Pope and the Bible

[JonNC]

Yes.

This is the way I see it: when President Harrison spoke we really don’t know if he were guided by the Holy Spirit. I like to think that he was, but that is simply my, and yours, opinion. Now, I don’t know why anybody else on the planet also can’t be guided or moved by the Holy Spirit; and if they were, it would mean that they would be infallible, or inerrant (whatever word you want to use) by the very fact of the Holy Spirit.

However, how do we actually know for a fact if they are indeed moved by Holy Spirit? We don’t, we have only our own opinion. And we want to know, not merely have opinion. That is where the infallibillity of the pope comes in. Even so, we must realize, infallibillity isn’t quite the same thing as being guided by the Holy Spirit. Because infallibillity is a negative guarantee, that is, the pope isn’t necessarily given the truth, but is merely prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking untruth (when speaking ex cathedra). Otherwise, the pope can have his own personal opinions, like everyone else. (But, like all opinions, his would have more weight than others.)

The idea is, when the pope speaks ex cathedra we know that he isn’t giving false opinion; we know he isn’t speaking wrongly, because the Holy Spirit won’t allow him to speak if it is wrong. (This is not because of any particular merit on his own part, but because of his office.)

Don’t take this the wrong, Mack, because I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but how do we know he isn’t speaking wrongly? How do we know that his office is what the Catholic Church says it is? I accept his office as Bishop of Rome, and that of patriarch of the west. How do we know that his office has greater ability to speak for the whole Church than say, the Bishop of Antioch?

Jon

 

[Della]

Don’t take this the wrong, Mack, because I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but how do we know he isn’t speaking wrongly? How do we know that his office is what the Catholic Church says it is? I accept his office as Bishop of Rome, and that of patriarch of the west. How do we know that his office has greater ability to speak for the whole Church than say, the Bishop of Antioch?

Jon

[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."

Peter and his successors speak for Christ’s Church because Christ commissioned them to do so. Peter’s office is that of the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit endows the office of Pope with the charism of infallibility. This teaching was confirmed later, but it was always believed in practice by the Church Fathers and the bishops of the Church until the 2nd millenium split with the East. Yes, the pope is the Patriarch of the West, but he is more than that. Christ always meant for one man to guide the Church by giving to one man the keys of the kingdom of God. He didn’t give them to anyone else nor ever commissioned anyone else to take them as his Steward and the Serveant of the Servants of God.

 

[fhansen]

Don’t take this the wrong, Mack, because I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but how do we know he isn’t speaking wrongly? How do we know that his office is what the Catholic Church says it is? I accept his office as Bishop of Rome, and that of patriarch of the west. How do we know that his office has greater ability to speak for the whole Church than say, the Bishop of Antioch?

Jon

But that question can be posed regarding any article of faith of any denomination. It can be posed for Scripture, itself.

 

[JonNC]

[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."

Peter and his successors speak for Christ’s Church because Christ commissioned them to do so. Peter’s office is that of the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit endows the office of Pope with the charism of infallibility. This teaching was confirmed later, but it was always believed in practice by the Church Fathers and the bishops of the Church until the 2nd millenium split with the East. Yes, the pope is the Patriarch of the West, but he is more than that. Christ always meant for one man to guide the Church by giving to one man the keys of the kingdom of God. He didn’t give them to anyone else nor ever commissioned anyone else to take them as his Steward and the Serveant of the Servants of God.

Hi Della,
I know this is the Catholic take on it, but it is not shared by the other patriarchates, let alone the Lutheran reformers for a moment. Now, that’s not to say that he doesn’t play a central role of leadership in the Church. He does. But nothing in the early Church, not the ECF’s, but most importantly not the great councils of the Church speak of a supremacy.

To the extent Peter received the keys, he did so for the entire Church, not one see.

Jon

 

[Della]

Hi Della,
I know this is the Catholic take on it, but it is not shared by the other patriarchates, let alone the Lutheran reformers for a moment. Now, that’s not to say that he doesn’t play a central role of leadership in the Church. He does. But nothing in the early Church, not the ECF’s, but most importantly not the great councils of the Church speak of a supremacy. Jon

There is evidence in the early Church. It may be you are not familiar with it? All the councils of the Church are great in that they are all valid. Besides, even if the Church itself had not confirmed the papacy’s unique position, Christ did, and that should suffice.

To the extent Peter received the keys, he did so for the entire Church, not one see.

Precisely. He is the earthly head of ALL the Church not simply one see.

 

[SteveVH]

Precisely. He is the earthly head of ALL the Church not simply one see.

Exactly. And Peter did not run to the nearest hardware store and make copies of the keys to hand out to everyone to do as they saw fit according to their personal whims. There are only the original keys and they are still held by the Bishop of Rome, for all the Church.

 

[pablope]

I never said it was a tyranny. The power has only been exercised twice, yes, but the dogmas defined are hugely important. What will you say if Co Redemptrix is next? 2050 maybe?

If it does happen…then it is only by the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

 

[po18guy]

Don’t take this the wrong, Mack, because I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but how do we know he isn’t speaking wrongly? How do we know that his office is what the Catholic Church says it is? I accept his office as Bishop of Rome, and that of patriarch of the west. How do we know that his office has greater ability to speak for the whole Church than say, the Bishop of Antioch?Jon

It’s in the reading of the scriptures as well as the structure of the early Church that has been handed on. Scriptural evidence for Petrine primacy is mountainous. But, if you are not looking for it, you will not see it. However, we observe in the very nature of human organizations that someone (the “old man”) must be in charge. To have disseminated authority leads at best to committee-think, at worst to factionalism. If you have a system of parallel Patriarchs, you observe some level of division, as we sadly see among the Orthodox. They are far from an Eastern monolith, having substantial differences amongst them as to accepted councils, universal canon of scripture, etc. Relations between some of the Patriarchates are less than perfect. As in the military, unity is maintained via obedience to a central commander - yet the military does not have the promise of the Holy Spirit’s leading. How can the Holy Spirit lead different Patriarchs to accept different numbers of ecumenical councils? Different canons of scripture? And, once you abandon the Apostolic Church model, the door is wide open as we can easily observe in fractured Christendom today.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Don’t take this the wrong, Mack, because I don’t mean it disrespectfully, but how do we know he isn’t speaking wrongly? How do we know that his office is what the Catholic Church says it is? I accept his office as Bishop of Rome, and that of patriarch of the west. How do we know that his office has greater ability to speak for the whole Church than say, the Bishop of Antioch?

Jon

Jon, you’re right. We don’t know. We don’t know if the bible is speaking wrongly. We don’t know if the Church got the canon right. It’s faith.

By faith, we all accept that the bible is right. We all start there. But after that, we disagree on what the bible says. How to interpret it. Everyone has their opinion, but that is what it is–opinion. They don’t realy know. The early Reformers rejected church as authoritative, so they tried to get around that by positing that scripture was self-interpreting, perspicuous. Some still hold to that postulate against all logic and experience.

Jesus said we would know the truth. Not have a personal opinion, but know. So, for those who accept the infallibility of ecumenical councils, and hence the infallibility of the pope, there is a way to know. When the councils or the pope speak, the dispute is settled, and there is no more opinion. To repeat, this knowing only applies to those who by faith accept this infallibility, not to others. The others are still left arguing about opinion.

The underlying idea is that God must have given us some way to settle disputes definitively. We are not orphans. Catholics accept the Church, councils and the popes as that way. Others in this thread have put forward their reasons why.

 

[JonNC]

=Della;10216913]There is evidence in the early Church. It may be you are not familiar with it? All the councils of the Church are great in that they are all valid. Besides, even if the Church itself had not confirmed the papacy’s unique position, Christ did, and that should suffice.

Hi Della,
I’m familiar with Nicea canon 6, which describes the see of Alexandria, etc. as having the same jurisdiction in their areas as the Bishop of Rome does in his, that being the west.
The issue is universal jurisdiction, and that question remains in dispute.

Precisely. He is the earthly head of ALL the Church not simply one see.

The question is what does that primacy entail. Is it a supremacy of jurisdiction, or a primacy of honor?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

It’s in the reading of the scriptures as well as the structure of the early Church that has been handed on. Scriptural evidence for Petrine primacy is mountainous. But, if you are not looking for it, you will not see it. However, we observe in the very nature of human organizations that someone (the “old man”) must be in charge. To have disseminated authority leads at best to committee-think, at worst to factionalism. If you have a system of parallel Patriarchs, you observe some level of division, as we sadly see among the Orthodox. They are far from an Eastern monolith, having substantial differences amongst them as to accepted councils, universal canon of scripture, etc. Relations between some of the Patriarchates are less than perfect. As in the military, unity is maintained via obedience to a central commander - yet the military does not have the promise of the Holy Spirit’s leading. How can the Holy Spirit lead different Patriarchs to accept different numbers of ecumenical councils? Different canons of scripture? And, once you abandon the Apostolic Church model, the door is wide open as we can easily observe in fractured Christendom today.

Primacy. Is that the same as supremacy? If it is, what council of the early Church states it as so, since Nicea does not?

I won’t argue against the need for a hierarchy. Lutheranism suffers from a lack of it. But that hierarchy, ISTM, was established in the early councils, and they don’t offer a supremacy of one see.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=mackbrislawn;10217678]Jon, you’re right. We don’t know. We don’t know if the bible is speaking wrongly. We don’t know if the Church got the canon right. It’s faith.

More than faith, though, is a reading of the early councils.

By faith, we all accept that the bible is right. We all start there. But after that, we disagree on what the bible says. How to interpret it. Everyone has their opinion, but that is what it is–opinion. They don’t realy know. The early Reformers rejected church as authoritative, so they tried to get around that by positing that scripture was self-interpreting, perspicuous. Some still hold to that postulate against all logic and experience.

I think, in terms of Lutheranism, it is overstating it to say we reject the Church as authoritative. The confessions offer a willingness, a desire, to stay within the orders of the Church. We accept the early 7 councils, not in an infallible sense as Catholics might, but authoritative in a sense.

Jesus said we would know the truth. Not have a personal opinion, but know. So, for those who accept the infallibility of ecumenical councils, and hence the infallibility of the pope, there is a way to know. When the councils or the pope speak, the dispute is settled, and there is no more opinion. To repeat, this knowing only applies to those who by faith accept this infallibility, not to others. The others are still left arguing about opinion.

Even if one accepts the early councils as infallible, they never say the Bishop of Rome is.

The underlying idea is that God must have given us some way to settle disputes definitively. We are not orphans. Catholics accept the Church, councils and the popes as that way. Others in this thread have put forward their reasons why.

Speaking only for me, when the whole Church, east and west (protestant communions notwithstanding) recognize the primacy of the pope in the same way, regardless of the level of that primacy, I will too. Until then, who is right?

Jon

 

[Della]

More than faith, though, is a reading of the early councils.

I think, in terms of Lutheranism, it is overstating it to say we reject the Church as authoritative. The confessions offer a willingness, a desire, to stay within the orders of the Church. We accept the early 7 councils, not in an infallible sense as Catholics might, but authoritative in a sense.

Then you don’t believe that Jesus promised that the Church would be led in “all truth” by the Holy Spirit but only in the first few councils and only on a limited number of issues? How is that consistent?

Even if one accepts the early councils as infallible, they never say the Bishop of Rome is.

Councils make decisions about issues that are in dispute. The authority of the Bishop of Rome was never in dispute, hence no need to deal with it in the early councils.

Speaking only for me, when the whole Church, east and west (protestant communions notwithstanding) recognize the primacy of the pope in the same way, regardless of the level of that primacy, I will too. Until then, who is right?

Jon

This too is inconsistent. To say that all men must agree who have rejected the primacy of the Catholic Church is asking for what even Jesus couldn’t do while on earth when he couldn’t keep anyone from leaving him–and I don’t mean just Judas. He had other followers who left him. He didn’t try to keep them, he let them go their own way. God is not in the business of convincing people of what he has declared. He just expects obedience.

 

[JonNC]

=Della;10217946]Then you don’t believe that Jesus promised that the Church would be led in “all truth” by the Holy Spirit but only in the first few councils and only on a limited number of issues? How is that consistent?

What part of the Church, Della? It is only the first few councils that are ecumenical.

Of course the Spirit is leading us into all truth. And I say “us” intentionally. Whether or not we properly discern that truth is another matter. And as for “only a limited number of issues”, that understates even our agreements, not to mention ours and yours with the east.

Councils make decisions about issues that are in dispute. The authority of the Bishop of Rome was never in dispute, hence no need to deal with it in the early councils.

Clearly it was before long. And obviously it is today, 1,000 years after the Great Schism.

This too is inconsistent. To say that all men must agree who have rejected the primacy of the Catholic Church is asking for what even Jesus couldn’t do while on earth when he couldn’t keep anyone from leaving him–and I don’t mean just Judas. He had other followers who left him. He didn’t try to keep them, he let them go their own way. God is not in the business of convincing people of what he has declared. He just expects obedience.

I’m not asking for all men, just the other bishops of the Church, whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders.

Jon

 

[Della]

What part of the Church, Della? It is only the first few councils that are ecumenical.

So all the other councils don’t count?

Of course the Spirit is leading us into all truth. And I say “us” intentionally. Whether or not we properly discern that truth is another matter. And as for “only a limited number of issues”, that understates even our agreements, not to mention ours and yours with the east.

I think you misunderstand me. You are saying you only agree on a limited amount of issues because you reject the later Church councils. If you accept the early ones, why not the later ones? Simply because they weren’t “ecumenical”? That’s not reasonable or consistent.

Clearly it was before long. And obviously it is today, 1,000 years after the Great Schism.

If it was in dispute so early why didn’t the ecumenical councils deal with such an important issue? And it hardly matters if people rejected the primacy of the papacy after the break with the East or the reformation. One was and is in schism and the other left to form their own churches. That’s hardly proof that the papacy is not supposed to be universal, only that some people reject it as such.

I’m not asking for all men, just the other bishops of the Church, whom the Catholic Church recognizes as having valid orders.

Jon

The only bishops with valid orders apart from those in the Catholic Church are the Orthodox. Lutherans and others don’t have valid orders in the eyes of the Church. The Orthodox are free and all others are free to return whenever they want. We’re patiently waiting and praying that they do. But if they never do it says nothing whatsoever about the legitimacy of primacy of the papacy any more than lawbreakers make the law invalid–to use the first example that comes to me, although not necessarily the best one.

 

[JonNC]

=Della;10218031]So all the other councils don’t count?

Not as ecumenical.

I think you misunderstand me. You are saying you only agree on a limited amount of issues because you reject the later Church councils. If you accept the early ones, why not the later ones? Simply because they weren’t “ecumenical”? That’s not reasonable or consistent.

It is both reasonable and consistent. Protestantism aside, they aren’t accepted by the whole of the bishops, even in concensus.

If it was in dispute so early why didn’t the ecumenical councils deal with such an important issue? And it hardly matters if people rejected the primacy of the papacy after the break with the East or the reformation. One was and is in schism and the other left to form their own churches. That’s hardly proof that the papacy is not supposed to be universal, only that some people reject it as such.

well, it seems to me they did contend with jurisdiction. See Nicea canon 6.

The only bishops with valid orders apart from those in the Catholic Church are the Orthodox. Lutherans and others don’t have valid orders in the eyes of the Church. The Orthodox are free and all others are free to return whenever they want. We’re patiently waiting and praying that they do

Della, that’s why I made the caveat.
Or, you are free to return to them.

You see? There’s the issue.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Primacy. Is that the same as supremacy? If it is, what council of the early Church states it as so, since Nicea does not?

I think that it was unwritten, as was so much in the early Church. Some of the fathers spoke to this, and someone probably has those quotes. Could have been Origen, but I might have chemo brain today.

I won’t argue against the need for a hierarchy. Lutheranism suffers from a lack of it. But that hierarchy, ISTM, was established in the early councils, and they don’t offer a supremacy of one see. Jon

Could the lack of a successor of Luther have had its effect on Lutheran unity? Rhetorical, but something to ponder.

 

[SteveVH]

The only bishops with valid orders apart from those in the Catholic Church are the Orthodox. Lutherans and others don’t have valid orders in the eyes of the Church. The Orthodox are free and all others are free to return whenever they want. We’re patiently waiting and praying that they do. But if they never do it says nothing whatsoever about the legitimacy of primacy of the papacy any more than lawbreakers make the law invalid–to use the first example that comes to me, although not necessarily the best one.

Or any more than a child who dishonors and disowns his parents makes their parental authority invalid. Authority does not vanish because there are those that defy it. The Church is the merciful father who waits for the return of the prodigal son.

 

[mackbrislawn]

More than faith, though, is a reading of the early councils.
I’m not sure what you mean. Of course we have to have faith in the councils.

I think, in terms of Lutheranism, it is overstating it to say we reject the Church as authoritative. The confessions offer a willingness, a desire, to stay within the orders of the Church. We accept the early 7 councils, not in an infallible sense as Catholics might, but authoritative in a sense.

However, this is the way I feel it works in practice–that this authority only goes as far as one agrees with it. That one can dig for good ideas in it, but can also ignore things you don’t want. At least that is the way it appears to me?

Even if one accepts the early councils as infallible, they never say the Bishop of Rome is.

Correct. Only Vatican 1. And if you don’t accept that council as ecumenical and hence infallible, neither would you need to accept its decisions.

Speaking only for me, when the whole Church, east and west (protestant communions notwithstanding) recognize the primacy of the pope in the same way, regardless of the level of that primacy, I will too. Until then, who is right?

Understood. Actually, I am not personally a fan of papal infallibility. Were I a bishop at Vatican 1 I wouldn’t have voted for it. It creates too much of a stumbling block to unity. I haven’t gone through all the reasons they had, but papal infallibility seems to be a quck and dirty way to resolve disputes without going to all the hassle and expense of a council.

A council that everybody, including Orthodox and Protestants would recognize as ecumenical, would be about logistically impossible to mount. So, we are left stewing in our own separate ideas, without means of knowing which is right, if any. Some people are happy with that, some aren’t.

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;10218086]I think that it was unwritten, as was so much in the early Church. Some of the fathers spoke to this, and someone probably has those quotes. Could have been Origen, but I might have chemo brain today.

Chemo brain? Are you ok, my friend?

Could the lack of a successor of Luther have had its effect on Lutheran unity? Rhetorical, but something to ponder.

Rhetorical or not, it really doesn’t apply much, as he really never held a hierarchical position. It just isn’t the way Lutheranism developed. Plus, one could call Chemnitz a “successor”, if really looking for one. And there were others.

Jon