The Pope as ground of Church unity

[josie_L]

1. the primary SOURCE of unity is the Eucharist.

Thank you, thank you.

1. The Pope of Rome upholds the Unity of the Church in his role as Head of the Universal (Catholic) Church and Supreme Head of the College of Bishops (Pontiff).

But the papacy itself is not always sufficient to that task, that is the lesson of the Great Western Schism. What I have been trying to point out is that locating ultimate authority in any one office or instrument, whether it is scripture, the papacy, ecumenical councils, whatever, is always in the end foolhardy. Although among those I believe ecumenical councils have the best claim.

If you want to read a Catholic perspective than please read emeritus pope Benedict’s book “Called to Communion”, it’s a must. It’s about Eucharistic ecclesiology and the role of the papacy in the universal church (he compares the Catholic understanding of ecclesiology with that of the Orthodox and the Protestant). It is a jewel of a book.

P.s. Ecumenical councils have delineated the faith in times of crisis but in many respects schisms have resulted, i.e., it did not end disunity but exacerbated it. Also, quite a few fathers reference the unifying force represented by the papacy, not to mention biblical support.

 

[LionHeart777]

Here is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) from his “Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005) pgs. 233-34:

“‘If the Church in the very depth of her being coincides with the Eucharist, then the presidency of love carries with it a responsibility for unity, which has a significance within the Church yet, at the same time, is a responsibility for ‘distinguishing what is Christian’ as against worldly society. . . . [T]he pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but quite the opposite- he always has to try to resist arbitrary self-will and to call the Church back to the standard of obedience; therefore however, he must himself be first in obedience. 35’”

As quoted in “A Service of Love”, by Msgr Paul McPartlan, Washington D.C. : The Catholic University of America Press, 2013. Pg. 27

The Popes of the first Millennium (this is the scope of my focus for now) were very cognizant of the responsibility of the presidency of love; that of strengthening the brethren (Lk. 22:32) and of feeding the sheep (Jn. 212:17).

The words of Pope St. Boniface I in his letter Manet beatum to Rufus and the Other Bishops in Macedonia, are one example:

“Through the pronouncement of the Lord, the responsibility received from him for the universal Church belongs to the blessed apostle Peter, who indeed knew, according to the testimony of the Gospel, that (this Church) was founded on him. Nor could his dignified office be without responsibilities, since it is certain that all matters depend on his deliberation. . . . Far be it from the priests of the Lord that any one of them should fall prey to this fault: that, by attempting some unlawful innovation, he sets himself against the decrees of the forefathers, knowing that, in a special way, his rival is the one upon whom our Christ placed the height of the priesthood; and whoever rises up in defiance of him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly kingdom. ‘To you’, he says, ‘I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ Mt. 16:19], into which no one shall enter without the favor of the gatekeeper. . . .”

Denzinger, Heinrich, “Enchiridion symbolorum”, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012, pg. 422

 

[chimo]

The way Christ wants it is what is important. And Jesus made Peter. the first Pope, the head of His Church and it has been that way for over 2,000 years and will be till the end of time as Jesus promised. Nothing can ever change that. There can be no compromise on that. The Pope didn’t leave the Orthodox, the Orthodox left the Pope. God Bless, Memaw

Just by your own words you had never asked why God formed the Orthodox Church. All you talk about is your own Church. Don’t you think it is about time we come to learn about each other, why we are brothers and sisters of the same Lord? The Orthodox knows Jesus just as much as the Catholic but we never seem to know why. All we seem to talk about is the Pope and even though he is an important person for all of Christendom, don’t you ever think that all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Orthodox Church deserve some attention? It seems we are too long away from any unity until the Catholic Church will make some progress in learning about the Orthodox. Compromise begins when Cattholics will decide that the Orthodox are far too important to leave them on their own. And it will also be compromise for the Orthodox not to leave the Catholic Church alone as well. If The Lord Jesus wants a united Church it will never come if both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church insist on their own platform. Both Churches must change if this unity will come.

 

[spina1953]

Just by your own words you had never asked why God formed the Orthodox Church. All you talk about is your own Church. Don’t you think it is about time we come to learn about each other, why we are brothers and sisters of the same Lord? The Orthodox knows Jesus just as much as the Catholic but we never seem to know why. All we seem to talk about is the Pope and even though he is an important person for all of Christendom, don’t you ever think that all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Orthodox Church deserve some attention? It seems we are too long away from any unity until the Catholic Church will make some progress in learning about the Orthodox. Compromise begins when Cattholics will decide that the Orthodox are far too important to leave them on their own. And it will also be compromise for the Orthodox not to leave the Catholic Church alone as well. If The Lord Jesus wants a united Church it will never come if both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church insist on their own platform. Both Churches must change if this unity will come.

I think you are on to something and we do need to learn more about each other.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think the secular world has given the papacy that much more visibility, and it is easier to understand or follow belief if there is one leader than several. If you have the conciliar model, it is too humanely easy to pick who fits you and along with you, your limitations and prejudice, thus it is self choosing rather than making an act of faith and letting decisions fall on one head for the sake of all.

Because of the loss of the papacy to the Orthodox, they come across to me as a layperson as more ethnic bound, less universal, and very touchy, emotional.

The Latin Church comes off bureaucratic, proud, intellectual. Pope John XIII viewed those who worked around him as proud and superficial, and he decided the only way to deal with them was to be silent and teach by example.

Finally I muse about what happened to the Orthodox Churches when the Russians converted around the millenium, reading they are the greatest numbers in Orthodoxy, their nationalistic inclination towards Mother Russia, and how during the Cold War, Romanian priests were sent into the Vatican archives to damage documents verifying the accomplishments Pope Piux XII’s for the Jews during WWII. I have read stories about the Russian Orthodox in collusion with the Soviet Union, communist at that time. Likewise, I saw videos of those children paraded on the streets for turning in their parents for having a bible in their homes.

So I wonder how much the Russian Orthodox Church has contributed to digging its heels in to avoid reunification with the papacy. I also think it is shirking it, by some, my perception being that if they were to unite with the papacy, dirty linen would come out as well in time.

And the Memorial, the unity of the Church is found in the Eucharist, One Bread, One Body.

I pray for the unity of apostolic Christianity and believe that it could be the light to bring the sects into the fold as well.

 

[rinnie]

Perhaps a shared authority will be the better answer. Since the Orthodox believe more in the conciliar way in administering authority perhaps the Pope will see it as well so that he will share authority with them. The Orthodox will accept this because it is more suited for them. I do not believe doctrinal developments will be any deterrent to unity. The focus of our talks need to step up to know why we were made different. Perhaps we were made different for a real good reason. I believe what will unite us will be our differences. It is very easy to understand why. Let us say for talk that East and West were made different because they were meant for each other. It is very much like a marriage between two people. Now marriage between two people tend to have many differences in any couple. What is good about this is that each person brings in the best toward this united relationship. What is lacking in one person the other person will bring in to complete it. This actually strengthens the relationship and marriage. It seems to me doctrinal differences are very much like the differences there are between two peoples who are meant for marriage. We come to strengthen the relationship by what we already know. You do not need to be exactly alike. If this true in marriage why not for our Churches.

If we were to have shared authority Jesus would have set it up that way. He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (Pope) only. Not to all of the Apostles.

We do need to be exactly alike because there is only one truth. And One Truth is Exactly Alike.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If we were to have shared authority Jesus would have set it up that way. He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (Pope) only. Not to all of the Apostles.

We do need to be exactly alike because there is only one truth. And One Truth is Exactly Alike.

What do you mean “exactly alike” - clearly not all Catholics are “exactly alike” and the Church hasn’t taught that all must be “exactly alike.”

 

[JonNC]

If we were to have shared authority Jesus would have set it up that way. He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (Pope) only. Not to all of the Apostles.

Your position has been a point of disagreement, rinnie, for a thousand or more years. While Peter initially received the keys, they were not intended for him alone, but as scripture shows, belong to the Church as a whole.

None of that, however, denies the possibility that the pope of Rome is, as the thread title suggests, the ground of unity of the Church Militant.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Your position has been a point of disagreement, rinnie, for a thousand or more years. While Peter initially received the keys, they were not intended for him alone, but as scripture shows, belong to the Church as a whole.

None of that, however, denies the possibility that the pope of Rome is, as the thread title suggests, the ground of unity of the Church Militant.

Jon

But this is not specified in Scripture. Only Peter was given the “keys”, right?

The others, collectively were given the power to bind and loosen, but only one person can hold the “keys”, because there are not duplicates of these “keys”. Remember, Peter was not alone when Jesus gave Him this appointing. The others were with, yet only Peter was addressed and singled out. And I believe the “keys” to be Ex Cathedra. They are the tool used to access the Authority. Jesus gave these keys to Peter through His Word. Peter, used these keys when he reminded the rest that the Lord separated him from among the others (Acts 15) for a specifice ministry and office. Yet, Peter still remained like the others who shared the same faith in Jesus and His Lordship over all. Just like only John was to literally take His mother into his home and Paul was to go out to the Gentiles, each had a specific ministry and calling. We all do. It seems, the ones who were closer to Jesus physically and spiritually had more specific callings.

 

[chimo]

If we were to have shared authority Jesus would have set it up that way. He gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter (Pope) only. Not to all of the Apostles.

We do need to be exactly alike because there is only one truth. And One Truth is Exactly Alike.

Perhaps we need to look at this from another perspective. It does not seem to me that the last 1000 years is going to solve this because we are used to the same old arguments to effect this unity. May be there is another argument where there is something more which both Catholics and Ortodox will relate to. I really believe politics is what is dividing us. We need to go into the direction of why God had developed two approaches to His one Church. It seems to me we were made different for a purpose, for a divine purpose. What is that purpose? Well let us look at it by knowing something we already know. Marriage is what I think what is the purpose of why God had developed us the way He did. I believe what is necessary for us to enter into some kind of unity is the same pattern as found in a Holy Marriage. Why can’t it be the same as a Holy Marriage?

When two people get together there must be certain differences in order to compliment their marriage. God had ordained us to be lacking in certain gifts so that our partner will help fill it in with theirs. It seems to me the Church is the same as it is within the model of a marriage. If one partner helps complete the other why can’t it follow that one part of the Church will help complete the other? This is something we already know. For instance what can the Catholic Church bring into the Orthodox Church? Well you have to find something which is lacking in the Orthodox Church to know this. Very simply one teaching from the Catholic Church that will enhance the East is the teaching on Redemptive Suffering. Redemptive Suffering is not found in the East. Here the teaching of "one partner " will help with what is lacking in the “other partner”. What about the East? What can they give to the West? Well by observing and living in both Churches it is interesting that the Eastern Churches are more of a nurturer, like a mentor than what is found in the Catholic Church. I would say the strength of the Catholic Church is its discipline while the strength of the Eastern Church is the way it nurtures and mentors. The development of our growth depends on the right balance of discipline and nurturing (mentoring). These are only my thoughts but it might help explain why we’re made different so that our strengths can help what may be weak or lacking in the other.

 

[JonNC]

But this is not specified in Scripture. Only Peter was given the “keys”, right?

The others, collectively were given the power to bind and loosen, but only one person can hold the “keys”, because there are not duplicates of these “keys”. Remember, Peter was not alone when Jesus gave Him this appointing. The others were with, yet only Peter was addressed and singled out. And I believe the “keys” to be Ex Cathedra. They are the tool used to access the Authority. Jesus gave these keys to Peter through His Word. Peter, used these keys when he reminded the rest that the Lord separated him from among the others (Acts 15) for a specifice ministry and office. Yet, Peter still remained like the others who shared the same faith in Jesus and His Lordship over all. Just like only John was to literally take His mother into his home and Paul was to go out to the Gentiles, each had a specific ministry and calling. We all do. It seems, the ones who were closer to Jesus physically and spiritually had more specific callings.

That’s the Catholic interpretation, Michael. Matthew 18:18 provides the keys to all the Apostles, and in Matthew 19, there are twelve thrones, but not a special or higher one for Peter. Peter holds a special place, indeed, but the keys are with the Church, not one Apostles, or bishop, or see, or patriarch.

So, the Orthodox exercise the keys to the kingdom. And Lutherans do as well, as our confessions tell us. And others.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

That’s the Catholic interpretation, Michael. Matthew 18:18 provides the keys to all the Apostles, and in Matthew 19, there are twelve thrones, but not a special or higher one for Peter. Peter holds a special place, indeed, but the keys are with the Church, not one Apostles, or bishop, or see, or patriarch.

So, the Orthodox exercise the keys to the kingdom. And Lutherans do as well, as our confessions tell us. And others.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

Jon

Here is the passage:

15 “If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

This passage is all about unity of the Church. Catholics can look at this passage and conclude that eventually divisions in the Church would come to an ultimate authority. What is the ultimate authority which truly resolves division and is Scripturally based? The Church displayed in Acts 15 practices Matthew 18:15-20 perfectly. Peter was “key” in resolving the dispute. Why? Because he drew on Ex-Cathedra (or the choice the Lord made among them) to speak for the Truth and the Lord.

Has not JRKH brought this up enough times?

 

[commenter]

So, the Orthodox exercise the keys to the kingdom. And Lutherans do as well, as our confessions tell us. And others.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#keys

Jon

Regardless of your religious position, I think you’d find that quote from the Book of Concord interesting reading. We live in an age when statements from religious leaders and most other leaders tend to be nuanced, diplomatic, indirect. Do you think the people who wrote that statement had any trouble expressing what they were feeling?
OK, back to an intelligent discussion. I have nothing intelligent to add, which usually doesn’t stop me from posting.

 

[JonNC]

Regardless of your religious position, I think you’d find that quote from the Book of Concord interesting reading. We live in an age when statements from religious leaders and most other leaders tend to be nuanced, diplomatic, indirect. Do you think the people who wrote that statement had any trouble expressing what they were feeling?

Um, no.

OK, back to an intelligent discussion.** I have nothing intelligent to add**, which usually doesn’t stop me from posting.

I disagree.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Here is the passage:

15 “If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

This passage is all about unity of the Church. Catholics can look at this passage and conclude that eventually divisions in the Church would come to an ultimate authority. What is the ultimate authority which truly resolves division and is Scripturally based? The Church displayed in Acts 15 practices Matthew 18:15-20 perfectly. Peter was “key” in resolving the dispute. Why? Because he drew on Ex-Cathedra (or the choice the Lord made among them) to speak for the Truth and the Lord.

Has not JRKH brought this up enough times?

And I agree that it is about the unity of the Church. That’s not the issue. The issue is how does that unity, and authority, manifest itself. Is it in infallibility ex cathedra of the Pope in Rome, or is it in the councils, as was the practice in the early Church, even in Acts. All in the council, in some way, were “key”. There is no single apostle supreme in Acts.

James (JRKH) speaks exceptionally well for your communion. He does it with charity, as do you.

Jon

 

[Wandile]

And I agree that it is about the unity of the Church. That’s not the issue. The issue is how does that unity, and authority, manifest itself. Is it in infallibility ex cathedra of the Pope in Rome, or is it in the councils, as was the practice in the early Church, even in Acts. All in the council, in some way, were “key”. There is no single apostle supreme in Acts.

James (JRKH) speaks exceptionally well for your communion. He does it with charity, as do you.

Jon

Although it must be said ,as St.John Chrysostom said, that Peter did actually have the authority to decide the issue himself but chose the humbler approach by respecting the dignity of the apostles and elders. Hence even today councils are still held e.g. Vatican II and I’m sure another Ecumenical council will be held in the future.

 

[JonNC]

Although it must be said ,as St.John Chrysostom said, that Peter did actually have the authority to decide the issue himself but chose the humbler approach by respecting the dignity of the apostles and elders.

Interesting. Would Holy Orthodoxy accept that paradigm?

Hence even today councils are still held e.g. Vatican II and I’m sure another Ecumenical council will be held in the future.

Though the question of any council since Nicea 787 being truly ecumenical is still in doubt.

Question then, why even bother with the formality of a council, other than respect for the other bishops? Are they truly even necessary, much less authoritative?

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

And I agree that it is about the unity of the Church. That’s not the issue.The issue is how does that unity, and authority, manifest itself. Is it in infallibility ex cathedra of the Pope in Rome, or is it in the councils,

I don’t see such an either or, as you do. The council came together and reached an agreement. Peter’s keys were needed to settle much of the debate.

as was the practice in the early Church, even in Acts.

All in the council, in some way, were “key”. There is no single apostle supreme in Acts.

Yes, they were all participating in resolving the matter. They all had authority to be there, to be heard, and had access to the Holy Spirit. Then, they were all able to go out from that Council to bind the conclusion into the world.

James (JRKH) speaks exceptionally well for your communion. He does it with charity, as do you.

Jon

Thank you. I wish overcoming temptations were as easy as being nice to friends like you on this forum.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Although it must be said ,as St.John Chrysostom said, that Peter did actually have the authority to decide the issue himself but chose the humbler approach by respecting the dignity of the apostles and elders. Hence even today councils are still held e.g. Vatican II and I’m sure another Ecumenical council will be held in the future.

Where does Chrysostom say that? His homilies on Acts seem to state quite differently.

 

[JonNC]

Where does Chrysostom say that? His homilies on Acts seem to state quite differently.

Do you mean like this:

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. And after that they had held their peace, James answered. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly; for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part…”

Bolding mine

Jon