second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Randy_Carson]

So you are now admitting that Clement was speaking for the entire Church? Doesn’t that make him the highest authority in the Church? (aka, the Pope)

And there is stuff like this from the Early Church suggests that the Popes understood that authority clearly:

QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?

ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:

“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).

“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)

Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.

Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)

Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).

He said, “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).

He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).

When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).

Source: Catholic Answers, This Rock, (December 1992).

 

[jmcrae]

And there is stuff like this from the Early Church:

QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?

ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:

“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).

“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)

Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.

Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)

Gregory’s writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches” (13:1).

He said, “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church” (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope’s approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees (9:56; 5:39,41,44).

He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs, and rebuked lax and erring bishops (2:50; 3:52,63; 9:26,27).

When Gregory denounced John the Faster’s attempt to lay claim to the title Universal Bishop, his words were in accord with his actions and with his teachings. He was unequivocal in his teaching that all other bishops are subject to the pope:

“As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it” (Epistles 9:26).

Source: Catholic Answers, This Rock, (December 1992).

Thank you; this is very interesting!

 

[likethis]

. I think that our assumption that the Great Commission meant that we should invade indigenous cultures with their own history and their own relationship with God is very myopic.

That view may have been excusable in the first century

, but seems to defy logic when viewed against the backdrop of what we know nowadays about the vastness of time on this planet alone, much less the cosmos of which we are part. T–

thanks i agree–

in the first century-- people got the indwelling of the Holy Spirit-- and could hear the guidence from the Holy Spirit–

just like a radio signal-- of today-- or a “smart phone” –

the church i go to has the impartation-- of the Holy Spirit-- and the people have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit–

and just like the “internet” i can tell if the reception is down or broken–

religious people can – not – decern the difference-- and they just keep on “quoting scripture” to validate their position…

these postings-- depict this –

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

23 With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

 

[PJM]

=jmcrae;11445200]Truth matters. Religion is a map to eternal happiness. If the map has minor errors, no problem. If it has serious errors, you won’t know until it is too late that it doesn’t lead where you want to go. Even one serious error can send the driver into a tailspin.

That’s why it’s important to have the right map. It’s not a condemnation of those who have bad maps, but a challenge for us to get them good maps.

Excellent point!

 

[PJM]

=Gary Sheldrake;11445593]Good evening Randy: I may have failed to clearly state my question, because you didn’t actually answer it. We’ll call it my fault if you like. My question was whether or not you feel that your knowledge of Catholic theology brings you closer to God than a Protestant’s view of theology brings them to God. And do you think that you are closer to God than I am? The question was not whether or not knowledge is useful, although I wonder if according to the idea you have presented, if a genius has a better capacity to know and love God than a person with a more limited or even diminished cognitive capacity. That is actually a fascinating possibility that you have posited, and I intend to give it some thought. As for loving God perfectly by knowing Him perfectly, I would ask another direct question: Do you know God perfectly? Is your love perfect? Whose love is lesser than yours, and how do you measure it? Depending on your reply, I may have some follow on questions.

Thanks,
Gary

Hi again Gary,

IF I may interject a thought or to.

One’s “IQ” has only a minor roll in someone actually and REALLY"Knowing God."

Faith is a GIFT from God granted through wisdom [separate from IQ] From God.

“Perfect Love” is our GOAL

WHY?

Because God Is “Perfect”; in order to be admitted into the Beatific Vision one has either to die as a “perfect soul” or be perfected [those who die without unforgiven; unconfessed MORTAL sins] which is the reason, & function of purgatory.]

Matt.5: 48 “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[pocohombre]

So you are now admitting that Clement was speaking for the entire Church? Doesn’t that make him the highest authority in the Church? (aka, the Pope)

Big difference between a church and the church. I posted the letter was sent on behalf of “an” church, as in the church at Rome. Didn’t you read the letter or my post that quoted the salutation ? It is from the Church at Rome" and makes no mention of Clement. Why would you think it was speaking for the entire church ?

Do you go around admonishing your boss? Did you go around correcting your parents and teachers when you were a child? If so, how did that go over? (I’m thinking, not very well.)

Not usually, but there is a time for everything, even a time when it would be a sin not to.

It is inappropriate for an underling to correct his superior.

So was St Paul wrong when he admonished/chastised his CC superior, Pope Peter ?

God is no respecter of persons - the reason is that His authority is the highest of all. Those of us with less authority have to obey those in authority over us

. Yes , you have reinstituted the OT pecking order, sewed up the middle wall of partition that was wrent in two at Calvary. I am not questioning obedience to those in authority, we just have different authorities.

If I recall the story correctly, it was God who corrected Job.

Just like the Letter to Corinthians is God correcting that church. No, read both more carefully perhaps . Elihu’s words were God’s words. Elders should speak wisdom but do not always.

 

[pocohombre]

What Gregory condemned was the expropriation of the title Universal Bishop by Bishop John the Faster, the patriarch of Constantinople, who proclaimed himself Universal Bishop at the Synod of Constantinople in 588. Gregory condemned the patriarch’s act because universal jurisdiction applies solely to the pope.

This underlined sentence is conjecture for nowhere does Gregory state that. Yes, he certainly acted like a pope but to me it is unclear how he viewed himself, and it would be ok for someone to say that Gregory would not define “pope” as it is today. He wrote “whosoever” calls himself universal priest/bishop is wrong (even himself).

Some anti-Catholics cite the following quotations to give the false impression that Gregory was rejecting his own universal authority:

Again, some Catholics might get the false impression that he would accept today’s definition and role of the Pope. I think he was a great leader even servant of the church.
“I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of the Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” (Epistles 7:33).

“If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if besides Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what wilt thou say to Christ, who is the head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all?” (Epistles 5:18)

 

[pocohombre]

My Friend
Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Iranesu mentions Rome having superior origin, because of Peter and Paul. Does not mention Peter as pope or having authority over the other churches and their respective succession of bishops. Rome does represent the unity that is to be found in Church. It is not jurisdictional.

 

[pocohombre]

My Friend
Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose
and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Tertullian is problematic cause he mentions Jesus as the rock in othet writings and the one you quote is after his defection (Monatnist). You stop your quote short and here is the rest where he denies succession, that the keys was only for Peter. “You therefore presume it has derived to you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord”". He goes on to say the keys and binding and losing were for Peter only and not for church that followed.

 

[jmcrae]

Iranesu mentions Rome having superior origin, because of Peter and Paul. Does not mention Peter as pope or having authority over the other churches and their respective succession of bishops. Rome does represent the unity that is to be found in Church. It is not jurisdictional.

In either case, unity with Rome seems essential.

 

[pocohombre]

My Friend
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Chair of Peter references all bishops, not just Peter and Rome. Most historians acknowledge that Cyprian refers to Peter as the rock but did not attribute a superior authority to Bishop of Rome. Cyprian defended all bishops.

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

• This is not from his revised text where he takes out references to Romes primacy over others and makes clear that all the apostles held equal dignity and power…" Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and
  although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the
  Apostles, and says: ‘As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive
  ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be
  forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,’
  yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the
  origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the
  Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership
  of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity,"…ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/UNITY.TXT… Here is another excerpt fro Cyprian- “But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names”(Cyprian, Epistle 74, 6)

 

[pocohombre]

In either case, unity with Rome seems essential.

Yes but not because it was superior but symbolic of unity back then, when Jerusalem and Antioch and other churches were unified/catholic. So the gnostics were not only against Rome but against Jerusalem and Antioch and other churches who held the catholic faith. Any Christain today better be following Peter and Paul ,even Christ…

 

[Reuben_J]

The Chair of Peter references all bishops, not just Peter and Rome.

There is only one Chair of Peter and therefore bishops are bishops because they are appointed by the Chair that has the aurthority to appoint. There are many bishops in the world but not necessarily from the Chair of Peter.

 

[pocohombre]

There is only one Chair of Peter and therefore bishops are bishops because they are appointed by the Chair that has the aurthority to appoint. There are many bishops in the world but not necessarily from the Chair of Peter.

Not for Cyprian and his day. Rome did not appoint bishops except for Rome. All the apostles appointed bishops and had succession respectively.

 

[Reuben_J]

Not for Cyprian and his day.

Perhaps but the Pope is the successor of Peter and still visible to this day.

 

[Reuben_J]

Rome did not appoint bishops except for Rome. All the apostles appointed bishops and had succession respectively.

Yes, for the bishops that were being appointed by the apostles. But the Chair of Peter belong to Peter alone.

 

[pocohombre]

Perhaps but the Pope is the successor of Peter and still visible to this day.

Yes according to CC. I believe some bishops can show succession.So not sure Rome is the only visible one.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes but not because it was superior but symbolic of unity back then, when Jerusalem and Antioch and other churches were unified/catholic. So the gnostics were not only against Rome but against Jerusalem and Antioch and other churches who held the catholic faith. Any Christain today better be following Peter and Paul ,even Christ…

When did being in communion with Rome become unimportant?

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, for the bishops that were being appointed by the apostles. But the Chair of Peter belong to Peter alone.

Robert B. Eno catholic historian says, “The chair of Peter belongs to each lawful bishop of his own see.Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome.”

 

[Reuben_J]

Robert B. Eno catholic historian says, “The chair of Peter belongs to each lawful bishop of his own see.Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome.”

Yes, in the sense that they derived from the Chair of Peter. In other word, Apostolic Succession. A bishop cannot has Apostolic Succession if his appointer cannot trace his origin to the apostles. Thus an excommunicated bishop has no power to appoint a bishop/priest and when he does, his appointee is not of the Chair of Peter.