The Pope as ground of Church unity

[EvangelCatholic]

The importance of the Pope to church unity can not be over stated. I can’t speak for all Protestants but Lutherans, at least in dialogue with Catholics, accept the pastoral role of the Pope as the spiritual head of the Church.

 

[Wandile]

Thank you .These were 500 years after Nicea, by which time the papacy was a much more developed political and spiritual force. If I read your dates correctly, they do not concern Nicea and the second letter is incorrect from my sources for the bishop of Rome did not call for Nicea council, if indeed it is one of the six councils mentioned by Theodore…Again I do not doubt what the papacy is today,or what it was 500 years ago or a thousand. Just don’t see it as being the same as from the beginning. There are no statements in Nicea decrees of need for Bishop of Rome to be in authority over council… I doubt the historical accuracy of your two quotes but not their zeal for the Papacy.

The reason why there us an absence of the description of the roman bishops authority in the canons of nicaea and various other ecumenical councils is because (as many fathers testify) it was not given by a council. It is a divine charism arising from his primacy that the pope is the highest authority in the church.

The Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following in the 4th century :
Church History 2:8:
Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, Although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

Church History 2:15:
Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.

Church History 2:17:
On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch…

Also Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in** 367** [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim–each for himself–separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

 

[rcwitness]

Ok, I’ll continue some more

No… The individual States (read countries) were able to name Bishops. In a nutshell (Since we would have a lot of historical background for this), after the Investiture Controversy the Western Church needed Her ability and power to name and control Her own Bishops (The separation of Church and States was nowhere near what we have today). In this light and since we were separated from our Eastern brothers, the See of Peter [needed] to [have] immediate power, something it didn’t have before. See how development is not necessarily a bad thing?

“something it didn’t have before”

This is your contention, right? What it all boils down to?

I am not educated enough, as you have noticed, to show evidence otherwise, but only remain willing to accept that the Pope did, but never had such a demand to express it. But trust me, your point is taken.

Michael, again you go for authority. And notice I am not arguing against authority, but about the way it was exercised throughout the history of the Church.

I know you don’t intend to (I hope ), but this question is a bit of a trap. If I say that the Will of God is not consistent with the authority of the Church, then I am making myself an authority.

The reasons for the Church development are not exclusively theological. There are a number of developments that arise from political and socio-economical reasons. I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State and I am all for the Church to be able to operate freely from the influence of State.

I believe the Will of God to be for the Church to defeat the gates of hell.

As the Will of God for political reasons? That’s above my pay grade

Perhaps I need to study the perspective you have, or just come to terms with what I do understand. Well the later no matter what. So much of the Historical aspect, in my opinion, is forever lost as we dont know things then as though we were truly in it. But i dont use that as an excuse to disregard history, just that some of the debates about the Inquisitions, for example, are unfair to judge according to our knowledge and perspective.

It really doesn’t.

Nope, that doesn’t help you case .

This same power is given to the other Apostles (Bishops) as well. Read 2 chapters forward in Matthew 18:18.

Yes, I see that reality.

Thanks for the good wishes. But please rest assured I am not troubled at all. I understand the reasons behind the developments and they are not innovations like some would like to name them. In fact, from a political standpoint, I agree with these developments - otherwise who knows how much more fractioned we would be today . It is what it is and the past is gone, we are to learn from it and apply ourselves as we move forward.

Good to hear.

As for our Blessed Mother, just know that it is [because] of Christ that She is who She is. Her words are the wisest and more clearer than anyone’s: “Do whatever He tells you”.
Peace,

My issues with devotions to Mary are not a dispute to Cat Teaching, but personal applications, where examination of conscience, Church Teaching, Eucharistic devotion, etc are set beneath a fascade of a “better devotion to Jesus” on mere grounds of repeated Rosaries, kneeling before a statue who does not convict them of the Teachings they are rejecting. But I have a thread about that mess.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok, I’ll continue some more

“something it didn’t have before”

This is your contention, right? What it all boils down to?

In a way, yes.

I am not educated enough, as you have noticed, to show evidence otherwise, but only remain willing to accept that the Pope did, but never had such a demand to express it. But trust me, your point is taken.

Neither am I, bro. It wasn’t until a year or so ago that I engaged NineTwo, Cavaradosi, Dzheremi, and others of our Orthodox brothers that my knowledge of Church history was truly challenged. So, being the nerd that I am , I went on to read a lot more. Oh boy, was I unaware of a lot of things… The other thing is that I am extremely attracted to Orthodox theology, they don’t have the need to define every little thing and explain every little thing like we do… We are obsessive compulsive in making definitions and dogmas and rules… it. is. so. annoying…

Perhaps I need to study the perspective you have, or just come to terms with what I do understand. Well the later no matter what. So much of the Historical aspect, in my opinion, is forever lost as we dont know things then as though we were truly in it. But i dont use that as an excuse to disregard history, just that some of the debates about the Inquisitions, for example, are unfair to judge according to our knowledge and perspective.

Yes, lots of misinformation out there…

My issues with devotions to Mary are not a dispute to Cat Teaching, but personal applications, where examination of conscience, Church Teaching, Eucharistic devotion, etc are set beneath a fascade of a “better devotion to Jesus” on mere grounds of repeated Rosaries, kneeling before a statue who does not convict them of the Teachings they are rejecting. But I have a thread about that mess.

Did you start the thread?

 

[benhur]

The reason why there us an absence of the description of the roman bishops authority in the canons of nicaea and various other ecumenical councils is because (as many fathers testify) it was not given by a council. It is a divine charism arising from his primacy that the pope is the highest authority in the church.

The Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following in the 4th century :
Church History 2:8:
Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, Although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

Church History 2:15:
Athanasius, meanwhile, after a lengthened journey, at last reached Italy. The western division of the empire was then under the sole power of Constans, the youngest of Constantine’s sons, his brother Constantine having been slain by the soldiers, as was before stated. At the same time also Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, a city of the Lesser Galatia, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused on various charges, and expelled from their several churches arrived at the imperial city. There each laid his case before Julius, bishop of Rome. He on his part, by virtue of the Church of Rome’s peculiar privilege, sent them back again into the East, fortifying them with commendatory letters and at the same time restored to each his own place, and sharply rebuked those by whom they had been deposed. Relying on the signature of the bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed.

Church History 2:17:
On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that the charge respecting Arsenius had plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch…

Also Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in** 367** [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim–each for himself–separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

Thank you .Yes I understand councils are not the source of Petrine power but upon theological interpretations of scripture, that it is conferred upon Peter and successors from Christ himself. But as your quotes confirm by such later dates, that “interpretation” developed and developed as to say it was form the beginning. Further, a stumbling block for me is the politics of it at the time of your quotes. I have read that bloodshed was reported as early as 366 over the election of Damasus. It is therefore difficult to pick out the “campaigning propaganda” from true spiritual, theological argument and historical recording of such times.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Neither am I, bro. It wasn’t until a year or so ago that I engaged NineTwo, Cavaradosi, Dzheremi, and others of our Orthodox brothers that my knowledge of Church history was truly challenged. So, being the nerd that I am , I went on to read a lot more. Oh boy, was I unaware of a lot of things… The other thing is that I am extremely attracted to Orthodox theology, they don’t have the need to define every little thing and explain every little thing like we do… We are obsessive compulsive in making definitions and dogmas and rules… it. is. so. annoying…

I think that’s true about Western Christianity in general. There’s a lot to be said for leaving teachings open to theological speculation.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Isaiah 45: The question you posed to me " Why do you think Jesus brought John along during the last conversation he had with Peter? and Why he rebuked Peter when he questioned the presence of John? " A very complex questions indeed but one I think I now can answer after giving it much thought to it.

                   I think one needs to read the whole of Chapter 21 to get the sense of what John is saying. John sets the stage by first saying that the Apostles went to Tiberias;  instead of using the word Galilee,  as there is unfinished business with Peter. The scattered Apostles have been brought into unity, but Peter's threefold denial of Jesus ( 13:36-38; 18:15-18, 25-27) is a special case that must be dealt with. the three denials must be canceled by three affirmations.. In addressing Peter each time as Simon son of John (vv.15,16,17), Jesus speaks to him as if he were no longer (or not yet) a disciple or Apostle, for Jesus goes back to the name Peter had when he and Jesus first met.

The framework for the three questions by Jesus to Peter is the principle, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (14:15). The form of the first question to Peter presupposes that all the Apostles love Jesus, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus has just appeared Himself to them. The purpose of the question is not to set Peter in competition with the other Apostles but simply to single him out from the rest and examine his love in particular. The repetition of the questions to Peter to feed/ take care of/and the words lamb and sheep, the purpose being is to match his earlier triple denial and to elicit from him a firm commitment to continue the Shepherd’s work during the time of the Shepherd’s absence. Peter is given the pastoral responsibility among Jesus’ Apostles, since as a good shepherd Jesus had said “lays down his life for the sheep” and so it is not surprising that the mention of Peter’s pastoral responsibility leads into a reflection on his eventual death.

The mode of death that Peter will have suggests that he will be a crucifixion is simply the result of Peter being faithful to his master, and like the death of anyone loyal to Jesus, it will glorify God and that as Jesus’ servant he will follow Jesus , Jesus says “follow Me” and leaves Peter to infer what the reader of the Gospel already knows that Peter died a violent death by crucifixion.

The final stage is the presence of John while Jesus converses with Peter to show that there is more than one model for true discipleship, for he too was following Jesus. The thrust of Jesus’ blunt answer to Peter ( rebuke if you will) is that John’s fate is none of Peter’s business. Apostleship implies a level of commitment but not a specific outcome to one’s life. For Peter, following Jesus meant an “imitation of Jesus” as shepherd, ending in a death that would be analogous; though not identical to Jesus. To John, it meant something quite different. Jesus does not tell peter what that something is, but implies that John will remain alive rather than die, at least that he will out live Peter. it is in any case not peter’s concern. Jesus brings the brief exchange to an end by saying again “follow me”. That is my understanding of Chapter 21 and your question of Peter and John.

 

[spina1953]

Hi Isaiah 45: I would like to add one more thing to what I just posted concerning Peter and his three answers to Jesus’ questions to Peter’s denials, which Peter we know said when asked if he knew Jesus. Peter’s answers to Jesus’ questions also show that Peter while serenely confident of himself before the crucifixion of Jesus John now contrasts Peter’s fidelity with that of the other Apostles; now Peter will assume nothing for himself nor will Peter will pretend to compare his love with any others, but Peter humbly asserts what the Lord already knows concerning his love.

In Chapter 21 of John’s Gospel (21:15-19) is one seemingly with the rest of the NT in ascribing primacy to Peter in the Apostolic Church. As in the other Gospels John has consistently brought out Peter’s special position from the significant note of the change of Peter’s name. in1: 42

 

[Peter_J]

It wasn’t until a year or so ago that I engaged NineTwo, Cavaradosi, Dzheremi, and others of our Orthodox brothers that my knowledge of Church history was truly challenged.

They can be annoying that way, I’m afraid, but we try to tolerate them.

 

[Peter_J]

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Isaiah 45: The question you posed to me " Why do you think Jesus brought John along during the last conversation he had with Peter? and Why he rebuked Peter when he questioned the presence of John? " A very complex questions indeed but one I think I now can answer after giving it much thought to it.

                   I think one needs to read the whole of Chapter 21 to get the sense of what John is saying. John sets the stage by first saying that the Apostles went to Tiberias;  instead of using the word Galilee,  as there is unfinished business with Peter. The scattered Apostles have been brought into unity, but Peter's threefold denial of Jesus ( 13:36-38; 18:15-18, 25-27) is a special case that must be dealt with. the three denials must be canceled by three affirmations.. In addressing Peter each time as Simon son of John (vv.15,16,17), Jesus speaks to him as if he were no longer (or not yet) a disciple or Apostle, for Jesus goes back to the name Peter had when he and Jesus first met.

The framework for the three questions by Jesus to Peter is the principle, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (14:15). The form of the first question to Peter presupposes that all the Apostles love Jesus, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus has just appeared Himself to them. The purpose of the question is not to set Peter in competition with the other Apostles but simply to single him out from the rest and examine his love in particular. The repetition of the questions to Peter to feed/ take care of/and the words lamb and sheep, the purpose being is to match his earlier triple denial and to elicit from him a firm commitment to continue the Shepherd’s work during the time of the Shepherd’s absence. Peter is given the pastoral responsibility among Jesus’ Apostles, since as a good shepherd Jesus had said “lays down his life for the sheep” and so it is not surprising that the mention of Peter’s pastoral responsibility leads into a reflection on his eventual death.

The mode of death that Peter will have suggests that he will be a crucifixion is simply the result of Peter being faithful to his master, and like the death of anyone loyal to Jesus, it will glorify God and that as Jesus’ servant he will follow Jesus , Jesus says “follow Me” and leaves Peter to infer what the reader of the Gospel already knows that Peter died a violent death by crucifixion.

The final stage is the presence of John while Jesus converses with Peter to show that there is more than one model for true discipleship, for he too was following Jesus. The thrust of Jesus’ blunt answer to Peter ( rebuke if you will) is that John’s fate is none of Peter’s business. Apostleship implies a level of commitment but not a specific outcome to one’s life. For Peter, following Jesus meant an “imitation of Jesus” as shepherd, ending in a death that would be analogous; though not identical to Jesus. To John, it meant something quite different. Jesus does not tell peter what that something is, but implies that John will remain alive rather than die, at least that he will out live Peter. it is in any case not peter’s concern. Jesus brings the brief exchange to an end by saying again “follow me”. That is my understanding of Chapter 21 and your question of Peter and John.

Thanks for sharing your view, spina!

I see the passage a lot more simpler (I know… I’m all for simplicity ).

I see it as Christ’s way of telling Peter that he is not alone and that his brothers are with him as well. That as much as the others (Apostles) are with him (Peter) - he (Peter) is with them (Apostles).

Peace,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I think that’s true about Western Christianity in general.

Indeed. Don’t get me started on forensic theology… blah!

There’s a lot to be said for leaving teachings open to theological speculation.

Yes.

 

[rcwitness]

Did you start the thread?

I did. Its called ‘What is a devotion to Mary?’

 

[spina1953]

Thanks for sharing your view, spina!

I see the passage a lot more simpler (I know… I’m all for simplicity ).

I see it as Christ’s way of telling Peter that he is not alone and that his brothers are with him as well. That as much as the others (Apostles) are with him (Peter) - he (Peter) is with them (Apostles).

Peace,

Hi Isaiah 45: You are welcome. I like simple too and what you think is important to our understanding of the issues. However, sometimes something is either simple or complicated and the answers are not always so simple as sometimes we do miss the big picture. But in your case, I understand your position and it does make sense to at least try to make it as simple as one can, which I was trying to do but unsuccessfully I might add.
Peace and God Bless mike.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Indeed. Don’t get me started on forensic theology… blah!

While the Bible certainly uses forensic language, there’s no doubt it’s beaten to death by both Protestants (esp. the Reformed and Lutherans influenced by them) and Catholics (despite the disagreements over forensic justification with Protestants, Catholicism relies pretty heavily on it, too. i.e., merits). To which I say, blah, for the most part. Stick with a mystical, sacramental understanding, as the Scriptures do far more often than they rely on forensics, even for justification.

On this, the Eastern Orthodox have us pretty whooped.

 

[rcwitness]

spina1953;:

The purpose of the question is not to set Peter in competition with the other Apostles but simply to single him out from the rest and examine his love in particular.

This is an interesting observation which is hard for me to convey.

Alot of Peter’s ‘worth’ and significance is so closely tied to his proximity to Jesus. He was singled out and focussed on in a way which exposes him and demands more from him.

Doesnt the Christmas song go something like, “…Till He appeared, and the soul felt its worth”?

Its something to have been so intimately close to the Lord during His days on earth. And the person He tended to most was Peter. This wasn’t cuz He loved Peter more. We even know John as the Disciple whom Jesus loved! But Jesus emptied Himself of Godliness and accepted the limitations of man. In this way, He could only devote so much to each Apostle. I think this is an aspect of Jesus setting apart one Apostle as a “key” instrument.

We all have access to Christ through faith. But we dont all have access to all things from Him. To each is given certain gifts. James says the Teachers are held to more judgement for they guide others with their words. Ultimately, who would really want to be Peter? On the one hamd, we would love to be next to Him, ask Him all the questions we desire. Watch Him do His work. But then comes our response to the difficult truth. After Jesus gave Peter the Keys, He explained He would go to Jerusalem and be killed. Peter must have felt so high and priveledged at one moment and then turned upside down the next. He even attempted to guide Jesus away from the cross, and Jesus accused Him of coming from the devil! What an extreme of revelations! Jesus giving Peter His own power and then saying, im gonna be slain. It begs the question, If my Lord is slain what could be my destiny?

John had a special peace with Jesus. He wasn’t anxious for the things that bring complication. He had a special love for Jesus that was content to just be near and absorb. Its no wonder He was entrusted to Christ’s mother. They both had a gift to store up the treasures of Christ in their hearts. Of all the complications I have regarding a devotion to Mary, I see John as having the first true devotion to her.

 

[spina1953]

This is an interesting observation which is hard for me to convey.

Alot of Peter’s ‘worth’ and significance is so closely tied to his proximity to Jesus. He was singled out and focussed on in a way which exposes him and demands more from him.

Doesnt the Christmas song go something like, “…Till He appeared, and the soul felt its worth”?

Its something to have been so intimately close to the Lord during His days on earth. And the person He tended to most was Peter. This wasn’t cuz He loved Peter more. We even know John as the Disciple whom Jesus loved! But Jesus emptied Himself of Godliness and accepted the limitations of man. In this way, He could only devote so much to each Apostle. I think this is an aspect of Jesus setting apart one Apostle as a “key” instrument.

We all have access to Christ through faith. But we dont all have access to all things from Him. To each is given certain gifts. James says the Teachers are held to more judgement for they guide others with their words. Ultimately, who would really want to be Peter? On the one hamd, we would love to be next to Him, ask Him all the questions we desire. Watch Him do His work. But then comes our response to the difficult truth. After Jesus gave Peter the Keys, He explained He would go to Jerusalem and be killed. Peter must have felt so high and priveledged at one moment and then turned upside down the next. He even attempted to guide Jesus away from the cross, and Jesus accused Him of coming from the devil! What an extreme of revelations! Jesus giving Peter His own power and then saying, im gonna be slain. It begs the question, If my Lord is slain what could be my destiny?

John had a special peace with Jesus. He wasn’t anxious for the things that bring complication. He had a special love for Jesus that was content to just be near and absorb. Its no wonder He was entrusted to Christ’s mother. They both had a gift to store up the treasures of Christ in their hearts. Of all the complications I have regarding a devotion to Mary, I see John as having the first true devotion to her.

Hi rewitness: I like what you had to say. In reading the Gospels as well as Acts one can readily see that Peter is singled out from the other Apostles. There is not a lot known about all of the Apostles as to what they did before teaming up with Jesus. We do know that Andrew, Peter, John and James were it seems partners in the fishing business and it appears that Peter was the main partner. This may account for Peter being somewhat a leader and spokesperson for the other Apostles.

Throughout the Gospels, it seems that Peter James and John are the focus of what Jesus is teaching. Peter it seems to have had till the resurrection a swell head in that he often jumped to conclusions though well intended. For example when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and then said that he had to go to Jerusalem to be killed, Peter flew off the handle and told Jesus God forbid or something like that and Jesus rebuked him for it but thinking on it ,it shows that Peter loved Jesus and did not want to see him die and also Peter really did not understand that Jesus had to die for all of the sins of mankind so that man might be saved and the gates of heaven once could be opened.

No doubt the devil tried to use Peter’s love for Jesus to temp Jesus to not go and die in Jerusalem and that is the reason as to why Jesus rebuked Peter, not because of what Peter felt in his heart but the words that Peter said not understanding what he was saying to Jesus. Although Peter was the leader and spokesperson for the Apostles, Jesus was the real leader and the Apostles were students, till Jesus ascended into heaven and Peter became the unifying person that held the Apostles together, Since one much remember that the Apostles scattered till Jesus appeared to them. I think you correct about John and first devotion to Mary.

 

[Memaw]

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?

What happened?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[commenter]

"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?"

What happened?? God Bless, Memaw

Since 1960, the Media became far more secularized, and more powerful. It defines most of the agenda for Western societies, for individuals, and some of the agenda for some churches. Instead of absolutes of truth/false and right/wrong, everything is relative. Christian dogmas in all denominations have been under attack. Some denominations are abandoning even the most basic beliefs that their own predecessors took for granted as precious, but keep quoting the Bible to justify everything they do.

Many individual Protestants have reexamined their own previous perception of the papacy as unnecessary. Christians in 1960 may have expected the secular challenge to be so powerful, but never predicted the response of some denominations to be so weak.