The Pope as ground of Church unity

[Per_Crucem]

If it’s not in contention, then why would you have a problem with the “extrapolations” made from it? Are you saying that Our Lord meant to only have a leader for His Church for a short time, until the death of St. Peter?

Because it’s a non sequitur. St. Peter was made the head of the apostles but it does not follow that his successors (and only his successors in one particular city, Rome, as opposed to say Antioch or Alexandria, where Peter also ordained episcopal leaders) also inherited the promises made to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16 over and above the other apostles. Nor does it say anything about supreme, immediate, universal jurisdiction, ex cathedra infallibility for his successors, etc.

It is certainly one interpretation, but not the only one. Nor is it one borne out by church history for over a millennium.

 

[Denise1957]

Because it’s a non sequitur. St. Peter was made the head of the apostles but it does not follow that his successors (and only his successors in one particular city, Rome, as opposed to say Antioch or Alexandria, where Peter also ordained episcopal leaders) also inherited the promises made to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16 over and above the other apostles. Nor does it say anything about supreme, immediate, universal jurisdiction, ex cathedra infallibility for his successors, etc.

It is certainly one interpretation, but not the only one. Nor is it one borne out by church history for over a millennium.

Actually, it has been born out by Church history, in that we have had Popes since the beginning, since St. Peter. For nearly 2000 years.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Actually, it has been born out by Church history, in that we have had Popes since the beginning, since St. Peter. For nearly 2000 years.

You’ve had bishops in Rome. Also in Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc.

 

[Denise1957]

You’ve had bishops in Rome. Also in Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc.

We have had Popes in Rome. And in France. But mostly in Rome. I guess you’re saying that the Catholic popes are not legitimate popes, and haven’t been since after St. Peter. Is that right?

 

[Per_Crucem]

We have had Popes in Rome. And in France. But mostly in Rome. I guess you’re saying that the Catholic popes are not legitimate popes, and haven’t been since after St. Peter. Is that right?

No. I am saying they are bishops. The same in authority and powers as any other bishops.

 

[Denise1957]

No. I am saying they are bishops. The same in authority and powers as any other bishops.

Do other Lutherans believe the same thing?

 

[chimo]

You mention above that the Catholic church is par excellence on discipline, but actually, in the last fifty years or so, the emphasis has been on a more pastoral (nurturing) approach, rather than discipline, and there’s also an emphasis, by some Catholics, on having a religious experience, rather than taking a more intellectual approach, as in the old days. At least we do have a catechism to refer to, and perhaps the Orthodox don’t have a catechism. You might get the impression that most Catholics today think like the great Archbishop Sheen, but that’s not really the case anymore. But we’ll get back on track eventually. God is still in charge!

I don’t think you fully understand my statements as they are very short. The Catholic approach has always been toward discipline first. I am not questioning later developments but think about how you first learn about the faith. It was through a more disciplined setting. Somebody told you and you do not questioned it. Every Catholic goes through this type of arrangement this type of discipline. The Orthodox do not go through this type of discipline at least normally. The value of been instructed into the faith has only been introduced recently into various Orthodox Churches. So what is happening now in the Catholic Church coming to terms of what is normally found in the Eastern Churches with this nurturing and mentoring the Orthodox are now using the discipline style of the Catholic Church as well when teaching to the children. You see you have to understand that it was necessary for the average Catholic to be instructed first in a more defined discipline way in order to know how to worship at the Mass. The Mass on its own merit will not be able to do this for you. You need instruction outside the Mass to know how to worship in it. Not so for the Orthodox. The Divine Liturgy is an excellent way for anyone to grow to know how to worship within the confinement of its Liturgy. Since the children of the Eastern Churches can all experience God even from the time they are babies and with all of what is contained within the experiences of the Divine Liturgy this combines to an experience not seen in the Catholic Church’s experience of what is in their Mass. What exactly I am saying is the Mass is not as effective in teaching you as is the Divine Liturgy. That is why catechism is necessary for the Catholic. Once the catechism is set in and the Catholic remembers it than watch out for those fireworks! The Orthodox will come to know from their experiences of the Divine Liturgy as this is the best catechism available for them. The Divine Liturgy is a very self taught type of Liturgy.

So the experiences of what the Orthodox are taught come from an earlier beginning than what the average Catholic is use to. If the average Orthodox will remain in Church all of their early years they will come to know of God more from these experiences than would have a Catholic child.

I would never say that most Catholics think like Archbishop Sheen for he was a very well qualified speaker much in the same line as St. John Chrysostom. John Chrysostom used many stories and parables to help explain the faith. This is what Bishop Sheen was good at. He also used stories to help illustrate the faith. You have to be a Chrysostom type of person in order to do this. Most people tend to be more like St. Augustine who uses a more direct approach in teaching. The Augustine approach is more like the discipline approach while the Chrysostom approach is more like the nurturer/mentoring approach. In the Church you are either an Augustine type of person or a Chrysostom type of person. The great thing about this if you an Augustine type of person is you can blend in the Chrysostom and if you are a Chrysostom type of person you can blend in some of the Augustine in you. The late Pope St. John Paul II was an Augustine type of person who had blended in the best of what the Chrysostom is. The retired Pope, Benedict XVI is another Augustine type of personality. The present Holy Father, Pope Francis I is a Chrysostom personality who has blended some of the Augustine in him.

You are either an Augustine type of personality or a Chrysostom type of personality. The Augustines are prized for their discipline while the Chrysostoms are prized for their nurturing and mentoring. I hope I have not confused you. If you know already St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom then I probably didn’t.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Do other Lutherans believe the same thing?

Generally. I can’t speak for all Lutherans, of course. That is the position laid out in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, in our Book of Concord.

 

[Wandile]

No. I am saying they are bishops. The same in authority and powers as any other bishops.

And yet even the early bishops of Antioch mention Rome having the primacy and presidency of the church. You are espousing a revisionist idea in order to do away with the inconvenience of the Roman Bishop as head. A bishop is a bishop. But not all bishops have the same authority, that is fiction. A patriarch clearly has more authority than a diocesan bishop.

 

[Denise1957]

You see you have to understand that it was necessary for the average Catholic to be instructed first in a more defined discipline way in order to know how to worship at the Mass. The Mass on its own merit will not be able to do this for you. You need instruction outside the Mass to know how to worship in it. Not so for the Orthodox.

Catholics receive instruction primarily on how to be good Catholics, not only for the benefit of knowing how to properly worship at Mass.

 

[Denise1957]

Generally. I can’t speak for all Lutherans, of course. That is the position laid out in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, in our Book of Concord.

Does your view coincide with that of Martin Luther?

 

[chimo]

Catholics receive instruction primarily on how to be good Catholics, not only for the benefit of knowing how to properly worship at Mass.

I am referring to instruction only on the Mass. The other instructions are excellent bonuses. As a rule no one will ever know the Mass just by going to Mass. It is just too short and needs someone else explaining it so that we will be able to derive most of its benefits.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Does your view coincide with that of Martin Luther?

It coincides with the Book of Concord.

 

[Denise1957]

It coincides with the Book of Concord.

I’m not familiar with that document. But in any case, did Martin Luther himself believe that that were never any popes (who held universal jurisdiction), but only bishops in Rome?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I am referring to instruction only on the Mass. The other instructions are excellent bonuses. As a rule no one will ever know the Mass just by going to Mass. It is just too short and needs someone else explaining it so that we will be able to derive most of its benefits.

How is that any different than Orthodox? I’ve been to a variety of Orthodox/Eastern Catholic Churches, and those without explanations or courses on what occurs and why at the Liturgy, usually see a sharp drop in attendance or praxis once the first generation of converts passes and their kids or grandkids who are born into it no longer “get it”. This is especially true for Churches that use a non-vernacular language, either primarily or liturgically.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by **Per Crucem **
No. I am saying they are bishops. The same in authority and powers as any other bishops.

Do other Lutherans believe the same thing?

Hi Denise,

AFAIK, all Lutherans accept the teachings that came out of The Council at Nicaea in 325, which is referenced in the Book of Concord. Nicaea canon 6 says:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

So, yes, all Lutherans should believe what Per Crucem said.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise,

AFAIK, all Lutherans accept the teachings that came out of The Council at Nicaea in 325, which is referenced in the Book of Concord. Nicaea canon 6 says:
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

So, yes, all Lutherans should believe what Per Crucem said.

Jon

But that doesn’t answer my question. Did Martin Luther himself believe that there had never been any Popes in Rome, but that they were always only bishops?

 

[JonNC]

But that doesn’t answer my question. Did Martin Luther himself believe that there had never been any Popes in Rome, but that they were always only bishops?

Sure he believed there were popes in Rome. He had a pretty nasty run-in with one.
Here’s the point, our complaint as Lutherans is not that he is the pope, or even that he has primacy. Our complaint is that he claims for himself a supremacy not granted to him (in our view) in scripture or the early Church.

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

Sure he believed there were popes in Rome. He had a pretty nasty run-in with one.
Here’s the point, our complaint as Lutherans is not that he is the pope, or even that he has primacy. Our complaint is that he claims for himself a supremacy not granted to him (in our view) in scripture or the early Church.

Jon

But that’s not what Per Crucem said. He stated that there have not been any Popes in Rome, but that they are only bishops. But Martin Luther himself did not hold this view, it would seem.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12177493&postcount=301

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sure he believed there were popes in Rome. He had a pretty nasty run-in with one.
Here’s the point, our complaint as Lutherans is not that he is the pope, or even that he has primacy. Our complaint is that he claims for himself a supremacy not granted to him (in our view) in scripture or the early Church.

Jon

Understood - but it should be noted, it’s not only the Pope claiming it for himself. It is recognized as so by the majority of the world’s bishops voted and conceded to him as so. (Devil’s Advocate here) - that being the case “if, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”"