The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Wandile]

The most charitable way I can think of to describe that argument is “circular”. The pope restored unity because he ratified the council that gave him the authority to ratify the council… ad infinitum. Come on. As the Roman Catholic historian I quoted in my first post said, the council was necessary to restore unity.

But that is the reality of the situation. The council had to be ratified by the pope
see the council was only delegated authority to choose the pope because the parties assented to it. But for any ecumenical council to have binding force, it must be ratified by the pope. This very same council admits there is no authority higher than a pope. No council can judge a pope nor can it have any authority over him. The council gains authority through papal ratification. The reason why the elected pope at Constance was considered legitimate was not because the councils election was the final judgment but rather because the Reigning Pope and two antipopes agreed to the findings of this election as binding upon all parties involved. See it was not the council itself that made the election binding , rather the parties assent to the election.

 

[benhur]

Sometimes an element that unifies in one small culture, for a short time, might not be applicable to a situation with a few different cultures, over a “long” time.

In social science, it’s hard to find a sample size that’s bigger and more diverse than the Catholic Church, or a variable that’s been tested longer than the papacy!

Is this the only ground of unity? of course not.

The CC and papacy are indeed quite phenomenal in that regard. More phenomenal is the Church period, from day one to today. From that there is the Roman Catholic sample,the largest but also the Orthodox while not the largest still claim longest history.

 

[commenter]

The CC and papacy are indeed quite phenomenal in that regard. More phenomenal is the Church period, from day one to today…

But is the papacy itself a ground of Church unity? Of course it isn’t the only ground, but has it served to increase - decrease - or had no effect on unity among the hundreds of millions of Catholics over time? If you were trying to evaluate whether a leader of a church district might help unify Christians on a national scale, the first question asked is how well he has unified Christians in the district where he has already been working.

Are Catholics in Poland more united to Catholics in Panama because they both have the same pope? (This year, or in 1900, or some other time). Would Catholic theologians be more united around the world if the papacy didn’t exist? Would Catholics be more, or less, united regarding family life, or abortion, if the papacy didn’t exist?

Again, I’m not asking if the pope is the only ground of church unity. I just encourage posters to look at how the papacy has functioned in real life where it has already been operating. Chances are if other groups came into relationship with the papacy, the papacy might have a similar effect. We don’t have to imagine what a hypothetical papacy might look like, examine Pope Francis. Does he unify people?

 

[rcwitness]

I think what Protestantism enjoys, is the freedom to choose certain doctrines and interpretations without a definite and binding Confirmation. They believe there is true unity in the fundamental principles of Christianity among them. Catholics agree there is this Communion of Salvation we have in common through the profession of the Creed, Sacrament of Baptism, and veneration of the Written Word of God. But this union is far from perfected. If it was all that was needed for perfect unity, then all the denominations would work closer together, and practice coming together in councils. But the Bishop of Rome is a mainstay for the Councils of Catholicism.

The office of Pope restricts that feedom to disagree among the faithfull. But this is in line with Paul’s confession of being bound in chains to Christ. There is actually freedom in being bound to Christ, because He is the way to loosen our bindings to sin.

But if Jesus did not intend for the leadership to bind our consciences, why would He give them all authority? The office of Peter recognizes that Jesus gave Peter specifically the same power and authority which He gave the Apostles collectively. This means the Ex Cathedra will never contradict the Magisterium and the Magisterium will never contradict Ex Cathedra.

Im less familiar with the Orthodox Faith, so I don’t have much of a conclusion regarding their relationship with the Papal office. There is great respect for Councils, yet the necessity of an “arbiter” is not recognized in Jesus’ appointing of Peter. To me, this does not explain the great attention and authority aimed personally at Peter by Christ. Why is it always Peter who Jesus speaks to personally when speaking about leadership? Its either Peter alone, or the apostles as a group.

Why did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts15) not require a vote, or consencus? Peter stood up, spoke in Ex Cathedra, and the whole council fell silent regarding disputes.

 

[rcwitness]

It comes down to what degree of unity do we personally want.

If we reduce our unity to the minimal requirements of Salvation, then we are easily lacking conviction to obedience of leadership.

Communion with the Bishop of Rome is Christ’s way of providing unity with solid, visible and audible Confirmation. It does not deminish the reliance on the Holy Spirit, but requires the revelation from the Father.

“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

And rightly established, is the grounds for Communion with the Bishop of Rome, which is receiving the same Consecrated Bread and Wine as from this appointed office.

Why was it only one boy had bread and fish out of 5000 people in John 6? So it is through one Bishop which we are given the Eucharist.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that the Apostles were in union with Jesus, so then the Apostles were also in union with Peter their leader. it also seems to me that this union continued afterwards, with the secession of Peter, the Popes.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It seems to me that the Apostles were in union with Jesus, so then the Apostles were also in union with Peter their leader. it also seems to me that this union continued afterwards, with the secession of Peter, the Popes.

And Peter in union with the Apostles.

 

[rcwitness]

So what is the biblical arguement against a bishop with the authority such as Peter was given???

What is the example of the Pope ever going against the majority of Apostolic Bishops???

ISTM if this were ever to happen, the office of Pope would die. But it hasn’t

 

[benhur]

I think what Protestantism enjoys, is the freedom to choose certain doctrines and interpretations without a definite and binding Confirmation. They believe there is true unity in the fundamental principles of Christianity among them. Catholics agree there is this Communion of Salvation we have in common through the profession of the Creed, Sacrament of Baptism, and veneration of the Written Word of God. But this union is far from perfected. If it was all that was needed for perfect unity, then all the denominations would work closer together, and practice coming together in councils. But the Bishop of Rome is a mainstay for the Councils of Catholicism.

The office of Pope restricts that feedom to disagree among the faithfull. But this is in line with Paul’s confession of being bound in chains to Christ. There is actually freedom in being bound to Christ, because He is the way to loosen our bindings to sin.

But if Jesus did not intend for the leadership to bind our consciences, why would He give them all authority? The office of Peter recognizes that Jesus gave Peter specifically the same power and authority which He gave the Apostles collectively. This means the Ex Cathedra will never contradict the Magisterium and the Magisterium will never contradict Ex Cathedra.

Im less familiar with the Orthodox Faith, so I don’t have much of a conclusion regarding their relationship with the Papal office. There is great respect for Councils, yet the necessity of an “arbiter” is not recognized in Jesus’ appointing of Peter. To me, this does not explain the great attention and authority aimed personally at Peter by Christ. Why is it always Peter who Jesus speaks to personally when speaking about leadership? Its either Peter alone, or the apostles as a group.

Why did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts15) not require a vote, or consencus? Peter stood up, spoke in Ex Cathedra, and the whole council fell silent regarding disputes.

Peter posed a question to the council, not an edict. I believe the Orthodox and other historians do say it is both Peter and the twelve yet Peter is first amongst equals. Not quite either or. I have heard it is part of “group dynamics” that out of twelve you "naturally’’ will have a leader. But as the group grows and disciples are added and bishops appointed that may change , and a council may be better, as several leaders may have arisen. …Paul was bound to Christ in chains and does not state that for being bound to Peter in chains. Of course we are bound to spiritual fathers and leaders but ultimately to Christ, and do not derive need for head bishop from this enslavement…Confirmation is nice, and Holy Writ says we have it from The Holy Spirit primarily. That is quite definitive. It also says we have confirmation from our spiritual fathers (do as they do) but don’t see institution of head bishop specifically stated beyond the twelve (beyond Peter).

 

[benhur]

So what is the biblical arguement against a bishop with the authority such as Peter was given???

What is the example of the Pope ever going against the majority of Apostolic Bishops???

Then why did the change occur for pope to appoint those bishops, even cardinals, who are mostly from Italian descent or always in a majority to this day, if I may respectfully ask ?

 

[benhur]

It seems to me that the Apostles were in union with Jesus, so then the Apostles were also in union with Peter their leader. it also seems to me that this union continued afterwards, with the secession of Peter, the Popes.

Anyone who professes faith in Christ the Messiah has been said by early fathers to be in union with Peter.

 

[benhur]

But that is the reality of the situation. The council had to be ratified by the pope
see the council was only delegated authority to choose the pope because the parties assented to it. But for any ecumenical council to have binding force, it must be ratified by the pope. This very same council admits there is no authority higher than a pope. No council can judge a pope nor can it have any authority over him. The council gains authority through papal ratification. The reason why the elected pope at Constance was considered legitimate was not because the councils election was the final judgment but rather because the Reigning Pope and two antipopes agreed to the findings of this election as binding upon all parties involved. See it was not the council itself that made the election binding , rather the parties assent to the election.

Only twelve out of over 300 bishops that attended Nicea were from the west. No head bishop of Rome was present but certainly delegates from the Church at Rome were present. It is not certain that Rome’s church had anything to do with calling the council or trying to settle the Arian problem. It was an eastern problem. There is no evidence that a head bishop from anywhere, including Rome, had to ratify it, except save for it’s own constituents at the Church at Rome, that is to accept the decrees or not as did other church centers. There is also no evidence of head bishop over all church. “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, 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” Canon #6…As has been pointed out Ariainism did not die out and fluctuated as did emperor backing (once government gets in it’s a mess) . What councils and popes could not do by God’s grace and the truth of scripture did and Arainism eventually passed away by it’s own discord. Anthanasius claimed scripture is sufficient above all things and fought hard for what we believe today, though he was branded by some churches and politics and councils.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Only twelve out of over 300 bishops that attended Nicea were from the west. No head bishop of Rome was present but certainly delegates from the Church at Rome were present. It is not certain that Rome’s church had anything to do with calling the council or trying to settle the Arian problem. It was an eastern problem. There is no evidence that a head bishop from anywhere, including Rome, had to ratify it, except save for it’s own constituents at the Church at Rome, that is to accept the decrees or not as did other church centers. There is also no evidence of head bishop over all church. “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, 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” Canon #6…As has been pointed out Ariainism did not die out and fluctuated as did emperor backing (once government gets in it’s a mess) . What councils and popes could not do by God’s grace and the truth of scripture did and Arainism eventually passed away by it’s own discord. Anthanasius claimed scripture is sufficient above all things and fought hard for what we believe today, though he was branded by church and politics and councils.

Yup, it’s a developed doctrine.

kpeople: Fore!!!

:takeoff:

 

[spina1953]

And Peter in union with the Apostles.

Hi Isaiah 45: Correct; it was a given I thought.

 

[spina1953]

Anyone who professes faith in Christ the Messiah has been said by early fathers to be in union with Peter.

Hi benhur: As Isaiah 45 said Peter was also in union with the Apostles.

 

[benhur]

Yup, it’s a developed doctrine.

kpeople: Fore!!!

:takeoff:

My post did not say that. It spoke of the council at Nicea in 325 AD. Any historical corrections that we both agree on “foring” ?

 

[JonNC]

=rcwitness;12140674]I think what Protestantism enjoys, is the freedom to choose certain doctrines and interpretations without a definite and binding Confirmation. They believe there is true unity in the fundamental principles of Christianity among them. .

Hi Michael,
I think there is some truth in what you say about some, if not many protestants. It depends on their communion. As a confessional Lutheran, I don’t feel this type of freedom, at least in terms of doctrine. When it comes to doctrine, I am bound to the teachings of the Augsburg Confession, etc.
Now, that’s not to say that there isn’t a level of unity between all Christians, most notably those who confess the ancient creeds, and through Baptism, as you mention in the following.

Catholics agree there is this Communion of Salvation we have in common through the profession of the Creed, Sacrament of Baptism, and veneration of the Written Word of God. But this union is far from perfected. If it was all that was needed for perfect unity, then all the denominations would work closer together, and practice coming together in councils. But the Bishop of Rome is a mainstay for the Councils of Catholicism

Here you seem to reflect the Catholic position regarding the role of the pope.

The office of Pope restricts that feedom to disagree among the faithfull. But this is in line with Paul’s confession of being bound in chains to Christ. There is actually freedom in being bound to Christ, because He is the way to loosen our bindings to sin.

But if Jesus did not intend for the leadership to bind our consciences, why would He give them all authority? The office of Peter recognizes that Jesus gave Peter specifically the same power and authority which He gave the Apostles collectively. This means the Ex Cathedra will never contradict the Magisterium and the Magisterium will never contradict Ex Cathedra.

What we would argue is that the leadership is not bound up exclusively in one bishop, as if he has greater authority, outside his bishopric, than another bishop in his.

Im less familiar with the Orthodox Faith, so I don’t have much of a conclusion regarding their relationship with the Papal office. There is great respect for Councils, yet the necessity of an “arbiter” is not recognized in Jesus’ appointing of Peter. To me, this does not explain the great attention and authority aimed personally at Peter by Christ. Why is it always Peter who Jesus speaks to personally when speaking about leadership? Its either Peter alone, or the apostles as a group.

Why did the Council in Jerusalem (Acts15) not require a vote, or consencus? Peter stood up, spoke in Ex Cathedra, and the whole council fell silent regarding disputes.

The whole council agreed with Peter, not because he was supreme in authority, but because they, well, agreed with him.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Michael,
I think there is some truth in what you say about some, if not many protestants. It depends on their communion. As a confessional Lutheran, I don’t feel this type of freedom, at least in terms of doctrine. When it comes to doctrine, I am bound to the teachings of the Augsburg Confession, etc.
Now, that’s not to say that there isn’t a level of unity between all Christians, most notably those who confess the ancient creeds, and through Baptism, as you mention in the following.

The unity we have in the faith that Jesus’ death provided the means for our reconciliation should be expressed in the Communion we receive. I mean, we should receive Communion through the same hands.

I think the Apostles can be a bit difficult to compare to their successive college of Bishops because they were each appointed directly by Jesus. So they had a common faith of the personal revelation from the master visibly and readily available to question and answer.

What we would argue is that the leadership is not bound up exclusively in one bishop, as if he has greater authority, outside his bishopric, than another bishop in his.

The leadership was greatly recognized as given to each of them, with harmony. Really, Peter’s unique authority among them was most appropriately used in the means of a spokesman. Seldom did he need to settle anything flat out. I, and most Catholics recognize The Jerusalem Council as an example of him drawing on Ex Cathedra to settle division among the Apostles and Elders of the whole Church.

The whole council agreed with Peter, not because he was supreme in authority, but because they, well, agreed with him.

I dissagree. They agreed that he spoke the truth because God revealed the truth through him. But not exclussively through him. Paul knew the truth and did not need To rely on Peter telling him. And others too, because there was much debate. What Paul and the others did need, was the one authoratative voice (Ex Cathedra) as grounds for binding the whole faithfull from that point on.

 

[spina1953]

The unity we have in the faith that Jesus’ death provided the means for our reconciliation should be expressed in the Communion we receive. I mean, we should receive Communion through the same hands.

I think the Apostles can be a bit difficult to compare to their successive college of Bishops because they were each appointed directly by Jesus. So they had a common faith of the personal revelation from the master visibly and readily available to question and answer.

The leadership was greatly recognized as given to each of them, with harmony. Really, Peter’s unique authority among them was most appropriately used in the means of a spokesman. Seldom did he need to settle anything flat out. I, and most Catholics recognize The Jerusalem Council as an example of him drawing on Ex Cathedra to settle division among the Apostles and Elders of the whole Church.

I dissagree. They agreed that he spoke the truth because God revealed the truth through him. But not exclussively through him. Paul knew the truth and did not need To rely on Peter telling him. And others too, because there was much debate. What Paul and the others did need, was the one authoratative voice (Ex Cathedra) as grounds for binding the whole faithfull from that point on.

Hi rcwitness: I agree with you statement as it goes to the core of what the council was about and how in the end a decision was made in which it was accepted.

 

[commenter]

JonNC;12142589:

Hi Michael,
I think there is some truth in what you say about some, if not many protestants. It depends on their communion. As a confessional Lutheran, I don’t feel this type of freedom, at least in terms of doctrine. When it comes to doctrine, I am bound to the teachings of the Augsburg Confession, etc.

Jon

When “confessional” Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, or confessional whatever leave doctrinal orthodoxy, they invariably find quotes from Scripture, ECF’s, denominational writings and confessions, that seem to support their position. They nuance, they take things out of context, they spin; I’m sure the Presbyterians who met in Detroit dressed up their positions as* traditional* and **more **faithful to their heritage than ever before. The difference for Catholics is that there is a living pope who, in theory, could have rejected the Detroit “witness” as unorthodox, even if they had 99% of people and scholars on their side. When popes reject unorthodox Catholic teaching, some heretics come back, and those that don’t lose their credibility. This one famous German theologian has more degrees than I do. His writings don’t guide me, because I know he is unorthodox. I know he is unorthodox because we have a living pope.

Some faithful, orthodox Christians say the other churches where this gradual erosion of orthodoxy took place (all the while claiming to be “confessional” or orthodox in teaching) went astray because of their inadequate defenses for doctrinal fidelity. All the mainline churches had was scripture, the creeds, the early church fathers, the natural law, the augsburg confession or other authoritative reformation documents to guide them. Sadly, it’s no wonder they went astray, still defining and believing themselves to be confessional, or orthodox Christians, even now.

Contrast this with the powerful Safety Net guiding modern confessional or orthodox Protestants: Scripture, the Creeds, the Early Church Fathers, the Natural Law, the Augsburg Confession or other Authoritative Reformation Documents. As you can see, it’s a totally, totally different situation!