Protestants in Heaven without Confession?

[steve_b]

Can Protestants go to Heaven without Confession?

Without knowing particulars, If one says they can, that would be pure speculation…i.e. wishful thinking on their part
k:

If so, then what is the purpose of having confession if justification can be accomplished without Confession?

Especially so with Mortal Sins… If I commit a Mortal sin, feel remorse and decide I need to go to confession ASAP, and then die before getting there, I would still go to Heaven because I had every intention of heart change and confession before the priest.

Therefore it seems only necessary to have a heart change and not confession/absolution from a priest of ones sins?

Obviously if my third paragraphs assumption is incorrect then what I’m saying falls apart.

Also how is a protestant justified if he/she commits a mortal sin? Or are they not? If that is so it makes me feel like a lot of Protestants are going to Hell…

Confused… Help.

One could ask, how does a Protestant deal with the following passage?

1 Jn 5:
*16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, *he will ask, and God * will give him lifefor those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

How do they get rid of mortal sin?

 

[inkaneer]

Yes, I already stated that I know the Lutheran minister is not in the line of succession. But the organist is not an ordained minister. Are you saying that those who sincerely repent and go to confession to a Lutheran minister will go to hell anyway?

No the organist is not an ordained minister but then what does “ordaining” someone really mean? If one denies church authority, as the Lutherans do, then how can they “ordain” anyone? Does not the very act of “ordaining” mean that authority is involved/ Does it not indicate that authority is passed from one [the one ‘ordaining’] to another [the one being ordained]? But if one denies that authority exists then where does that leave one???

So the organist and the minister are really in the same boat. So, to answer your question of, “Are you saying that those who sincerely repent and go to confession to a Lutheran minister will go to hell anyway?” I say I don’t know. All I can say is that confessing to a Lutheran minister is not sacramental confession. I think the term “invinceable ignorance” is one of those terms concocted by theologians to answer questions which we really do not know the answer. Sort of like the term “Limbo” was concocted to answer the question of what happens to unbaptized babies. So in the end the real answer is we do not know and we leave it in the hands of God. That cannot be a satisfactory answer for anyone who wants to claim they are saved.

 

[sw85]

Can Protestants go to Heaven without Confession?

If so, then what is the purpose of having confession if justification can be accomplished without Confession?

Anyone can, strictly speaking, get to Heaven without having received any of the earthly sacraments. Those conditions are probably exceedingly rare, since the theological speculation is that very, very few are saved, inside or outside the Church.

At any rate, lots of people make it to Heaven without ever confessing even one sin: namely, baptized infants who die before the age of reason.

Confession exists to enrich our lives with grace – the same grace that will ultimately save us. It gives us a greater assurance of salvation. It restores charity and hope. Etc.

Especially so with Mortal Sins… If I commit a Mortal sin, feel remorse and decide I need to go to confession ASAP, and then die before getting there, I would still go to Heaven because I had every intention of heart change and confession before the priest.

You would go to Heaven *if *you experienced perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition would not suffice; for absolution to occur with only imperfect contrition, you’d need the assistance of sacramental confession.

Therefore it seems only necessary to have a heart change and not confession/absolution from a priest of ones sins?

Perfect contrition includes a resolution to confess at the nearest opportunity, so no, confession is still not unnecessary in that case.

Also how is a protestant justified if he/she commits a mortal sin? Or are they not? If that is so it makes me feel like a lot of Protestants are going to Hell…

A lot of Protestants *are *going to Hell. Straight is the gate and narrow the road that leads to salvation, and little is the number who walk it.

The LCMS Church has confession and absolution! Good thing too

Well, you have a nonsacramental simulacrum of these things.

 

[inkaneer]

Hmm. Why, then did the Council of Nicea see the need to identify the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction in canon 6?

Jon

Are you saying the Council limited the jurisdiction of Rome? If you are then that is totally wrong. Canon 6 essentially established the Patriarchial system for church administration. Priests report to bishops; bishops reported to Metropolitans [archbishops] who reported to Patriarchs. It was an attempt to ensure orthodoxy. But there was no limitation on Rome’s jurisdiction.

This fact is brought out just 17 years after the Council of Nicea by the minor council of Sardica which stated in two of its canons the following:

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

“*f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4).

No limitation on jurisdiction here, is there?**

 

[inkaneer]

Thank you, my friend.

Do you think, as important a distinction as this is, that if the council understood the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that they would have used language that seems to equate the jurisdictional privileges of Rome and Alexandria? I wold think that this very important issue would have called for more precise language.

Jon

Why would they, or anyone for that matter, define something for which definition was not deemed necessary? Why for instance did the Council of Nicea do nothing to define the Trinity? A later council did do just that but why wasn’t it done at Nicea? We could ask a whole lot of question of why they didn’t define this or define that. The answer is quite simple. They were not defined because they were non issues.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I have no doubt that, at least in my opinion, the early reformers, (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.) were outright heretics with their own agenda to push. But I also believe that today’s Protestants and their pastors are good, decent, God fearing people who love the Lord and want to serve Him in the best way according to the culture in which they were raised. I accept them as Christians and believe that their chances at Heaven are about the same as ours. I even pray for their souls in purgatory.
Anyone have a problem with that?

 

[JonNC]

I am an ex-LCMS Lutheran and have never heard this. Where can I read evidence of this?

Hi Annie,
From the Augsburg Confession

Article XI: Of Confession.

1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession 2] an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.

Following from the Small Catechism which, if you went through catechetical classes leading up to Confirmation, you should be quite familiar with.

V. Confession

How Christians should be taught to confess.

What is Confession?*

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

What sins should we confess?

Before God we should plead guilty of all sins, even of those which we do not know, as we do in the Lord’s Prayer. But before the confessor we should confess those sins alone which we know and feel in our hearts.

Which are these?

Here consider your station according to the Ten Commandments, whether you are a father, mother, son, daughter, master, mistress, a man-servant or maid-servant; whether you have been disobedient, unfaithful, slothful; whether you have grieved any one by words or deeds; whether you have stolen, neglected, or wasted aught, or done other injury.

Pray, Propose to Me a Brief Form of Confession.

Answer.

You should speak to the confessor thus: Reverend and dear sir, I beseech you to hear my confession, and to pronounce forgiveness to me for God’s sake.

Proceed!

I, a poor sinner, confess myself before God guilty of all sins; especially I confess before you that I am a man-servant, a maidservant, etc. But, alas, I serve my master unfaithfully; for in this and in that I have not done what they commanded me; I have provoked them, and caused them to curse, have been negligent [in many things] and permitted damage to be done; have also been immodest in words and deeds, have quarreled with my equals, have grumbled and sworn at my mistress, etc. For all this I am sorry, and pray for grace; I want to do better.

A master or mistress may say thus:

In particular I confess before you that I have not faithfully trained my children, domestics, and wife [family] for God’s glory. I have cursed, set a bad example by rude words and deeds, have done my neighbor harm and spoken evil of him, have overcharged and given false ware and short measure.

And whatever else he has done against God’s command and his station, etc.

But if any one does not find himself burdened with such or greater sins, he should not trouble himself or search for or invent other sins, and thereby make confession a torture, but mention one or two that he knows. Thus: In particular I confess that I once cursed; again, I once used improper words, I have once neglected this or that, etc. Let this suffice.

But if you know of none at all (which, however is scarcely possible), then mention none in particular, but receive the forgiveness upon your general confession which you make before God to the confessor.

Then shall the confessor say:

God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith! Amen.

Furthermore:

Dost thou believe that my forgiveness is God’s forgiveness?

Answer.

Yes, dear sir.

Then let him say:

As thou believest, so be it done unto thee. And by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I forgive thee thy sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in peace.

But those who have great burdens upon their consciences, or are distressed and tempted, the confessor will know how to comfort and to encourage to faith with more passages of Scripture. This is to be merely a general form of confession for the unlearned.

• These questions may not have been composed by Luther himself but reflect his teachings and were included in editions of the Small Catechism during his lifetime.

Finally, the LCMS Lutheran Service Book, and most other Lutheran service books/hymnals contain in the the order for Private Confession/ Absolution.
See starting pg. 14 in this, the Pastoral companion book to the LSB.
cph.org/pdf/031178.pdf

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Why would they, or anyone for that matter, define something for which definition was not deemed necessary? Why for instance did the Council of Nicea do nothing to define the Trinity? A later council did do just that but why wasn’t it done at Nicea? We could ask a whole lot of question of why they didn’t define this or define that. The answer is quite simple. They were not defined because they were non issues.

I actually agree. It was a non-issue because no one thought of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as being anymore than others of the time - Alexandria, etc.

But it has been an issue for over 1,000 years, one unresolved in a council.

Jon

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Why would they, or anyone for that matter, define something for which definition was not deemed necessary? Why for instance did the Council of Nicea do nothing to define the Trinity? A later council did do just that but why wasn’t it done at Nicea? We could ask a whole lot of question of why they didn’t define this or define that. The answer is quite simple. They were not defined because they were non issues.

I actually agree. It was a non-issue because no one thought of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as being anymore than others of the time - Alexandria, etc.

But it has been an issue for over 1,000 years, one unresolved in a council.

Jon

But that is not correct. As early as the first century we find churches in various parts appealing to Rome for guidance in theological and church matters. Corinth comes to mind as does Antioch. Eusebius of Caesarea relates how, in about 190 AD, the Church at Rome involved itself in settling the issue in Asia Minor of when Easter was to be celebrated. In fact there is no question in the early church as the universality of the authority of the church at Rome. Now if you should happen to have some concrete evidence to support your allegations then please do present it. But thus far all you have presented is your own biased opinion.

 

[JonNC]

But that is not correct. As early as the first century we find churches in various parts appealing to Rome for guidance in theological and church matters. Corinth comes to mind as does Antioch. Eusebius of Caesarea relates how, in about 190 AD, the Church at Rome involved itself in settling the issue in Asia Minor of when Easter was to be celebrated. In fact there is no question in the early church as the universality of the authority of the church at Rome. Now if you should happen to have some concrete evidence to support your allegations then please do present it. But thus far all you have presented is your own biased opinion.

I presented Nicea canon 6. Which ecumenical council have you presented? And this dispute is more than 500 years prior to the Reformation. It has nothing to do with my “opinion”, or of that of the Lutheran reformers, though they speak to it.

Is there one time, in one council, where the Bishop of Rome is said to have universal jurisdiction? The fact that the Bishop of Rome is held in high regard, and looked to for assistance on settling disputes is not in question. I don’t even question a certain primacy for him. But no where in any early council will you find unversal jursidcition, and the fatc that the eastern patriarchates then and now dispute it is evidence far greater than my “opinion”.

Jon

 

[sw85]

I have no doubt that, at least in my opinion, the early reformers, (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.) were outright heretics with their own agenda to push. But I also believe that today’s Protestants and their pastors are good, decent, God fearing people who love the Lord and want to serve Him in the best way according to the culture in which they were raised. I accept them as Christians and believe that their chances at Heaven are about the same as ours. I even pray for their souls in purgatory.
Anyone have a problem with that?

You would be better served by abstaining from having an opinion on questions that are well above human paygrades.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JonNC,

Thank you, my friend.

Do you think, as important a distinction as this is, that if the council understood the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that they would have used language that seems to equate the jurisdictional privileges of Rome and Alexandria? I would think that this very important issue would have called for more precise language.

I remembered this response from you, but after a few days, I had totally forgotten what thread it was in (the title of the thread does not immediately lead one to consider that there is a discussion on jurisdiction within it!).

I think it would be incorrect to assume that “universal jurisdiction” was an issue about which the early Church fussed about. So I do not understand the need to spell it out more precisely. A direct, uninterpreted reading of Canon 6 actually indicates that the bishop of Rome had the same prerogatives as the bishop of Alexandria in the territories within which the bishop of Alexandria is recognized to have jurisdiction:
Let the custom prevail, that the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these territories, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome.

If we are to read the Canon without any outside bias, it actually states directly that it is customary for the bishop of Rome to have jurisdiction in the same territories that it is recognized the bishop of Alexandria has.

That the bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is being restricted is nowhere found in the Canon itself ad verbum, wouldn’t you agree? The assumption that there is any indication of the limits of Rome’s jurisdiction comes from outside the Canon. At the same time, I agree that there is also no indication in the Canon itself ad verbum of a “universal jurisdiction” for the bishop of Rome. It’s just not a question that the Canon intended to answer. The original purpose of the Canon was to establish the prerogatives of the bishop of Alexandria because at that time, there was actually a certain Meletius who, challenging the rightful jurisdictional prerogatives of the bishop of Alexandria, went about ordaining others in the same territories, and causing schism (this group eventually joined the Arians).

Is there one time, in one council, where the Bishop of Rome is said to have universal jurisdiction? The fact that the Bishop of Rome is held in high regard, and looked to for assistance on settling disputes is not in question. I don’t even question a certain primacy for him. But no where in any early council will you find unversal jursidcition, and the fatc that the eastern patriarchates then and now dispute it is evidence far greater than my “opinion”.

As noted by someone else, the Council of Sardica (it’s Canons approved by the Fourth Ecum, the Eastern Council of Trullo, and the Seventh Ecum) asserts that the Bishop of Rome had a universal jurisdiction, for the very fact that any bishop throughout the Church could appeal to him. Answer this: Is it logical to appeal to someone if you claim at the same time that the person to whom you are appealing does not actually have the authority to hear and settle your appeal?

The issue, really, is “what does ‘universal jurisdiction’ mean?” Does it mean the Pope can intervene into the affairs of any local Church at his mere discretion? That’s definitely not what it means. Here are the exact words of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory:
"“Vatican I’s definition, however, does NOT assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches…The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).
Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).”

Note that the Pope did not say that a Pope has no authority to daily intervene in the affairs of a local Church merely because it is practically impossible (which is the usual claim of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors), but that the Pope does not actually have the power to daily intervene in the affairs of a local Church PERIOD. Should we listen to the Pope, or the fearmongering of Low Petrine advocates and the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates?

I think the problem is that many people understand “jurisdiction” only in terms of legal authority to impose laws. HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current Pope have both proposed that “jurisdiction” should be understood more in terms of service to and care for the Church, rather than the power to impose laws. Is such an understanding agreeable?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JonNC]

Hi Mardukm!

=mardukm;10187646]Dear brother JonNC,

I remembered this response from you, but after a few days, I had totally forgotten what thread it was in (the title of the thread does not immediately lead one to consider that there is a discussion on jurisdiction within it!).

I think it would be incorrect to assume that “universal jurisdiction” was an issue about which the early Church fussed about. So I do not understand the need to spell it out more precisely. A direct, uninterpreted reading of Canon 6 actually indicates that the bishop of Rome had the same prerogatives as the bishop of Alexandria in the territories within which the bishop of Alexandria is recognized to have jurisdiction:
Let the custom prevail, that the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these territories, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome.

And my understanding of the clear reading is that the “like is customary” refers to the Bishop of Rome in his territory.

If we are to read the Canon without any outside bias, it actually states directly that it is customary for the bishop of Rome to have jurisdiction in the same territories that it is recognized the bishop of Alexandria has.

We all have outside biases. Question; why is it then that our Orthodoxsiblings do not hold to your understanding of his jurisdiction.

That the bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction is being restricted is nowhere found in the Canon itself ad verbum, wouldn’t you agree? The assumption that there is any indication of the limits of Rome’s jurisdiction comes from outside the Canon. At the same time, I agree that there is also no indication in the Canon itself ad verbum of a “universal jurisdiction” for the bishop of Rome. It’s just not a question that the Canon intended to answer. The original purpose of the Canon was to establish the prerogatives of the bishop of Alexandria because at that time, there was actually a certain Meletius who, challenging the rightful jurisdictional prerogatives of the bishop of Alexandria, went about ordaining others in the same territories, and causing schism (this group eventually joined the Arians).

But no where is it expanded beyond his jurisdiction, except in terms of his patriarchate.

As noted by someone else, the Council of Sardica (it’s Canons approved by the Fourth Ecum, the Eastern Council of Trullo, and the Seventh Ecum) asserts that the Bishop of Rome had a universal jurisdiction, for the very fact that any bishop throughout the Church could appeal to him. Answer this: Is it logical to appeal to someone if you claim at the same time that the person to whom you are appealing does not actually have the authority to hear and settle your appeal?

Well, sure. I have in the past asked other teachers to intervene with a student for me. Like I said, I am not questioning the pope’s rather unique and distinctive position in the Church.

The issue, really, is “what does ‘universal jurisdiction’ mean?” Does it mean the Pope can intervene into the affairs of any local Church at his mere discretion? That’s definitely not what it means. Here are the exact words of HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory:
"“Vatican I’s definition, however, does NOT assign to the Pope a power or responsibility to intervene daily in the local churches…The Council expressly states: “This power of the Supreme Pontiff does not at all impede the exercise of that power of ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction with which the bishops, appointed by the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 20:28) as successors of the apostles, shepherd and govern the flock entrusted to them as true pastors…” (DS 3061).
Indeed, we should keep in mind a statement of the German episcopate (1875) approved by Pius IX that said: “The episcopate also exists by virtue of the same divine institution on which the office of the Supreme Pontiff is based. It enjoys rights and duties in virtue of a disposition that comes from God himself, and the Supreme Pontiff has neither the right nor the power to change them.” The decrees of Vatican I are thus understood in a completely erroneous way when one presumes that because of them “episcopal jurisdiction has been replaced by papal jurisdiction”; that the Pope “is taking for himself the place of every bishop”; and that the bishops are merely “instruments of the Pope: they are his officials without responsibility of their own” (DS 3115).”

Note that the Pope did not say that a Pope has no authority to daily intervene in the affairs of a local Church merely because it is practically impossible (which is the usual claim of Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors), but that the Pope does not actually have the power to daily intervene in the affairs of a local Church PERIOD. Should we listen to the Pope, or the fearmongering of Low Petrine advocates and the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates?

I think the problem is that many people understand “jurisdiction” only in terms of legal authority to impose laws. HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory and our current Pope have both proposed that “jurisdiction” should be understood more in terms of service to and care for the Church, rather than the power to impose laws.** Is such an understanding agreeable**?

I rather think it is. The question becomes do the other patriarchates think it so, and are the “understandings” of Popes JP II and Benedict sufficient enough to see that as the distinct teaching of the Catholic Church?

 

[benjohnson]

I am an ex-LCMS Lutheran and have never heard this. Where can I read evidence of this?

Of course you’d be familiar with the LCMS corporate confession and absolution in our service, but we also have private confession and abolution as well.

Historically, we ripped our out confession booths in the early 1900’s -but recently interest in private confession been rekindled.

For myself, I had a persistent sin that needed attention, and I asked my pastor for a private confession - both he and I rejoiced in the forgiveness of Christ our Lord.

 

[paul_c]

I have no doubt that, at least in my opinion, the early reformers, (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc.) were outright heretics with their own agenda to push. But I also believe that today’s Protestants and their pastors are good, decent, God fearing people who love the Lord and want to serve Him in the best way according to the culture in which they were raised. I accept them as Christians and believe that their chances at Heaven are about the same as ours. I even pray for their souls in purgatory.
Anyone have a problem with that?

If you believe that Protestants have as good a chance at heaven as Catholics aren’t you in effect saying:

1. the sacraments are meaningless in the economy of salvation
2. that all Christian religions teach the truth equally

Do you really believe this?

 

[paul_c]

And my understanding of the clear reading is that the “like is customary” refers to the Bishop of Rome in his territory.

This is a product of your Lutheran Tradition. You have been trained to think thusly because otherwise you could never defend separating form the Pope.

We all have outside biases. Question; why is it then that our Orthodox siblings do not hold to your understanding of his jurisdiction.

Do you understand the dynamics of what happened with the Eastern Churches? The Eastern Churches resided within the territory of the Byzantium empire, which was often at war with the Western empires. In 1054 the Eastern Churches, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople, separated from Rome. There are lots of reasons for this but ego and secular politics were involved. The Eastern churches represented about 30% of the Christian population at the time. But you know what happened next? 30% of the eastern Churches returned to full communion with Rome and are know as the 21 Eastern rite churches. This demonstrates without a doubt that many in the East also recognized the jurisdiction of Rome. Remember, when these 21 Eastern Rite Churches stayed loyal to Rome, they were doing so against secular authority.

Well, sure. I have in the past asked other teachers to intervene with a student for me. Like I said, I am not questioning the pope’s rather unique and distinctive position in the Church.

Jon, you are well aware that the Corinthians appealed to Pope St. Clement in Rome in the 90s (which resulted in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians). If they didn’t see the Bishop of Rome as having worldwide jurisdiction, why didn’t they appeal to St. John, who was after all, the last living Apostle and he resided in Ephesus or to the Church in Antioch, which after all, was much closer and was the church from which St. Paul departed on his missionary journeys? Why did Corinth, an Eastern church turn to Rome?

I rather think it is. The question becomes do the other patriarchates think it so, and are the “understandings” of Popes JP II and Benedict sufficient enough to see that as the distinct teaching of the Catholic Church?

The question isn’t what the Patriarchs think, its what God thinks.

 

[katholikos12]

What about myself right now?

I am planning on joining the church through RCIA this Easter (however I am moving at the end of January and will have a new RCIA class/Father to convince I’m ready … ), so I am not yet confirmed. Am I unable to go to confession until after confirmation? Am I to just keep track of my mortal sins until then and up from my baptism?

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But that is not correct. As early as the first century we find churches in various parts appealing to Rome for guidance in theological and church matters. Corinth comes to mind as does Antioch. Eusebius of Caesarea relates how, in about 190 AD, the Church at Rome involved itself in settling the issue in Asia Minor of when Easter was to be celebrated. In fact there is no question in the early church as the universality of the authority of the church at Rome. Now if you should happen to have some concrete evidence to support your allegations then please do present it. But thus far all you have presented is your own biased opinion.

I presented Nicea canon 6. Which ecumenical council have you presented? And this dispute is more than 500 years prior to the Reformation. It has nothing to do with my “opinion”, or of that of the Lutheran reformers, though they speak to it.

Canon 6 places no restriction or limitations on the authority of the church at Rome. And what dispute are you referring to? What history are you reading that says there was a dispute with the authority of the Church at Rome? If you can recall, the Council was called to address the issue of Arianism, so named after Arius, a priest of Alexandria Egypt. But the council also addressed the issue of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt. The council declared that those ordained by Meletius were to receive again the Laying on of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander [bishop of Alexandria, Egypt]. It is against that backdrop that Canon 6 was adopted

Canon 6 therefore provided the bishop of Alexandria oversight of Meletius and the diocese of Lycopolis. This is what it meant when it said, "the ancient customs of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however, two or three, by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s rule (regula), the vote of the majority shall prevail.

Is there one time, in one council, where the Bishop of Rome is said to have universal jurisdiction? The fact that the Bishop of Rome is held in high regard, and looked to for assistance on settling disputes is not in question. I don’t even question a certain primacy for him. But no where in any early council will you find unversal jursidiction, and the fatc that the eastern patriarchates then and now dispute it is evidence far greater than my “opinion”.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not conciliar. The pope is dependant on no council for his authority. Rather his authority comes directly from God and is attested to by scripture. Peter is told by Christ to “Rule my flock” in John 21:16. Councils, on the other hand, are not authoritative unless the pope is in agreement with them or parts of them. There are parts of councils which the pope did not agree with and these portions are not authoritative. The Council of Florence is one that comes to mind.

As far as the Orthodox go they have their own problems with Caesaropapism. They had been kissing up to the emperor for so long they forgot who was the rock on which the church was built. They had a chance at reuniting with Rome at the council of Florence but they rejected it and, reminescent of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, the Orthodox lived to see the great Church of the Haggia Sophia desecrated and turned into an Islamic mosque which it remains to this day. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

 

[inkaneer]

What about myself right now?

I am planning on joining the church through RCIA this Easter (however I am moving at the end of January and will have a new RCIA class/Father to convince I’m ready … ), so I am not yet confirmed. Am I unable to go to confession until after confirmation? Am I to just keep track of my mortal sins until then and up from my baptism?

You don’t need Confirmation to receive Reconciliation although all three can be received when one is received into the church… Normally children receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist around the age of seven or eight but are not confirmed until 12-14. Speak to your current RCIA priest about this and your upcoming relocation.

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;10189737]This is a product of your Lutheran Tradition. You have been trained to think thusly because otherwise you could never defend separating form the Pope.

Of course I am a product of my Tradition, as you are, Paul. I wouldn’t deny that for an instant. The Lutheran Confessions speak directly to the issue of Nicea, but that doesn’t minimize the fact that it is this one particular issue, more than any other, that has held the Church in division for 1,000 years. Would you, therefore, say the same about the Orthodox and their separation from the pope, or the pope from them depending on one’s viewpoint?

Do you understand the dynamics of what happened with the Eastern Churches? The Eastern Churches resided within the territory of the Byzantium empire, which was often at war with the Western empires. In 1054 the Eastern Churches, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople, separated from Rome.

Or that Rome separated from them???

There are lots of reasons for this but ego and secular politics were involved.

Politics and ego on both sides, I suspect, but that was 1,000 years ago. So, there must be more to it than that. No?

The Eastern churches represented about 30% of the Christian population at the time. But you know what happened next? 30% of the eastern Churches returned to full communion with Rome and are know as the 21 Eastern rite churches. This demonstrates without a doubt that many in the East also recognized the jurisdiction of Rome. Remember, when these 21 Eastern Rite Churches stayed loyal to Rome, they were doing so against secular authority.

Perhaps so.

Jon, you are well aware that the Corinthians appealed to Pope St. Clement in Rome in the 90s (which resulted in Clement’s letter to the Corinthians). If they didn’t see the Bishop of Rome as having worldwide jurisdiction, why didn’t they appeal to St. John, who was after all, the last living Apostle and he resided in Ephesus or to the Church in Antioch, which after all, was much closer and was the church from which St. Paul departed on his missionary journeys? Why did Corinth, an Eastern church turn to Rome?

Why not turn to Rome, if they felt Rome could settle the differences. Would they, were they here today, see that jurisdiction in the same way, the way Rome now sees it, or developed in in the latter part of the first millenium?

The question isn’t what the Patriarchs think, its what God thinks.

Indeed, and I would include Rome as one of those Patriarchs. How is one to know whuich is right?

Jon