Please help clarify some historical points -

[JRKH]

In a discussion on a different thread, I had the following exchange. As I am not particularly well versed in these matters I thought I would post the matter here so that both of us may benefit from the broader based (name removed by moderator)ut from (hopefully both Catholic and Protestant perspectives. So here goes…

Posted by krahnicles
(The Roman Catholic) structure has become more rigidly hierarchical and less conciliar in the second millennium than it was in the first although that does paint two millennia with an awfully broad brush, it’s basically imperial in nature and this often conflicts with a global trend away from such a thing, and the bishop of Rome maintains supremacy over all remaining Catholic bishops, although he did not always do so.

Posted by JRKH
One thing you can be sure of is that the Catholic Church, who’s mission it is to save souls through the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is not much interested in the global “trends” of governance. Jesus did not come to found a democracy, but a Kingdom. The Catholic Church then preserves that which Jesus came to found and declare.
The Bishop of Rome does maintain a primacy among the Bishops, not “authority over” them. This is recognized by all the bishops in communion with Rome. The Pope is less “over” the other bishops than he is their servant. The Chair of Peter carries with it immense responsibilities.

Posted by krahnicles
Briefly, I will submit that the First Council of Nicea was convened by the Roman emperor rather than a bishop, the Wars of Religion largely centered around disputes concerning the Holy Roman Emperor and various electors within the Holy Roman Empire, the Anglican Communion initially broke away from Rome on the say-so of Henry VIII (and it was effectively finalized by Elizabeth I) while the Archbishop of Canterbury had virtually no say in it, and the Peace of Westphalia appears to have concluded a conflict in which the side of the Reformers was hoping for an outcome that served to further separate church and state whereas the Catholic side was largely hoping to keep them intact- hand in glove, as it were….

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would ask the Protestant if he/she believes that if an emperor called a council in history, if that meant the Church recognized him to have higher Church authority than the bishops. If yes, then we can look at what decisions were made in the councils. If no, then his point is moot and is instead a historical detail about the involvement of the state in Church affairs at times in history.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Without knowing the context, I don’t really know what you are asking.

Posted by krahnicles
(The Roman Catholic) structure has become more rigidly hierarchical and less conciliar in the second millennium than it was in the first although that does paint two millennia with an awfully broad brush, it’s basically imperial in nature and this often conflicts with a global trend away from such a thing, and the bishop of Rome maintains supremacy over all remaining Catholic bishops, although he did not always do so.

I would not call the Church imperial - it is not an empire, it is a monarchy (the Pope is an absolute monarch).

Posted by JRKH
The Bishop of Rome does maintain a primacy among the Bishops, not “authority over” them. This is recognized by all the bishops in communion with Rome. The Pope is less “over” the other bishops than he is their servant. The Chair of Peter carries with it immense responsibilities.

I’m not exactly sure what the poster is trying to say, but one of the tiles of the Pope is “Servant of the Servants of God.”

**

Posted by krahnicles

Briefly, I will submit that the First Council of Nicea was convened by the Roman emperor rather than a bishop, **
The first eight Councils (and the 16th) were called by emperors. A Council is Ecumenical because of who attends and approves it, not because of who sends out the invitations.

 

[JRKH]

I would not call the Church imperial - it is not an empire, it is a monarchy (the Pope is an absolute monarch).

I believe the above is an incorrect way to phrase this…Jesus Christ is the absolute Monarch of the Church. The Pope is His Vicar. The Vicar of Christ, with authority (exercised with the magisterium) over the Church militant.

Peace
James

 

[DavidFilmer]

I believe the above is an incorrect way to phrase this…Jesus Christ is the absolute Monarch of the Church. The Pope is His Vicar. The Vicar of Christ, with authority (exercised with the magisterium) over the Church militant.

I think it is a perfectly good way to phrase it, at least in the way a monarchy is understood in the European sense (which is the sense most familiar to Americans). Monarchs have always regarded themselves as subject to God, and in fact have claimed that their authority to rule comes directly from God, and opposing the monarch is therefore regarded as opposing God (that’s the whole “Divine Right of Kings” thing). All monarchs are regarded as vicars (representatives) of God when exercising control over their fiefdoms. The only thing that makes the Pope different from these other monarchs is that this Divine Right is not merely a claim, but is absolutely guaranteed.

 

[JRKH]

I think it is a perfectly good way to phrase it, at least in the way a monarchy is understood in the European sense (which is the sense most familiar to Americans). Monarchs have always regarded themselves as subject to God, and in fact have claimed that their authority to rule comes directly from God, and opposing the monarch is therefore regarded as opposing God (that’s the whole “Divine Right of Kings” thing). All monarchs are regarded as vicars (representatives) of God when exercising control over their fiefdoms. The only thing that makes the Pope different from these other monarchs is that this Divine Right is not merely a claim, but is absolutely guaranteed.

Interesting explanation David - However I remain uncomfortable with the using the title monarch for the Pope in his role as head of the Church. I do so for a couple of reasons.

First - Is there anything in the Church’s teaching or documents that designate him “Monarch of the Catholic Church” - (this would be different than something that might possibly refer to him as monarch of the Vatican City State). I have heard the Pope and the office referred to as "Prince of the princes of the Church, as “Keeper of the Keys”, as Vicar of Christ, as the “Chief Steward” - but I have never heard the Pope referred to as the monarch of the Church - Perhaps I am wrong in this.

Second - unless I can be shown that “monarch” is an official title for the Pope, I find this designation to be troublesome to our non-catholic friends who rightly see Christ as the Monarch of The Church.

I’m not discounting your explanation - I just would like to have something a bit more “official” - if there is anything.

Peace
James