Universal Jursidiction

[SPH1]

But Peter =/= the papacy, in the Lutheran view. The Keys were given to Peter and passed to the church.

So, how has that been working out for you and Protestantism?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not to sentiments. For if Christian leaders in good standing defied Rome, we should expect that people would immediately cease to support then once it had become common knowledge that they had done so, if we are to believe that the bishop of Rome has a primacy of universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction.

Still don’t see the necessity.

Certainly not. I did not make a value judgment on the conclusion, only upon the proposition. To dismiss the fathers who did defy certain orders from Rome as being disobedient before it has been demonstrated that they owed obedience to the bishop of Rome is logically indefensible. It says nothing about the conclusion which you are trying to support, but only comments upon the fallacious way Roman Catholic apologists are capable of dismissing any claims to the contrary without giving them consideration.

So I am supposed to accept a fallacious method of argumentation, which immunizes the papal claims from any criticism or evidence to the contrary? Forgive me for being so bold to do otherwise.

Your insistence of accusing us of fallacies has practically rendered any reasonable argumentation between you and me moot at this point.

These ridiculous speculations greatly hurt your objectivity. We know as an historical fact that the bishop of Rome attempted in some cases to get involved in the affairs of different local churches, and in many cases, he was told to mind his own business, with no consequences or sanctions for the synod which did so.

Sadly, it did lead to consequences - Schism.

The speed of communications here has nothing to do with it. Instead it has everything to do with the fact that the bishop of Rome, when he would attempt to exercise any extraordinary jurisdiction in the first millennium, only seemed to be able to exert his influence in a mediate and not in an immediate fashion.

Because it is completely reasonable to expect the Bishop of Rome to immediately exercise jurisdiction in the first millennium? By what means exactly?

 

[LionHeart777]

No. If anything, universal extraordinary immediate jurisdiction undermines the monarchal episcopacy, for the monarch of each diocese could not properly be said to be the bishop (whose ordinary jurisdiction over his diocese is inferior to the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction over that diocese), but it would actually be the pope. The bishop in this model, as a matter of fact, acts only as a vicar or suffragan of the pope (hardly a monarch), having an inferior jurisdiction over the diocese to which he is assigned.

The rebuttal to this is found within the documents of Vatican I. As The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate…The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii):

This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor (Enchir., n. 1828).

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 26 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

(Bold mine)

It goes on to say about Pope St. Gregory the Great (in the larger context of universal jurisdiction) that “…he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12).” (Ibid.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Royal Steward and Universal Jurisdiction

Matthew 24:45-47
45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

In this parable, Jesus uses the example of a servant who is put in charge of ALL his master’s possessions, and it indicates for us the full scope of authority or jurisdiction that applies to the royal steward of the kingdom. Jesus could have easily worded His parable differently if He intended for us to draw another understanding, but He did not place limits on the jurisdiction of the faithful steward. There were precedents for this from the history of the Jewish people.

Genesis 41:39-44, 46
39 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.”

41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.” 46 And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt."

What in all of Egypt was Joseph, as the royal steward of Pharaoh’s household, NOT ultimately responsible for? Nothing. Joseph had authority second only to Pharaoh himself in every inch and every aspect of Egypt. Is there a parallel in Israel? Let’s look at Isaiah 22 which provides the parallel for Jesus’ appointment of Peter:

Isaiah 22:15-23
15 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.* 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

In this passage, we see that one steward, Shebna, has displeased God and is replaced by another, Eliakim. Eliakim receives the “key of the house of David” - yet, by this time, David has been dead for 200 years! Thus, we learn that the office of royal steward continued when a king died as well as when an individual steward left the office.

Sound familiar? Jesus, our eternal king, has inherited the throne of David through his relationship with His earthly father, Joseph. As king, Jesus names his own royal steward with words that have much in common with the passage from Isaiah:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

It’s all there, the keys, the binding (shutting), the loosing (opening), the “whatever” which indicates that Peter’s authority extends without bounds.

Like Joseph in Pharaoh’s kingdom, like Eliakim in the Davidic kingdom, like the servant in Jesus’ parable, the steward of the house enjoys the full authority over all of the master’s domain.

That is universal jurisdiction.

Wow. This is really good stuff. The principle of universal jurisdiction is obviously there.

Yeah. It’s a pity no one is paying attention. :yawn:

 

[Cavaradossi]

Your insistence of accusing us of fallacies has practically rendered any reasonable argumentation between you and me moot at this point.

No, I am simply saying that the “disobedience” defense is inadmissible in terms of rational argumentation, because it makes the papal claims all but unfalsifiable.

Sadly, it did lead to consequences - Schism.

This is equivocating. I meant consequences in the sense of disciplinary or puntitive actions taken against such a synod.

Because it is completely reasonable to expect the Bishop of Rome to immediately exercise jurisdiction in the first millennium? By what means exactly?

Yes, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches it as a dogma that the Roman bishop possesses extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction by divine right.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The rebuttal to this is found within the documents of Vatican I. As The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 26 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

(Bold mine)

I have read that defense, but it frankly is a very weak defense. It does not explain how the immediate and extraordinary jurisdiction of the pope does not undermine the episcopal monarchy other than basically saying that it doesn’t, a circular tautology. If papal extraordinary jurisdiction is lesser in power than the ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop, then the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction would not really be immediate. If the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction is equal in power to the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops, then the episcopal monarchy would actually be a diarchy. If the pope’s extraordinary jurisdiction is greater in power than the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishops, then it is not an episcopal monarchy, but a papal monarchy.

It goes on to say about Pope St. Gregory the Great (in the larger context of universal jurisdiction) that “…he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12).” (Ibid.)

Of course he would claim that the Church of Constantinople is subject to Rome, because Rome ranked in the canons as first, and Constantinople ranked second, meaning that the bishop of Constantinople owed a certain amount of deference to the bishop of Rome. But does that mean that Gregory the Great had the ability to depose the bishop of Constantinople at will, to appoint a candidate at will, or to move the bishop of Constantinople to another see at will, being the source of all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction, or that St. Gregory had the ability to overturn a decision of St. John the Faster by fiat and without the cooperation of the local clergy (immediate jurisdiction)? That is what you are aiming to prove, not that Rome was the prime see in Christendom, something which we already knew.

 

[Phntm]

I am curious about the Orthodox side of history. Is there proof from another perspective for universal jurisdiction (maybe, just shows a modern need for a primacy with authority to back it up). How many Orthodox are in full communion with each other? Do they still share a full complement of teachings or are there differences? How many ecumenical councils with canons or other binding definitions were produced post-schism by Orthodox churches (full agreement by all Orthodox)? Who has the authority to call a council, do the remaining Patriarchs have to attend? Have the Orthodox conceded the points being argued in the way they follow their Patriarchs without full unity with the rest of Orthodoxy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward
**
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

[The steward is] the king’s friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king’s counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of “David,” of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder] (Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 – on Isaiah 22:15,22).

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

New Bible Commentary

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called ‘my servant’ (v.20; cf. ‘this steward’, v.15); manward, he will be ‘a father’ to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

(but wait, there’s more…)

 

[Randy_Carson]

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Oscar Cullman

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom. (William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah. (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, I am simply saying that the “disobedience” defense is inadmissible in terms of rational argumentation, because it makes the papal claims all but unfalsifiable.

I can only agree with you on this to a half way point. Being that the Church throughout history has been re-active when defending Her teaching, seldom has Her been pro-active. Sadly this means there are various arguments from silence.

This is equivocating. I meant consequences in the sense of disciplinary or puntitive actions taken against such a synod.

10-4

Yes, because the Roman Catholic Church teaches it as a dogma that the Roman bishop possesses extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction by divine right.

Which is seen in Scriptures in the figure of Peter. However, you still use the term “immediate”. Which I will refuse to use prior to the invention of the telephone. Immediate is relative to the means available by which to exercise an action.

 

[KathleenGee]

From the point of history, to the times before the Reformation, and the Church’s reform in the Council of Trent, the papacy needed to be further defined.

The Church needed to be made ‘small’ again in its universality. In ancient times, there was but one bishop over the local church. And for the sake of unity and communion, the Church after the Reformation was all the more in need of one head as the visible head of communion of faith.

I read the Catholic references here and it sure looks to me that the Church had Peter as head that was to continue through each succeeding generation. The Roman Empire was under barbarian invasions for hundreds of years. The Eastern Church flourished up to the Islamic invasions, so in some ways I think the years following Christianity’s legalization to exist by Constantine were just about as bad as the first 300 years of persecution.

Just look at our country. Christianity is the greatest voting block but Church dissension, materialism and the thousands of interpretations of Scripture makes us the most fragmented Christian form in the world. If we had but one head of Christianity here, we would not be so fragmented.

 

[rinnie]

That the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church there is not doubt. We do however doubt that His love is exclusive for one man upon one seat.

I don’t recall anyone saying anything about the love of Christ. The authority he gave to Peter has nothing to do with is love for the other Apostles.

But as Christ taught us we do need someone to TEACH and PREACH the good news. The Holy Spirit guiding the RCC has nothing to do with his love for all of us.

Besides the love God has for each and every single one of us I don’t believe has ever come into question.

I thinks it more of our Love for Christ. I don’t recall Peter saying Lord do you love me. But I do recall our Lord asking Peter how much do you love me.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which is seen in Scriptures in the figure of Peter. However, you still use the term “immediate”. Which I will refuse to use prior to the invention of the telephone. Immediate is relative to the means available by which to exercise an action.

Immediate and mediate are categories of jurisdiction, not temporal terms. To have mediate jurisdiction means that one needs to go through the local ordinary in order for his enactments to effect. Archbishops, for example, are said to have immediate jurisdiction over their own particular diocese but mediate jurisdiction over their archdiocese. But the papal claims are not that the pope has a form of universal and mediate jurisdiction, but that the pope has by divine right extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction, meaning that the pope may act within any diocese by a different type of jurisdiction from the local ordinary’s ordinary jurisdiction (hence, his jurisdiction is said to be extraordinary and also universal), without the need for the cooperation of any local ordinary or synod (hence his jurisdiction is said to be immediate, and not mediate like the jurisdiction of an archbishop over his archdiocese).

 

[JonNC]

But they are being argued quite convincingly by yours truly.

:thankyou:

Hi Randy,
Do you mean to say I have not convinced you?
Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, how has that been working out for you and Protestantism?

Not speaking for Don, but as a confessional Lutheran, I a strong believer in attempts to reconcile. OTOH, I also believe that my communion provides well for my sanctification in word and sacrament. As for other protestants, you’ll have to inquire with them.

Jon

 

[steido01]

So Lutherans do not (nay, cannot!) deny that the Keys were given to Peter; Scripture is clear. But Peter =/= the papacy, in the Lutheran view. The Keys were given to Peter and passed to the church.

So, how has that been working out for you and Protestantism?

I’ve re-read the context of my original post and how you’ve quoted me, but I’m not at all clear on what you are asking. Based on your usage of capital-P “Protestantism,” my best guess is that you think any non-Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian belongs to the popular and mythical “Protestant Church.” So I see two questions in your query: one for me, and one for “Protestantism.”

I can only speak for my own communion, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Jon has already stated; my church fully and faithfully ministers Word and Sacrament to me. So I guess “that has been working out” just fine (though I think it’s fair to say our Lord would have all Christians seek closer unity, for His sake).

As for the second question relating to “Protestantism” - I can’t answer for “Protestants.”

But I can say that the underlying assumption in your question (i.e. the Roman Catholic idea that doctrinal correctness is entirely dependent upon submission to a singular, Universal Jurisdiction-wielding institution) is, frankly, silly. After all, the Great Schism and the Reformation might’ve very well been averted had Supremacy not been claimed. One could easily reverse your question: how’s that Universal Jurisdiction been working out for you and your ecumenical relationship Greater Christendom?

The bottom line is that Universal Jurisdiction remains the key stumbling block to ecumenical relations with other Christians, but a central tenant to Roman Catholicism. Pray that the Holy Spirit would lead us all to a solution and a reunion of His people.

 

[concretecamper]

I’ve re-read the context of my original post and how you’ve quoted me, but I’m not at all clear on what you are asking. Based on your usage of capital-P “Protestantism,” my best guess is that you think any non-Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian belongs to the popular and mythical “Protestant Church.” So I see two questions in your query: one for me, and one for “Protestantism.”

I can only speak for my own communion, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Jon has already stated; my church fully and faithfully ministers Word and Sacrament to me. So I guess “that has been working out” just fine (though I think it’s fair to say our Lord would have all Christians seek closer unity, for His sake).

As for the second question relating to “Protestantism” - I can’t answer for “Protestants.”

But I can say that the underlying assumption in your question (i.e. the Roman Catholic idea that doctrinal correctness is entirely dependent upon submission to a singular, Universal Jurisdiction-wielding institution) is, frankly, silly. After all, the Great Schism and the Reformation might’ve very well been averted had Supremacy not been claimed. One could easily reverse your question: how’s that Universal Jurisdiction been working out for you and your ecumenical relationship Greater Christendom?

The bottom line is that Universal Jurisdiction remains the key stumbling block to ecumenical relations with other Christians, but a central tenant to Roman Catholicism. Pray that the Holy Spirit would lead us all to a solution and a reunion of His people.

Do you look at the schism of Luther in a similar light as the Orthodox sxhism? If you do, this would explain your claim to be part of the Catholic Church. I just never looked at it that way before so if you could comment i would appreciate it. While I may not be as convinced as you, at least I would undersrand better.

 

[steido01]

Do you look at the schism of Luther in a similar light as the Orthodox sxhism? If you do, this would explain your claim to be part of the Catholic Church. I just never looked at it that way before so if you could comment i would appreciate it. While I may not be as convinced as you, at least I would undersrand better.

Hi concrete,
While acknowledging that each split took place in a much different time and under much different circumstances, yes. Interestingly, in both cases, the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was part of the dispute. I would also note that we Evangelical Catholics (Lutherans) also see ourselves as Western Christians, whereas the earlier schism was between East and West.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Immediate and mediate are categories of jurisdiction, not temporal terms. To have mediate jurisdiction means that one needs to go through the local ordinary in order for his enactments to effect. Archbishops, for example, are said to have immediate jurisdiction over their own particular diocese but mediate jurisdiction over their archdiocese. But the papal claims are not that the pope has a form of universal and mediate jurisdiction, but that the pope has by divine right extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction, meaning that the pope may act within any diocese by a different type of jurisdiction from the local ordinary’s ordinary jurisdiction (hence, his jurisdiction is said to be extraordinary and also universal), without the need for the cooperation of any local ordinary or synod (hence his jurisdiction is said to be immediate, and not mediate like the jurisdiction of an archbishop over his archdiocese).

Thanks for the clarification. It helps me understand your point better.

Still, I hold that while the Church develops, it is unreasonable (at least for me) to expect Her to exercise Her authority in the same exact manner without any changes in policies related to government and discipline. After 300 years of brutal persecution, the Church finally surfaces in Nicaea and it develops from then on.

Again, all the factors I mentioned before come into play: technology, geography, economy, communication, travel, politics. They inevitably affect not only the government of countries but the government of the Church as well.

 

[SPH1]

But I can say that the underlying assumption in your question (i.e. the Roman Catholic idea that doctrinal correctness is entirely dependent upon submission to a singular, Universal Jurisdiction-wielding institution) is, frankly, silly. After all, the Great Schism and the Reformation might’ve very well been averted had Supremacy not been claimed. One could easily reverse your question: how’s that Universal Jurisdiction been working out for you and your ecumenical relationship Greater Christendom?

Not silly if “Universal Jurisdiction” is the divine means for determining truth.

It is working out for the Holy Catholic Church. As for all of Protestantism, I see that as a sea of conflicting opinions, with nobody able to stand up to proclaim truth. Hence, no Keys in any sense.

The bottom line is that Universal Jurisdiction remains the key stumbling block to ecumenical relations with other Christians, but a central tenant to Roman Catholicism. Pray that the Holy Spirit would lead us all to a solution and a reunion of His people.

Let’s substitute “Universal Jurisdiction” with “Universal Truth”. The idea that there IS doctrinal truth…versus many denominational opinions…is the stumbling block. One of Christ’s points was that there is such a thing as doctrinal truth, and Christians are to worship in spirit and truth. Not worship in spirit and conflicting opinion. I think that Protestantism, or much of it, abhors the very idea of Truth, preferring opinion instead.