “different” before Constantine. The Church was persecuted and just being Christian got you killed, let alone being “Pope”. Popes didn’t last real long in office in those days. I guess the real answer is that the practice of Christianity itself was very different before Constintine. When people actually risked their lives to attend Mass. Instead of todays issue of ballgame or Mass, Mass or fishing? Hard choices for some.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
Dear Nightrider,
He went into some interesting detail in the homily. He is a very excelllent and articulate speaker, as I’ve mentioned to you before. I don’t remember all the facts he laid out, but it was definately food for thought. I just felt that it was somewhat inapporpriate to make a homily questioning the papacy after JPII died, since some people didn’t like the way JPII handled the papacy regarding the centralization of power, etc… So, I thought it was somewhat disrespectful.

I think folks have a right not to totally adulate JPII, disagree with his style of leadership, etc, and still be considered devout and faithful Catholics. According to my priest, there has only been one infallible proclamation by a Pope in the history of the church which wax that of the perpetual virginity of Mary. I thought that was interesting. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.
Click to expand...
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of infallible teachings by the ordinary magisterium.
 
Regardless of the legitimacy of altering the papacy, when you look at what JPII has done for the church in the past 26 years, I think it is clear that the papacy (as we know it) is very necessary. More of it in fact. We need to continue with his example of strong, clear, unyielding leadership. Too many “Catholics” want the church be remade in their own image. Without strong, decisive leadership from the pope, I fear many more souls will be lost to Cafeteria Catholicism (or even Cafeteria Spirituality). At least in the western church.
 
40.png
WhiteDove:
No, I’m in a Catholic Church. He said that the Petrine Ministry doesn’t need the Papacy as we know it to exist. He said this after the death of our Pope from the pulpit. He is a faithful priest I believe, although opinionated at times. He is very scholarly. I respect his intellect. I’m not well versed in Church history, but he says that the Petrine Ministry was expressed quite differently before Constintine.
Click to expand...
**Constantine? **Gimme a break. Do the words “development of doctrine” mean anything to the man?
 
According to my priest, there has only been one infallible proclamation by a Pope in the history of the church which was that of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Let’s see, the whole concept of infallibility as regards to Papal teaching on faith and morals, while it was certainly known and believed since apostolic times, was verbalized or written or proclaimed, however you want to say it, in Vatican I. . .which took place in what, 1870, under Pius X, right?

I guess your priest ignores the teaching of the church of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (which differs from “perpetual virginity”) because that teaching took place 16 years before, in 1854.

And I guess that “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” with its proclamation that the church has no authority to ordain women as priests isn’t “infallible” by Pope John Paul II for some unknown reason?

And that the deposit of faith in the ordinary Magesterium “doesn’t count”?

Hmmm, methinks a little learning hath made your priest mad. . .as well as potentially dangerous to your faith. . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top