The Pope as ground of Church unity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Expatreprocedit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rcwitness said:
Because Unity is not just getting together physically, but submitting to a Universal faith among the brotherhood.

I think it would be very interested to hear what all parties claiming Apostolic succession would say about a council vote. Would Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. all be willing to settle the matter in the form of one council vote?

Maybe the Church Bishops in Communion with Rome would find it outside the faith? Or maybe they would have faith that the Lord would Confirm His Church as He always has.
Click to expand...
I’d like to see a council first, then a vote.

GKC
 
rcwitness said:
** Because Unity is not just getting together physically, but submitting to a Universal faith among the brotherhood. **

I think it would be very interested to hear what all parties claiming Apostolic succession would say about a council vote. Would Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. all be willing to settle the matter in the form of one council vote?

Maybe the Church Bishops in Communion with Rome would find it outside the faith? Or maybe they would have faith that the Lord would Confirm His Church as He always has.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. My thought was that, if unity is to include as many communions as possible involved, then as many as are willing to send their bishops, regardless of the Vatican’s view of their validity, should be invited to come and represent their communion.

Certainly, there is a better chance of Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox to settle the matters if they are all there.
And the Holy Spirit would have His work cut out for Him. For Him, it must seem like herding cats. 😃

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I don’t know. My thought was that, if unity is to include as many communions as possible involved, then as many as are willing to send their bishops, regardless of the Vatican’s view of their validity, should be invited to come and represent their communion.

Certainly, there is a better chance of Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholics, and Orthodox to settle the matters if they are all there.
And the Holy Spirit would have His work cut out for Him. For Him, it must seem like herding cats. 😃

Jon
Click to expand...
“herding Cats” 👍

But the statement “…as many communions as possible” is kindof problematic in itself.

coming together with the willing Spirit to resolve division is actually coming together for one Communion

So, I personally agree with your sentement to welcome all who desire to have one Universal Communion. We just can’t have any restrictions on the decission that Eccumenical Council would bring! Kinda scary, but maybe a true leap of faith…?
 
Do you actually believe the office of Pope should cease to be? How would that outcome look?

Do you think there would be more Councils coming together of every communion if the Communion of Peter did not exist any longer?

Is the Roman Pontif a hinderance to total ecclesiastacy?
 
GKC said:
Who decides who is a bishop in apostolic succession, for the purpose of such a council.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess I could do it (although, to be honest, I was looking forward to a nice quiet weekend at home).
 
I was very comfortable here, and getting on with my book. If you want to know, I am just writing an ending for it. I had thought of putting: and he lived happily every afterwards to the end of his days. It is a good ending, and none the worse for having been used before. Now I shall have to alter that: it does not look like coming true; and anyway there will evidently have to be several more chapters, if I live to write them. It is a frightful nuisance. When ought I to start?
 
Peter_J said:
Well, I guess I could do it (although, to be honest, I was looking forward to a nice quiet weekend at home).
Click to expand...
GKC said:
Well, heck, take off. I’ll cover for you.

GKC
Click to expand...
What better way to draw in the “communions” than a huge screen viewing the Brasil/Chile, Columbia/Uruguay, Netherlands/Mexico games???

But Papa won’t be there until July 1st (Argentina/Switzerland)
 
=rcwitness;12121287]Do you actually believe the office of Pope should cease to be? How would that outcome look?
Click to expand...
No! We need the western see. We need the authority and unifying capabilities potentially there, that no one else has. We need a papacy like the early Church did.
Do you think there would be more Councils coming together of every communion if the Communion of Peter did not exist any longer?
Click to expand...
No.
Is the Roman Pontif a hinderance to total ecclesiastacy?
Click to expand...
No, I think the claim of universal jurisdiction has been, and* can continue to be.*

Jon
 
GKC said:
Likely you are correct that there would not be much of a difference, at the end, if they did. Numbers are numbers. But I like the thought experiment of “what if”.

GKC
Click to expand...
Then you might like Paul Maier’s The Constantine Codex. Maier is a fantastic translator and historian who moonlights as a fiction author. It’s not a deep thought experiment by any means, but it makes for a short and pleasant afternoon read. A little wish fulfillment for those of us catholics who enjoy the Indiana Jones-style fantasy, along with hypothetical Ecumenical Councils.
 
JonNC said:
No! We need the western see. We need the authority and unifying capabilities potentially there, that no one else has. We need a papacy like the early Church did.

No.

No, I think the claim of universal jurisdiction has been, and* can continue to be.*

Jon
Click to expand...
You are so “on the fence” 😃

How can a Lutheran say, “We need the Papacy” or a Catholic say, “Peter had no Universal Jurisdiction.”

I admitt, I’m not so sure how you define “Universal Jurisdiction” and how the Church has defined it.

Is the Papacy even effective without Universal Jurisdiction? Or does it surrender all its ability to unify?
 
rcwitness said:
You are so “on the fence” 😃

How can a Lutheran say, “We need the Papacy” or a Catholic say, “Peter had no Universal Jurisdiction.”

I admitt, I’m not so sure how you define “Universal Jurisdiction” and how the Church has defined it.

Is the Papacy even effective without Universal Jurisdiction? Or does it surrender all its ability to unify?
Click to expand...
It was pretty effective for the first millennia of Christian history, without universal, immediate jurisdiction claims. It is when the papacy started making these assertions that it no longer was a force for unity and instead became the cause of many schisms.
 
GKC said:
A reflection I’ve had myself, when cogitating on this very subject over the years. Who decides who is a bishop in apostolic succession, for the purpose of such a council.

GKC
Click to expand...
Those coming from the original apostolic sees recognized by the Early Church.
 
JonNC said:
One might be forced to ask, then, how exclusion adds to the cause of unity.

Jon
Click to expand...
Well…let me ask…if a anglican bishop would like to join the Orthodox Church, would he be recognized as a validly ordained bishop or would he have to undergo ordination as a priest first?

Same question, a lutheran pastor, wanting to join an OC or the RCC…would they just be accepted or will they need to be ordained first in the OC or RCC?
 
Per_Crucem said:
It was pretty effective for the first millennia of Christian history, without universal, immediate jurisdiction claims. It is when the papacy started making these assertions that it no longer was a force for unity and instead became the cause of many schisms.
Click to expand...
I do not know what history you are reading…but the schisms started with the claims from Constantinople first wanting to be the new Rome.
 
GKC said:
Not what I had in mind, in my imagination, but good luck with it.

GKC
Click to expand...
What did you have in mind? Would not going back to the original apostolic sees lessen the conflicts and debates and discussions as to who had the apostolic lines?
 
pablope said:
I do not know what history you are reading…but the schisms started with the claims from Constantinople first wanting to be the new Rome.
Click to expand...
What happened in Constantinople was a squabble between that Patriarch and the Pope. The actual causes of the schism between the entirety of the East and West had little to do with that and more to do with the West removing Eastern bishops and installing Western ones, and then everything else that culminated at Florence.
 
Per_Crucem said:
It was pretty effective for the first millennia of Christian history, without universal, immediate jurisdiction claims. It is when the papacy started making these assertions that it no longer was a force for unity and instead became the cause of many schisms.
Click to expand...
Yes, this accussation is gonna need a little more evidence.

Edit: Oh, you made some above

Damasus’ response repudiated Maximus summarily and advised Theodosius to summon a Council of Bishops for the purpose of settling various Church issues such as the schism in Antioch and the consecration of a proper bishop for the see of Constantinople.[12] Damasus condemned the translation of bishops from one see to another and urged Theodosius to “take care that a bishop who is above reproach is chosen for that see”.
 
pablope said:
What did you have in mind? Would not going back to the original apostolic sees lessen the conflicts and debates and discussions as to who had the apostolic lines?
Click to expand...
Gonna let the Anglicans in?

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top