Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

Then you would have to give that power to all bishops individually, and not just the Bishop of Rome. As I recall, the other bishops did go to the pope to help settle matters, but there was no claim of infallibility to that. There is a difference between saying one is right, and saying one is infallible, even ex cathedra.

Jon

No not really,

If the bishop of Rome holds the keys, and is acknowledged by the bishops historically to be the prime bishop among them then he holds a special charism of the Holy Spirit.

So that if there is a dispute among the bishops they can go to a binding arbitrator to settle it in accordance with Matt 18.

Otherwise you give this infallibility to all bishops and perhaps all priests.

 

[JonNC]

No not really,

If the bishop of Rome holds the keys, and is acknowledged by the bishops historically to be the prime bishop among them then he holds a special charism of the Holy Spirit.

So that if there is a dispute among the bishops they can go to a binding arbitrator to settle it in accordance with Matt 18.

Otherwise you give this infallibility to all bishops and perhaps all priests.

The early Church, however, to settle disputes of doctrine went to council - 7 of them to be exact.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

The early Church, however, to settle disputes of doctrine went to council - 7 of them to be exact.

Jon

Who called the councils and what gave the councils their legitimacy?

Also if the councils could not come to resolution what is to happen to the dispute?

I am happy that the church has used many councils to settle doctrine. I believe it is the best way to properly vet the issues. But I acknowledge that without the support of the Pope as authorizer of the council and it’s decrees, that the councils become just another opinion among many.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, how, then, can anyone make a mistake when claiming to speak in the name of Christ?

What do you think He intended by “bind and loose”?

I suspect they did it all the time.

My pastor makes mistakes all the time. But when he says, “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins…” he is acting as Christ intended him to act. When the pope hears confession and grants Absolution, same thing.

Why?

He’s a human being. We make mistakes all the time. The fact that he claims to speak in God’s name doesn’t change that.

Well, there you are. I said earlier that you and he and all Catholics believe he has a charism of infallibility ex cathedra. I don’t believe any one bishop has that, not from scripture, not from the early Church.

No. You have to believe what all of your heart. I with all my heart believe that where we as humans err, “He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I agree, but humans sometimes misunderstand, sometimes make mistakes.

In word and sacrament. The pope is a single bishop, in a city in Italy. He has a level of primacy among his peers, the other bishops, but he is still a human that can make mistakes.

Jon

Okay but its is in scripture.

Jesus says in Matt 23 Jesus says the scribes and pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. He tells the crowds and his disciples Do and observe all thing whatsoever they tell you.

They sit on Moses Seat Cathedra’s.

The Church got this teaching from the bible. Jesus established in the N.T. seat in the N.T. seat of Peter. Why does Jesus guarantee that the gates of hades will not prevail over the Church?Because Jesusenttusted this Cathera the sea of Peter in Rome.

Peter binds right off the bat. When he replaced Judas. Where was the mutual agreement here? If he could not bind alone how did he?

Jon we are not talking about the Pope making mistakes. We are talking about when he speaks on his OWN in the voice of Christ.

Do you really think that Peter didn’t make mistakes. But how can the Pope be accused of being misled when speaking in the name of the H.S. and be mistaken, but yet Peter treated any differently? He is in the seat of Peter?

 

[JonNC]

Who called the councils and what gave the councils their legitimacy?

Also if the councils could not come to resolution what is to happen to the dispute?

I am happy that the church has used many councils to settle doctrine. I believe it is the best way to properly vet the issues. But I acknowledge that without the support of the Pope as authorizer of the council and it’s decrees, that the councils become just another opinion among many.

No. It takes all the bishops. That why there have only been seven truly ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie, how, then, can anyone make a mistake when claiming to speak in the name of Christ?

What do you think He intended by “bind and loose”?

I suspect they did it all the time.

My pastor makes mistakes all the time. But when he says, “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority, I therefore forgive you all of your sins…” he is acting as Christ intended him to act. When the pope hears confession and grants Absolution, same thing.

Why?

He’s a human being. We make mistakes all the time. The fact that he claims to speak in God’s name doesn’t change that.

Well, there you are. I said earlier that you and he and all Catholics believe he has a charism of infallibility ex cathedra. I don’t believe any one bishop has that, not from scripture, not from the early Church.

No. You have to believe what all of your heart. I with all my heart believe that where we as humans err, “He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I agree, but humans sometimes misunderstand, sometimes make mistakes.

In word and sacrament. The pope is a single bishop, in a city in Italy. He has a level of primacy among his peers, the other bishops, but he is still a human that can make mistakes.

Jon

You are talking in circles. Ok hold on. I think I see where we are getting mixed up. When I am saying the Pope speaking on his own, I am not meaning on his own mind, I am saying when he speaks on his OWN (without the others in office).

Anotherwards when he says he is speaking with the Power of the Holy Spirit in Church teaching.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11366004]Okay but its is in scripture.

Jesus says in Matt 23 Jesus says the scribes and pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. He tells the crowds and his disciples Do and observe all thing whatsoever they tell you.

They sit on Moses Seat Cathedra’s.

The Church got this teaching from the bible. Jesus established in the N.T. seat in the N.T. seat of Peter. Why does Jesus guarantee that the gates of hades will not prevail over the Church?Because Jesusenttusted this Cathera the sea of Peter in Rome.

Peter binds right off the bat. When he replaced Judas. Where was the mutual agreement here? If he could not bind alone how did he?

In the bolded is the stretch. It isn’t because of Peter alone that the gates of Hell will not prevail, but because of Christ. Christ promises this to His entire Church, which includes you and me.

Were there any dissenting voices?
Remember there is a time when Paul dissents.

Jon we are not talking about the Pope making mistakes. We are talking about when he speaks on his OWN in the voice of Christ.

Do you really think that Peter didn’t make mistakes. But how can the Pope be accused of being misled when speaking in the name of the H.S. and be mistaken, but yet Peter treated any differently? He is in the seat of Peter?

We come from a different perspective, rinnie. You come from the perspective that the pope speaks for the entire Church. That he alone speaks with the “voice of Christ”. That when he speaks from the chair of St. Peter (why isn’t that chair in Antioch?) on faith and morals, that he speaks infallibly. We don’t share that perspective, and neither do the other patriarchates of the Church.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

The early Church, however, to settle disputes of doctrine went to council - 7 of them to be exact.

Jon

Not according to the bible. Peter settled them on his own. How do you explain this. Why was the dispute on what to do about replacing Judas settled right off the bat by Peter Alone?

Why is it even Luther himself never denied Peter holding the keys alone.

Why are you searching for the keys I gave them to Peter. Even Luther never denied it.

Even a Lutheran Professor Torq Forberg even admitted that Peter is a successor to the High Priest Christ.

 

[rinnie]

In the bolded is the stretch. It isn’t because of Peter alone that the gates of Hell will not prevail, but because of Christ. Christ promises this to His entire Church, which includes you and me.

Were there any dissenting voices?
Remember there is a time when Paul dissents.

We come from a different perspective, rinnie. You come from the perspective that the pope speaks for the entire Church. That he alone speaks with the “voice of Christ”. That when he speaks from the chair of St. Peter (why isn’t that chair in Antioch?) on faith and morals, that he speaks infallibly. We don’t share that perspective, and neither do the other patriarchates of the Church.

Jon

Why does it matter where that chair is?

By the way I am not saying that he speaks alone all the time. What my point is he Can. If he has no Primacy over the others, as Peter did, why do they both exercise this authority.

And it is Christ who gave me this perspective when he gave Peter and Peter alone the keys.

If he addressed them all when he gave the keys to the kingdom, why did he only mention Peters name.

And if you compare the keys to the O.T. you will see that the Prime Minister had 4 things. A key, a office, a robe, and throne.

Ekiakim becomes the Prime Minister. Only he has the keys.

You are saying because they can bind and loose sin they all carry the keys. This is not true. Go to the O.T. in the Kings Cabinet all the Ministers can bind and loose.

But the Prime Minister can bind and loose what they have. He has the keys.

You are saying its the same thing. The O.T. proves it isn’t.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. It takes all the bishops. That why there have only been seven truly ecumenical councils.

Jon

I am interested in your thoughts in Canon 9 of the Council of Nicea.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

It seems as if it was already customary for the Bishop of Rome to preside over multiple sees and I’d argue, all of the sees, and as such it is a model for select bishops to have multiple sees (archdiocese) .

 

[jmcrae]

Then you would have to give that power to all bishops individually, and not just the Bishop of Rome.

Authority has to begin/end somewhere. It’s fine to say that it begins and ends with Christ, but there are very few people outside of the mental health system who claim to be able to hear Christ definitively.

We know from Acts 15 that the Apostles were not visualizing an “anything goes” Church. They expected every Christian to be following the same rules and believing the same doctrines - even to the point of, at a later time, calling the Pope to account when he was setting a poor example - even though, according to the letter of the Law, he was doing nothing wrong. But he was violating the very teaching of the Church that he himself had proclaimed and written in the Council of Acts 15.

Nobody in that Council was saying, “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” No. They brought harsh discipline to bear on those who were not following the Catholic Church and the Pope.

When there is confusion, it is the Pope who speaks to settle the matter once and for all.

 

[JonNC]

=rinnie;11366060]Why does it matter where that chair is?

Because the Bishop of Antioch is not considered the pope.

By the way I am not saying that he speaks alone all the time. What my point is he Can. If he has no Primacy over the others, as Peter did, why do they both exercise this authority.

And it is your point upon which we disagree.

And it is Christ who gave me this perspective when he gave Peter and Peter alone the keys.

If he addressed them all when he gave the keys to the kingdom, why did he only mention Peters name.

We will end up going round and round. You as a Catholic say the keys were given solely to St. Peter. I as a non-Catholic say the keys were initially received by Peter, then later the rest of the disciples, and following, the Church Catholic.

And if you compare the keys to the O.T. you will see that the Prime Minister had 4 things. A key, a office, a robe, and throne.

Ekiakim becomes the Prime Minister. Only he has the keys.

You are saying because they can bind and loose sin they all carry the keys. This is not true. Go to the O.T. in the Kings Cabinet all the Ministers can bind and loose.

But the Prime Minister can bind and loose what they have. He has the keys.

You are saying its the same thing. The O.T. proves it isn’t.

The difference is John 20 and later Matthew. The keys are then given to the rest of the disciples as well.

Now that doesn’t mean there is no significance to Peter receiving them first. There is, and we as Lutherans recognize that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I am interested in your thoughts in Canon 9 of the Council of Nicea.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

You mean canon 6. I bolded the important point. The Bishop in Alexandria has the same privilege in his jurisdiction as the Bishop of Rome has in his. The Lutheran confessions reference this in their dispute regarding universal jurisdiction. Here, in canon 6, no mention of a universal jurisdiction for any bishop. No bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, has jurisdiction different than any other.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Authority has to begin/end somewhere. It’s fine to say that it begins and ends with Christ, but there are very few people outside of the mental health system who claim to be able to hear Christ definitively.

We know from Acts 15 that the Apostles were not visualizing an “anything goes” Church. They expected every Christian to be following the same rules and believing the same doctrines - even to the point of, at a later time, calling the Pope to account when he was setting a poor example - even though, according to the letter of the Law, he was doing nothing wrong. But he was violating the very teaching of the Church that he himself had proclaimed and written in the Council of Acts 15.

Nobody in that Council was saying, “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” No. They brought harsh discipline to bear on those who were not following the Catholic Church and the Pope.

When there is confusion, it is the Pope who speaks to settle the matter once and for all.

But not by himself. Acts is a council, run by James, BTW. No one is saying, well, at least* I’m not saying, that it is or should be an anything goes Church. I am also not saying that “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” * What I am saying is this only, that while the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor, it is not a supremacy. I am saying that I don’t believe he can declare for himself universal jurisdiction, or infallibility ex cathedra. But like I’ve always said, if you can get Orthodoxy to agree with it, so will I.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

You mean canon 6. I bolded the important point. The Bishop in Alexandria has the same privilege in his jurisdiction as the Bishop of Rome has in his. The Lutheran confessions reference this in their dispute regarding universal jurisdiction. Here, in canon 6, no mention of a universal jurisdiction for any bishop. No bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, has jurisdiction different than any other.

Jon

Yes 6 my bad

And I suppose you deny the third canon of The council of Constantinople shows historic supremacy to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But not by himself. Acts is a council, run by James, BTW. No one is saying, well, at least* I’m not saying, that it is or should be an anything goes Church. I am also not saying that “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” * What I am saying is this only, that while the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor, it is not a supremacy. I am saying that I don’t believe he can declare for himself universal jurisdiction, or infallibility ex cathedra. But like I’ve always said, if you can get Orthodoxy to agree with it, so will I.

Jon

I think we are very close to having Orthodoxy agree with it.

Pray

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t mean this facetiously, but obviously Christ. I suspect, however, you mean in human earthly terms.

Understanding from the start that all orders of the clergy have their origin in one order - presbyter. Bishops, for the purpose of ecclesiastical order, have authority in their district or diocese. Beyond that, different communions may organize in different ways. In our view, polity is adiaphoron.
So, within our synod, the Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison is our synodical president, much like a presiding bishop. Each of our districts, which essentially correspond to a diocese, have a district president (bishop).

Jon

Gotcha. I think.

So, you have bishops and priests. Bishops oversee multiple congregations and the priest serves at the local congregation level. Dr. Harrison is over all of the Bishops.

Is that right?

 

[JonNC]

Gotcha. I think.

So, you have bishops and priests. Bishops oversee multiple congregations and the priest serves at the local congregation level. Dr. Harrison is over all of the Bishops.

Is that right?

Essentially.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think we are very close to having Orthodoxy agree with it.

Pray

I do, for this, often. Sincerely, I do.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes 6 my bad

And I suppose you deny the third canon of The council of Constantinople shows historic supremacy to the Bishop of Rome.

I would disagree with your assessment of it, but no, I would not deny the Council of the canon.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the **prerogative of honour **after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Primacy of honor I do not dispute.

Jon