The Problem with Power

[johnladder]

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), we find the following:

The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

Why should there be such great concern to articulate the “power” of the pope?

As with so much of what originates with the Roman Church, this stands in stark contrast to biblical teaching. Jesus said:

"You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant – Mark 10:42-43
Very clearly, he says, you are not to exercise power over one another. Paul took this teaching to heart:

2 Corinthians 1:24 – Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.

Peter said that he was merely a fellow elder, and did not set himself up as the “first pope”:

1 Peter 5:1-3 – Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your **fellow elder **and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Again, we are not to “lord it over” one another. How outrageous, then, that the Roman Church takes any concern about the extent of the pope’s power. How can it possibly be justified?

 

[Reepicheep]

The shepherd has power over the flock, so that he may serve their needs.
The power of the Pope is not intended to let him lord it over the Church, but to allow him to serve them and provide for them.

Edit: And Peter did not set himself up as the first pope.
Christ made Peter the first pope. “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.”

 

[davidv]

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), we find the following:
The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.
Why should there be such great concern to articulate the “power” of the pope?

What makes you think that this quote is based on “such great concern”?

As with so much of what originates with the Roman Church, this stands in stark contrast to biblical teaching.

This is just wishful thinking on your part and is not based on fact.

Jesus said:
"You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant – Mark 10:42-43
Very clearly, he says, you are not to exercise power over one another. Paul took this teaching to heart:
2 Corinthians 1:24 – Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.
Peter said that he was merely a fellow elder, and did not set himself up as the “first pope”:
1 Peter 5:1-3 – Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your **fellow elder **and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Again, we are not to “lord it over” one another. How outrageous, then, that the Roman Church takes any concern about the extent of the pope’s power. How can it possibly be justified?

Your view of power is obvious different than how the Church views it.

 

[Mark77]

No man has the right to power, only those granted Power from God!

Jesus said to Peter; "He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:17)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Benadam]

Jesus also said render unto Ceasar what is ceasars and render unto God what is God’s

What is articulated as Dogma could be written about a natural father’s authority over their children. Since God expects a duty to be performed he bestows that person with the rights required to perform that duty. In the case of the person who God charges stewardship over all Christian souls he is given a right to have power attached to being able to properly carry out that duty. Because that power is rendered from below, even though it comes from above, it is necessary to express it and make it known.

 

[Julian0404]

“…what you (Peter) hold bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is losed in heaven…” paraphrase of Jesus giving THE POWER to Peter, who can be traced through 264 heirs of the “…keys of the kingdom…” to Benedict XVI.

That is why there is a focus on “the Power of the Pope”, because it is real, it is valid and it is GOD sent and blessed.

This highlights the single most difficult concept for an evangelical to overcome when considering the Catholic Faith, ‘authority". As a non-denominational or evangelical you can pick and chose who, what and why you will permit or allow someone to have power over you. You can "edit’ the words of the Bible to fit whatever position you are comfortable with. Catholics on the other hand, cannot edit the words of the faith or the Pope and still stay in good standing with The Church or with Jesus, WHO has appointed the Pope as the final authority , with THE POWER necessary to exercise final authority.

And for my own curiosity what is a “non-demoninational”? I have seen that and my conclusion is. - correct me if I am wrong - that you cannot decide what you believe and therefore rather than attach yourself to a “named religion” you take the easy way out and declare to be a “neutral christian”, with a generic belief but lacking a focus. Not to be mean, but you begin your description with the negative “non”, so you are declaring your “are not” of any “demonination”, so is that even Christian?

 

[johnladder]

“…what you (Peter) hold bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is losed in heaven…” paraphrase of Jesus giving THE POWER to Peter, who can be traced through 264 heirs of the “…keys of the kingdom…” to Benedict XVI.

From the Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy:

cogwriter.com/roman.htm

“…These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church–Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.”

Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6]

And for my own curiosity what is a “non-demoninational”? I have seen that and my conclusion is. - correct me if I am wrong - that you cannot decide what you believe and therefore rather than attach yourself to a “named religion”…

That’s the root problem, isn’t it? Religion.

 

[guanophore]

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), we find the following:

The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

Why should there be such great concern to articulate the “power” of the pope?

As with so much of what originates with the Roman Church, this stands in stark contrast to biblical teaching. Jesus said:

"You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant – Mark 10:42-43
Very clearly, he says, you are not to exercise power over one another. Paul took this teaching to heart:

2 Corinthians 1:24 – Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.

Peter said that he was merely a fellow elder, and did not set himself up as the “first pope”:

1 Peter 5:1-3 – Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your **fellow elder **and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Again, we are not to “lord it over” one another. How outrageous, then, that the Roman Church takes any concern about the extent of the pope’s power. How can it possibly be justified?

What is the “Roman Church”? It sounds like an anti-Catholic slur. Where did you pick it up?

If you don’t believe that the Roman Pontiff has any authority over you, why should it bother you that others think he does?

 

[Benadam]

That’s the root problem, isn’t it? Religion.

 

[johnladder]

What is the “Roman Church”? It sounds like an anti-Catholic slur. Where did you pick it up?

If you don’t believe that the Roman Pontiff has any authority over you, why should it bother you that others think he does?

The Roman Church may refer to the Diocese of Rome or “Holy” See. But I use the term because the Roman Church is anything but catholic. It’s not universal, but rather quite exclusive and intimidating.

Of course he has no authority over me. But the Roman Church has no legitmate authority at all, since they claim apostolic descent when there is no evidence. The Bible gives no sanctions to many of its doctrines. Also, but I want to learn more about what lies behind these doctrines.

 

[Tonks40]

As a biblical Christian (or non-denominational Christian), you may want to find out what body of Christians wrote and formed the Bible…you may be in for a bit of surprise!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The Roman Church may refer to the Diocese of Rome or “Holy” See. But I use the term because the Roman Church is anything but catholic. It’s not universal, but rather quite exclusive and intimidating.

The Roman, or what is also known as the Latin, rite of the Church, does not make up the entirity of the Catholic Church nor is it, of course, entirely and solely universal on its own. No one would argue that it was. The Latin rite of the Church is part of the universal (catholic) Church which is joined by other rites. Your response seems ironic, that the Church is not catholic (universal), when given the fact that your response was aimed at a person who is not a member of the Latin rite but, rather, a member of an eastern rite.

God bless you

 

[guanophore]

The Roman Church may refer to the Diocese of Rome or “Holy” See. But I use the term because the Roman Church is anything but catholic. It’s not universal, but rather quite exclusive and intimidating.

It seems clear that your concept of the Church is quite different that the actual reality. Be that as it may, it is clear taht you are using the term in a derogatory manner, which is against the forum rules.

It is regrettable that you experience the Church this way, but it is not appropriate to perpetrate your unhappy experience of feeling excluded and intimidated upon others.

Of course he has no authority over me.  But the Roman Church has no legitmate authority at all, since they claim apostolic descent when there is no evidence.

He has what God has given him, which is the responsibility for your care and feeding. Your rejection of God’s gift does not nullify the gift.

It seems clear that you are either unable, or unwilling to examine the evidence.

The Bible gives no sanctions to many of its doctrines. Also, but I want to learn more about what lies behind these doctrines.

What lies behind the doctrine of the Catholic Church is the commandment from the Apostles that we preserve what we received from them.

This preservation was well underway long before the bible was formed.

 

[JustaServant]

To our poor banned friend:
The “Problem with Power” is after you have knocked the Pope off his papal chair, you can’t wait to plant your behind there.

 

[Philthy]

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (1964), we find the following:
The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.Why should there be such great concern to articulate the “power” of the pope?

Primarily because God has established this authority, centered on the successor to St Peter (ie the Pope) and it is the Church’s duty in shepherding the faithful. Dont forget ,John, that there are so many angry and unstable individuals who fail to respect any authority other than themselves. They demand an audience and are often quite unwilling to be “subject to the presbyters” and lack even a hint of humility. The Church, in clearly articulating the authority and power vested in the Pope by God, exposes and rebukes those individuals who speak as if they have authority when they do not, so that they do not lead others astray.

Blessings!

 

[Scoobyshme]

I think you are using common political think rather than looking at the situation objectively.

The Pope is not about “power” but about “authority.”

What’s the difference, you may ask.

Power is “taken.”

Authority is “given.”

Jesus Christ gave Peter and Peter’s successors His Divine authority to govern His Church here on earth.

 

[Julian0404]

From the Catholic scholar Eamon Duffy:

cogwriter.com/roman.htm

“…These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church–Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.”

Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6]

No, Mr Duffy ( alleged catholic scholar) is wrong; for in ACTS Chapter 1 & 2, where the Apostle pick Matthias to replace judas, and then the Holy Spirit descends upon Matthias as well as the original Apostles, clearly validates that the process chosen by the Apostles for succession has been accepted by GOD - - maybe not by Mr. Duffy - - but by GOD. And that succession has continued from that day to today.

That’s the root problem, isn’t it? Religion.

**No, the root problem, is FREE WILL. The very nature of questions you pose exemplifies the challenge you have over authority, not religion. You are just being dishonest in acknowledging that your pride prevents you from accepting the truths in the Bible, such that you WILL NOT change your life style to live within the ways, truth and life/light of Jesus. That is free will, and our free will has and will always lead some of us away from GOD and more into or selves as our self-gods.
Your very declaration of faith, “non-denominational” further vaidates that your pride is preventing you from coming to Jesus. **