G
GKC
Guest
I very well might; it is among the sort of things I tend to enjoy.
Anyone around here who has known me on the board for a few years knows about me and books.
GKC, owner of many, many books.
Yes, many.
- Status
Anyone around here who has known me on the board for a few years knows about me and books.
GKC, owner of many, many books.
Yes, many.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Any bishop can, and should, repudiate another bishop when his actions are not consistent with canon law or doctrine. That is doubly so when it is in the person of the Pope, due to his primacy. That it no way, however, intimates jurisdiction or universal authority as defined by the later papacy.
S
steido01
Guest
This. This is the purpose of a church hierarchy. I join Lutheran reformer Melancthon:Should this ever happen, we Lutherans could have very little problem exclaiming “Wir haben einen Papst!” But so long as Rome claims Superiority by Divine Right and considers itself immune to correction by other bishops, then the papacy remains a hindrance to Christian unity. Frankly, I’d have a difficult time remaining Lutheran if Rome gave up that claim, particularly when I consider how “Lutheran” Rome’s modern explanations sound regarding justification.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Right.
I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I guess, just posted something I saw which shows Pope Damasus’ stance against what seemed to be your contention.
I happen to like Damasus quite a bit. And I think the issues with Universal Jurisdiction and the good or bad that has come from it is more in how individual Popes have handled their power. Regardless of that, they have not Taught, excathedra, something which was dividing, or wrong. The inability for Christians to discern Jesus in their office is what causes division.
Sometimes I feel too much emphasis is placed on the Pope. He has a fundamental purpose and ministry, but it is not tightly wrapped around us like you make it out to be. But, I guess there have been strict persons in the office whose personalities were a quite smothering.
I truly believe in the prayers of the layity for leaders. In times of “complicated” personalities in the office of Pope, I think the layity (and all the Church subjected to His authority) have a profound duty to raise his morals by way of ministering, prayer, and defending what the Holy Spirit has revealed to them. All this is to benefit the whole body. A priest, pastor, bishop, pope, is attacked fervently by the enemy (Satan demanded access to put Peter to much testing).
Hebrews tells us to submit to our leaders and let them do their work with joy.
W
Wandile
Guest
Blessed Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:
Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.
Lets not even begun with St.Gregory the great, Maximus the confessor, Theodore Abu Qurrah or St.Damasus…
R
rcwitness
Guest
I doubt that any Pope rejects the possibility of any Christian being able to correct personal beliefs or actions they have held. In the end, however, if he has spoken ex cathedra, then there is no authority which can contradict this.
Should this ever happen, we Lutherans could have very little problem exclaiming “Wir haben einen Papst!” But so long as Rome claims Superiority by Divine Right and considers itself immune to correction by other bishops, then the papacy remains a hindrance to Christian unity. Frankly, I’d have a difficult time remaining Lutheran if Rome gave up that claim, particularly when I consider how “Lutheran” Rome’s modern explanations sound regarding justification.
we have this perfectly shown us in the Bible. Peter was corrected by Paul. But it was Peter who officially bound the Church to allow unCircumcised into the Covenant.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Precedence does not equal immediate, universal jurisdiction, with the ability to pronounce dogma ex cathedra. The Eastern church also believes the Church of Rome had precedence over the other churches of the world.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
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 and apostolic teaching itself.
I think Pope Francis himself sees this, even if certain Catholic apologists don’t.
Perhaps not. It’s the potential (and past examples) that are the problem.
R
rcwitness
Guest
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
I still do not know what history you are reading at, there is more to that, it started way before 1054.
amazon.com/Byzantium-Roman-Primacy-Francis-Dvornik/dp/0823207013
Here is condensed version:catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355
P
pablope
Guest
The anti christ all over again…
Should this ever happen, we Lutherans could have very little problem exclaiming “Wir haben einen Papst!” But so long as Rome claims Superiority by Divine Right and considers itself immune to correction by other bishops, then the papacy remains a hindrance to Christian unity. Frankly, I’d have a difficult time remaining Lutheran if Rome gave up that claim, particularly when I consider how “Lutheran” Rome’s modern explanations sound regarding justification.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
And the cause of the schism had naught to do with Constantinople as the New Rome. At least not singularly. Constantinople is not the only Patriarchate that schismed with Rome. It was every Eastern Patriarchate.
Really, my friend? Is that what you took from what Don said? Do you see any other communion represented here (except maybe some Anglicans) who speak with more deference to the pope than Don just did?The anti christ all over again…
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
How do you know it is not by divine right?
Should this ever happen, we Lutherans could have very little problem exclaiming “Wir haben einen Papst!” But so long as Rome claims Superiority by Divine Right and considers itself immune to correction by other bishops, then the papacy remains a hindrance to Christian unity. Frankly, I’d have a difficult time remaining Lutheran if Rome gave up that claim, particularly when I consider how “Lutheran” Rome’s modern explanations sound regarding justification.
Are you the one to decide what is by divine right and what is not?
P
pablope
Guest
I apologize if I got it in error. When the claim of divine right is mentioned, it is one of the claims Lutherans ascribe to the anti christ, isn’t it?
R
rcwitness
Guest
So is the Papacy good, or is it an office of anti-Christ?
They are very different opinions, right?
But like Jesus, we do not have the ability to call Him good but not really from God. So it is with the Papacy, either it is from above or from below.
They are very different opinions, right?
But like Jesus, we do not have the ability to call Him good but not really from God. So it is with the Papacy, either it is from above or from below.
G
GKC
Guest
As to the Orthodox, I am uncertain; various factions of the East have replied to that in various ways, when I’ve asked the question. I no longer assume I know the reply.
Would you expect the Orthodox to receive a RC bishop, in his orders?
As to the RCC, there’s Apostolicae Curae, one of my hobbies. So, my thought experiment remains a thought experiment.
But to ask the question as you do means that whatever conciliar exercise might come from it, it is not what I was musing on, all by myself, years ago.
Ya’ll carry on, anyway.
GKC
W
Wandile
Guest
Actually in a sense, that’s not true… The Antiochans never excommunicated Rome. In fact at the time of the 11th century, it was mere dispute between Rome and Constantinople of which the Antiochan patriarch asked both sides to heal. The reason the Antiochans split with the rest of the east from Rome was due to later political events. Even then, Antioch was still favorable towards Rome. The reason the east went with Constantinople was primarily because Constantinople had huge influence over the east to the point where it was pretty much an eastern papacy.
- Status