The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Per_Crucem]

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.

I don’t think it is that cut and dry. Certain doctrines regarding the office of the papacy are opposed to the teachings of Christ, and in that regard, could be called anti-Christ. That is not saying that everything about the papacy is anti-Christ.

 

[Per_Crucem]

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.

Yes and that’s what I said earlier. The situation of 1054 was between Constantinople and Rome. It was not, in any sense, a schism between the East and West. It was more a local squabble. The reason for the schism between the entire communion had nothing to do with Constantinople calling itself the New Rome.

(Antioch broke communion, I believe, in 1099 when the Franks installed a Latin bishop)

 

[Wandile]

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.

From the east on roman supremacy and jurisdiction; St.Maximus the confessor…

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

“For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore** the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”**

From the east on Papal infallibility ; Theodore Abu Qurrah:

"You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter,that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts (pp. 68-69)

Library of the Christian East, vol. I, Brigham Young University Press, Provo, UT 2005), “The heart of Theodore’s theology lay in the attempt to discern the true religion and the true Church” (p. xxv) amidst the conflicting claims of Jews and Muslims, and the divisions among Christians in the Middle East. In his work “On the Councils”, Theodore refuted the claims of “Nestorians, Jacobites, Julianists, Maronites, and other heretics who lay claim to Christianity”

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

"'As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’"

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think it is that cut and dry. Certain doctrines regarding the office of the papacy are opposed to the teachings of Christ, and in that regard, could be called anti-Christ. That is not saying that everything about the papacy is anti-Christ.

I personally differ. If the Papacy itself makes the claims it does, it is either Truth or Lie.

The AntiChrist Himself would not be completely erronous, but full of lots of truth(correction, “use” lots of truth), only to lead us away from Christ with a most unholy lie.

That is what the Pharisees and Scribes believed Jesus to be.(though not all)

And we all have to determine wheather the Office of Peter is maintained in the Papacy or if it is a creation of the “deep things of Satan”.

I think you want to avoid taking one side or the other because you recognize there are good things about the Papacy and many Popes. But these good things would only be sheep’s clothing if the Papacy corrupts the Church Jesus established.

 

[Per_Crucem]

From the east on roman supremacy and jurisdiction; St.Maximus the confessor…

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from there the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation

“For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore** the blessed Pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world”**

It should be noted that the quote from St. Maximus is only found in later Latin writings. All of Maximus’ writings are in Greek. The document is highly suspect as being at all authentic.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I personally differ. If the Papacy itself makes the claims it does, it is either Truth or Lie.

The AntiChrist Himself would not be completely erronous, but full of lots of truth(correction, “use” lots of truth), only to lead us away from Christ with a most unholy lie.

That is what the Pharisees and Scribes believed Jesus to be.(though not all)

And we all have to determine wheather the Office of Peter is maintained in the Papacy or if it is a creation of the “deep things of Satan”.

I think you want to avoid taking one side or the other because you recognize there are good things about the Papacy and many Popes. But these good things would only be sheep’s clothing if the Papacy corrupts the Church Jesus established.

Do you consider all Baptist pastors to be from the pits of hell? At least as regards their position?

 

[rcwitness]

Do you consider all Baptist pastors to be from the pits of hell? At least as regards their position?

I don’t think so, because they do not claim to have infallible Teaching. Nor do they claim to have an authoratative office.

I believe exactly what the Church Magisterium Teaches about them. They have the ministry of Baptism and the Word of God, which has the power to save. They are only lacking full Communion with the Body of our Lord. And those raised into these comminities cannot be charged with heresey.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I don’t think so, because they do not claim to have infallible Teaching. Nor do they claim to have an authoratative office.

I believe exactly what the Church Magisterium Teaches about them. They have the ministry of Baptism and the Word of God, which has the power to save. They are only lacking full Communion with the Body of our Lord. And those raised into these comminities cannot be charged with heresey.

But the fact of the matter is, is that their teachings about Baptism are false, as well as their teachings of communion. Their office is completely invalid as a ministry of the New Testament. What they teach is not what Christ taught. In that sense, their office is anti-Christ. Yet, I wouldn’t say they are servants of the pits of hell.

 

[rcwitness]

But the fact of the matter is, is that their teachings about Baptism are false, as well as their teachings of communion. Their office is completely invalid as a ministry of the New Testament. What they teach is not what Christ taught. In that sense, their office is anti-Christ. Yet, I wouldn’t say they are servants of the pits of hell.

Who Teaches their Sacrament of Baptism is invalid?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Who Teaches their Sacrament of Baptism is invalid?

Their Baptism is not invalid. But they teach the Christian doctrine of Baptism falsely. They deny it to infants and they do not believe it forgives sins/regenerates.

 

[rcwitness]

Their Baptism is not invalid. But they teach the Christian doctrine of Baptism falsely. They deny it to infants and they do not believe it forgives sins/regenerates.

So their church does not contain the Full Deposit of Faith.

Neither does yours. But you could receive more Truth than any given member of the Church which does contain the Full Deposit of Faith. Even me for example. Cuz there are those who say yes to God, but do not do His Will.

But yes, any Pastor Teaching heresy is spreading lies from below. The degree of their communion with Satan varies as much as there are individual Pastors.

Only pastors from cults like Mormons, who do not even have a valid Baptism are in complete seperation if holding to the true tenants of their faith.

But, I am getting out of my “pay grade” here.

 

[Per_Crucem]

So their church does not contain the Full Deposit of Faith.

Which is what we would say about certain aspects of the Roman doctrine of the papacy. Some of it is true, some of it is false.

But yes, any Pastor Teaching heresy is spreading lies from below. The degree of their communion with Satan varies as much as there are individual Pastors.

And we would say the same. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing of value present, whether it be Baptists or the Pope.

 

[rcwitness]

Which is what we would say about certain aspects of the Roman doctrine of the papacy. Some of it is true, some of it is false.

And we would say the same. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing of value present, whether it be Baptists or the Pope.

Yes, I see.

But my point is, either Jesus gave the office of Pope, or He didn’t. If He did, there is only one Church which even claims to posses it. So, either the Teachings about the office, from the only Church which holds it, are True or they are false.

edit: Ahhh, I think you would say that Jesus did give the Papacy, and would protect the Church from complete destruction, but that there is error brought into that office by men. But that would not be an office worth receiving Confirmation through:shrug: and that contradicts the meaning of the office.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I see.

But my point is, either Jesus gave the office of Pope, or He didn’t. If He did, there is only one Church which even claims to posses it. So, either the Teachings about the office, from the only Church which holds it, are True or they are false.

edit: Ahhh, I think you would say that Jesus did give the Papacy, and would protect the Church from complete destruction, but that there is error brought into that office by men. But that would not be an office worth receiving Confirmation through:shrug: and that contradicts the meaning of the office.

From my POV, why would it not still be an office worth receiving Confirmation through? In no other aspect of human existence is there the expectation that any one human being, except Christ Himself (various teachings on the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding), is without fault or error. Why here? The Bishop of Rome, the Pope of Rome, is worthy of his title.

Jon

 

[sw85]

Roman Catholic apologists commonly make the argument, usually in discussions with Orthodox, that the Bishop of Rome fulfills the essential function of being the ground of Church unity. While not disputing that at times before the East-West schism the Bishop of Rome did perform that function, and that in a reunited Church he could certainly function as a force for unity, I think the claim that the Papacy is the essential instrument for Church unity meets at least one insuperable historical obstacle: the “Great” Schism which took place in the West in the 14th century. This schism occurred in the western church because there first two, then three, rival claimants to the papacy, each of which could claim a significant part of the western church. This schism was only settled by the western Council of Constance (1414-1418) which succeeded in resolving the claims in favor of one Bishop of Rome. Of this crisis, a Roman Catholic historian says the following: “A Council was the only viable means of restoring unity to the Church”. Johann Baptist Villager, “Western Schism” a subpart of the article on “Schism” in the theological encyclopedia Sacramentum Mundi, vol. 6, Herder and Herder, ed. Jean Cardinal Danielou et al.
In light of this episode, I don’t see how it can be maintained that the Bishop of Rome functions as the essential ground of unity.

I’m not sure I get your point. “Essential” means just that, “pertaining to the essence of.” It is part of the essence of man that he has two arms. It doesn’t follow that every single man everywhere will always and forever have two arms. Some men don’t have either or both arms, due to congenital defect, later-life illness or injury, etc.

Likewise that the Pope is the “essential ground of unity” does not mean that at any particular time the Church will be particularly united under one Pope. It means that in the properly-ordered sense, in the essence or character or “constitution” of the Church, it is united, and it is united first and foremost by virtue of its subjection to the Pope.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The role of the papacy is integral to the Western Church. Even as a Lutheran, I view the pope as the personification of Christ; the responsibility must be overwhelming. Pray for Francis every day.

 

[rcwitness]

From my POV, why would it not still be an office worth receiving Confirmation through? In no other aspect of human existence is there the expectation that any one human being, except Christ Himself (various teachings on the Blessed Virgin notwithstanding), is without fault or error. Why here? The Bishop of Rome, the Pope of Rome, is worthy of his title.

Jon

Because, if the Bishop of Rome cannot Confirm the faithfull in matters of the faith, then He really is just another Christian. And we would all be just as well off to believe what we have concluded ourselves.

If the Bishop has authority to Confirm the faithfull, he would not be beneficial to remain in a local community. His office is not safeguarded to keep under a bushel.

If the Apostles who were given divine revelation, personally, received Confirmation and final answers through Peter’s mouth, we would be imitating them to do the same in our own generation.

But in this day and age, we have an overwhelming history of defining doctrine and Teaching in all matters. There is the ever present task of following such a great “cloud of witness”. But the Pope, and all who are in Communion with Him in Jesus are perpetually bombarded with disputes. They cannot simply do their job in peace.

I dont concern myself with serving the Pope, because he is distant from me. Just like Mary is distant from me. Its better to serve our immediate family with the same faith everyone the whole world over shares. Support those close to us the confidence we have in our leaders and keep the commandments our Lord delivers through them so that our prayers for them are heard.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because, if the Bishop of Rome cannot Confirm the faithfull in matters of the faith, then He really is just another Christian. And we would all be just as well off to believe what we have concluded ourselves.

Do you view your local bishop as just another Christian? Or as a sucessor to the apostles with apostolic authority?

Just like Mary is distant from me.

Depending on where you’re coming from, she’s not!

 

[steido01]

The role of the papacy is integral to the Western Church. Even as a Lutheran, I view the pope as the personification of Christ; the responsibility must be overwhelming. Pray for Francis every day.

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.

 

[rcwitness]

Do you view your local bishop as just another Christian? Or as a sucessor to the apostles with apostolic authority?

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.

Depending on where you’re coming from, she’s not!

You are correct, but she is close to me when I minister to Christ’s body (Church). So I am not very close to her because I do not minister to His Chirch needs very much.