The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Per_Crucem]

I view my local bishop in Communion with Francis, if he is not, then he is not in harmony with the rest of the bishops, and thus acting on his own.

And that, at least from our perspective, is what we see as being ahistorical for the criteria of Catholicity.

 

[Peter_J]

Who decides who is a bishop in apostolic succession, for the purpose of such a council.

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?

What? Is no one going to post a witty response to that?

Sigh … I guess it’s like I said on another thread, interest in the Inklings has declined.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m not sure you intended it, but the wording in the second makes me terribly uncomfortable. The personification of Christ came to earth once, died once, rose once and one day will come again. Even Roman Catholics don’t call the Bishop of Rome the “personification” of Christ, but rather say that he is simply serving as His vicar (a lofty enough title on its own). Just my pair of pennies.

Not to jump on the bandwagon (and I’m not just saying that because it’s a Lutheran wagon ) but I’m equally mystified by the “pope as the personification of Christ” comment.

 

[GKC]

What? Is no one going to post a witty response to that?

Sigh … I guess it’s like I said on another thread, interest in the Inklings has declined.

Not necessarily, you silly hobbit.

1st part, Book II, chap. 2, p. 283, 2nd American ed., 1st printing.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

The Pope’s great work in the Church is to be symbol of Christian unity…which so far goes only for the Western Catholics. The papacy holds the key to the Blood of Christ, what is bound on is bound in heaven.

We accept the papacy, we enter into the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity and with each other.

Thank God when I go to Mass, I don’t hear anything negative about other Christians. My focus is on the Lord.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Agreed on your first and especially your third sentence.

I’m not sure you intended it, but the wording in the second makes me terribly uncomfortable. The personification of Christ came to earth once, died once, rose once and one day will come again. Even Roman Catholics don’t call the Bishop of Rome the “personification” of Christ, but rather say that he is simply serving as His vicar (a lofty enough title on its own). Just my pair of pennies.

Vicar of Christ

 

[rcwitness]

And that, at least from our perspective, is what we see as being ahistorical for the criteria of Catholicity.

Vicar of Christ

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

894 “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.426 (801)

895 “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church.”427 But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is “head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth”

1560 As Christ’s vicar, each bishop has the pastoral care of the particular Church entrusted to him, but at the same time he bears collegially with all his brothers in the episcopacy the solicitude for all the Churches: “Though each bishop is the lawful pastor only of the portion of the flock entrusted to his care, as a legitimate successor of the apostles he is, by divine institution and precept, responsible with the other bishops for the apostolic mission of the Church.”41

This states all Bishops are vicars of Christ.

 

[commenter]

Most Popes have not taught anything erroneous. Most of them have been great Christian leaders (e.g., Pope St. Leo, Pope St. Gregory). At least for a good chunk of church history. **It is the dogma about the office itself that developed much **later that has been the cause of contention (not only the East, but the Reformation itself). That dogma is contradicted by the witness of church history…

This poster is right that we need to take into account the “witness of church history” including later developments in evaluating the role of the papacy. This means not only looking at how the papacy evolved, but how the churches have changed, and how some of them may be recently influenced (some would say manipulated, or controlled) by the secular culture.

What about the “witness of church history” since 1960? Consider the power of the secular media, now evident, to redefine abortion, marriage, and, soon, to redefine the canon of the New Testament. Consider also the changes in most churches, how incredibly weak they are to defend Christian doctrine. This is all new data, that needs to be taken into account. Based on the information he had, C. S. Lewis regarded papal infallibility as unnecessary - in his time. But we have another half century of data he didn’t have, and the new data points toward the need for a single Magisterium.
The “dogma about the office itself” seems more persuasive now than a few decades ago, in the light of what the Mainline churches are doing, and in light of what the secular media culture can and will do.

 

[KathleenGee]

So true…we have so much documentation…the apostles stating a long time ago, ‘write it down!’.

Catholicism is all about context, context, context as Deacon Cummings said.

 

[Josephene]

asianews.it/news-en/Pope:-Full-Christian-unity-is-possible-through-a-theology-on-its-knees-31485.html - heart warming to read this …esp. on this Feast of The Immaculate Heart …as though we are witnessing at some level, the triumph of that Heart , that too yearns to see Her children , free from the enemy snares that have come in …

’ what we have become as a result of the historical consequences of our sins …’ - which can be seen as the effects of the enemy pacts that one enters in, every time one agrees with the enemy …whether as Heads of Divided Churches or at family or personal level …

‘Gates of hell shall not prevail …’ The Lord , in His infinte mercy , knowing how those gates would try to prevail , gave to Peter the role and authority , to see to it that such webs / pacts can be broken …and the Papal Infallibilty Dogma has been declared at the appropriate moment , to help with the needed trust , to break those pacts !

LIkely too , that the effects of those pacts would been whole lot more devastating, if not for the trust and gratitude that the faithful gave, for the gift of that Dogma , to serve as an easy yet powerful yoke , to break the unholy pacts and as a beacon of light amidst the storms !

Incidents such as of the mistrust / fear of C.S Lewis could help those who are searching , to be very diligent , that they have asked for the grace to repent deeply ,that The Lord and His Mother, help to break the pacts /enemy holds , even curses , such as the anathema curses and its effects , not just for themselves but even for whole family lines - any of whom might have contributed in any way , to the existing divisions , and for those whom one has given authority over oneself , so that the spirit of fear and persecution, with the related divisive agenda would not return seven fold !

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us all !

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps, although I think you’d have to exclude the Anglican bishops since they aren’t recognized by Rome as having valid orders.

P.S. Arguably, the Old Catholic Union of Utrect should also be excluded, on the basis of heterodoxy.

 

[Peter_J]

Based on the information he had, C. S. Lewis regarded papal infallibility as unnecessary - in his time. But we have another half century of data he didn’t have,

Your post puts me in mind of a certain paraphrase of John 16:13, “He will lead you into all data.”

 

[GKC]

P.S. Arguably, the Old Catholic Union of Utrect should also be excluded, on the basis of heterodoxy.

But it would seem that until a judgement is made on how that as it affects their apostolic succession, they should be present.

If I were sending the invites, anyway.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

But it would seem that until a judgement is made on how that as it affects their apostolic succession, they should be present.

Good point. I’m afraid I sometimes need a reminder that the world is a stage, not a Catholic discussion forum on the internet.

 

[GKC]

Good point. I’m afraid I sometimes need a reminder that the world is a stage, not a Catholic discussion forum on the internet.

As I have contemplated the gedankenexperiment; a “Council” of all in apostolic succession, by their lights, I do see it in terms of a world stage.

Personal opinion.

GKC

 

[benhur]

Then what is the essential ground for visible unity?

kinda reminds me of how an apostle asked Jesus to show him the Father, after being with Jesus for several years or more. I am wondering if Pope Francis would say a head bishop sitting in a fancy palace is the height of that visible unity. Catch my drift ?

 

[benhur]

Based on the information he had, C. S. Lewis regarded papal infallibility as unnecessary - in his time.

A good many Catholics /clergy felt the same way. Wasn’t necessary and would probably not help "image’’ and unity. He also said, “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”

 

[commenter]

A good many Catholics /clergy felt the same way. Wasn’t necessary and would probably not help "image’’ and unity. He also said, “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”

C. S. Lewis was a brilliant apologist who brought many into the fold of Christianity, and his books are still powerful. He moved Christians towards unity, by focusing on God, and the reader, but starting with his own, continuing conversion. We need him today!

His books such as “The Abolition of Man” and “That Hideous Strength” accurately project how secularism would rise. IMHO, his assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the churches was much less accurate. He could foresee Hilary rising, but not Katherine. Based on my reading of him, I think he believed the papacy unnecessary to unity, since doctrinal fidelity could be maintained by a balance of scripture, tradition, and ongoing care by scholars, bishops, and the faithful. I don’t think he realized how much the Magisterium indirectly - in a limited way - guided churches that claimed they didn’t need a Magisterium. He didn’t foresee how much some non-Magisterium churches would, after 1960, collapse under secularism, particularly the media. That said, I think he helped me more than any other writer, and I am grateful.

In 1960 “church unity” presumed that all Christians (of course) followed the same New Testament canon, followed the same core traditions of faith, morality, decency, prolife, and the Natural Law, but just needed to be friendlier and cooperate. The papacy didn’t seem so crucial, since all Christians were floating the right way, many without it.

What about the world of 2014?

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think he realized how much the Magisterium indirectly - in a limited way - guided churches that claimed they didn’t need a Magisterium

I agree with this point. Its like a child who takes for granted the protection and guidence their parents provided them in order to live in the freedom they do, then realizes some faults in their parents behavior and then stops sharing dinner with them. Eventually the child grows up and is given the same responsibilities their parents have and sees that its not so easy to walk perfectly.

 

[commenter]

A good many Catholics /clergy felt the same way. Wasn’t necessary and would probably not help "image’’ and unity. He also said, “those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past”

The above references C. S. Lewis who, like many in the 1950s, did not see the need for a Pope for Christian unity. Lewis hated newspapers, cautioned against jumping to conclusions based on “what’s trending now”. He knew most fads disappear, but some new developments are permanent. In advising what response the Church should take, his writings DO take into account recent events in higher education, recent writings of Wells and Shaw, and what was going in the Church of England; without over-reacting.

By 1974 some Christians recognized bad trends in mainline denominations, but were quick to warn against uniting to any papacy in panic. In 1974, they said, it was too soon to evaluate the 1960s, imprudent to rule out the balance of Sola Scriptura and tradition that, no doubt, would soon re-stabilize and unify denominations, which would reaffirm doctrinal orthodoxy in renewed ways. So be patient. You’ll see those problems disappear, naturally, unity without turning to Rome.

Yup.

It’s 2014.