/…/ [M]any Christian leaders have apologized that the misuse of the (universal jurisdiction) one-NT-canon has harmed Christian unity, by supporting slavery and other evils, when quoted by bad or misled men.
True, the abuses of the single universal papal jurisdiction have harmed unity, just as the abuses of (universal jurisdiction) Scripture have. That does not mean Christian unity would benefit from a few, equal, non-universal pope-type leaders, any more than unity would benefit from various, equal New Testament canons, rather than the one, universal canon we have had. Keep in mind the demand for a reduced, selective, and non-universal papacy (multiple papacies) is going on at the same time as the movement for self selecting your own personal NT canons, rather than everybody accepting the traditional 27 book canon. “The Gospel of Mathew may be Scripture for you, but the Gospel of Thomas is Scripture for me”.
Many think we can advance Christian unity by getting the pope to give up the claim to one kind of universal jurisdiction - the ONE Magisterium - and that this surrender won’t affect the other claimed universal jurisdiction, of our ONE canon of NT. That unity will be safe and secure forever.
Good thing we live in 2015, where there are no bad men who would dare add or subtract books from the NT once the Magisterium turned into a committee.
I don’t understand your comments to me. My posts were answering points on consensus and points to be resolved in the international dialogue between the Holy See and Lutherans and why points referred to by JonNC have significant theological import for both sides in dialogue.
Statements like the “Magisterium turned into a committee” leave me unsure what is implied.
It’s unclear to me how to interpret the contrast of “universal papal jurisdiction” and “universal jurisdiction Scripture” [sic]. The contrast is lost to me as is how to understand the second phrase. Scripture is part of the Deposit of the Faith; Scripture does not have or exercise jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is theologically, ecclesiologically and canonically proper to an office and a person.
The Magisterium, that is the Church’s teaching office exercised by the Bishop of Rome personally or the college of bishops collectively, cannot be made a contrast to the canon of Scripture. The Magisterium is the interpreter and guardian of the Deposit of the Faith; placing parallel “ONE Magisterium” and “ONE canon of the New Testament” is a juxtaposition that leaves me not knowing what you’re trying to convey.
Who at the level of international dialogue advocates as an ecumenical remedy “a few equal non-universal pope-type leaders”? As a theologian, I don’t know what that could even plausibly allude to. From theology and ecclesiology, what person or office is this attempting to describe? It clearly is not a Lutheran-Catholic reality. The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Primus Inter Pares of the Anglican Communion would reject the suggestion that they hold a “pope-like” office; they would eschew such a comparison. As should Catholics.
I also have no idea who are the “many” who are thinking of “getting the pope” to act as you describe. As one reads in Ut Unum Sint, the papacy has been a driving force in all the dialogues; so many of the ecumenical initiatives are from the Holy Father. It has been the Pope, conscious of the issues of past and present, who has called for Catholic and non-Catholic theological experts to provide him their thoughts on how the Petrine ministry could and should be used in the future.
If these remarks you make refer to individuals who have no relevance to the dialogue, their opinions are irrelevant to decisions taken.
My comments addressed the international dialogue where the participants represent the Holy See and the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him on the one hand and those representing the Lutherans at their highest levels on the other. Those who participate in these exchanges are assuredly not counted as “many”.
All these statements leave me in the same quandary as comments earlier in this thread when one spoke of a hypothetical non-denominational minister who asserts that what he does in a liturgical action brings about a real presence in what he terms a eucharist and what therefore are the ramifications of that. If such a person could be found somewhere in the world, it is as irrelevant to the dialogues at hand as these comments.
Introducing extraneous hypotheticals or non-sequitur situations is to not understand how theological dialogue works among dialogue partners, how the Holy See and its dicasteries work, or the nature of the analysis by all the fields touched upon in these exchanges as these examinations span hundreds of years.
Concerning one last comment: who, with the authority of deliberation at the level of the international theological dialogue, is asserting a desire to alter the canon of the New Testament? If this is presenting the opinions of an anomalous individual, what possible significance is that to the decisions taken in dialogue by the Holy See and their dialogue counterparts? Why would such insignificant opinions have any value or merit to those conducting the dialogue?
To equate, for example, the determinations of the International Theological Commission under the presidency of Gerhard Cardinal Müller with random individuals or gatherings of persons who arrive at bizarre conclusions about the Gospel of Thomas is incomprehensible.
The quote “The Gospel of Mathew may be Scripture for
you, but the Gospel of Thomas is Scripture for
me” is a subjectivism that is extreme and not of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue by any stretch. Even at a national or lesser regional level, such a position expressed by someone would simply be utterly rejected by the superior body.
