Universal Jursidiction

[Peter_J]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The goal of this thread is to examine the scriptural and historical basis for the Church’s view of the universal jurisdiction of the pope as well as to consider the views of groups that reject this position.

To begin, I will present scriptural evidence of Peter as vicar of Christ, shepherd of the Church, and Royal Steward of Jesus the King.

Be nice. :yup:

I think this topic, on this forum, is like white merlot in front of an alcoholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We don’t understand the Primacy of the Pope to be mutually dependent upon the claim of Vicar of Christ; in fact, our Confessions abhor the title as boastful and “pernicious to the Church.” In our view, claiming that title (and its innovations - i.e., speaking ex-cathedra, infallibility…) is abuse of that primacy. Insofar as these perceived abuses continue take place, Lutherans do not recognize the Bishop of Rome’s primacy.

Well, you’ll just have to get over it, I guess.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think this topic, on this forum, is like white merlot in front of an alcoholic.

Shoulda gone with the cheap stuff…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lutherans, I’m disappointed in you so far.

You keep quoting from this Concord or those Confessions…I don’t give a hoot what Luther had to say about the papacy. Luther was pathetic man, wracked by scruples, and fearful for his own salvation. This thread is not about him.

This thread is about what YOU think about the scriptural evidence being presented in support of the idea that universal jurisdiction was conferred upon Peter and His successors as the cement that Jesus has used to build His Church.

Not one of you has posted a single scripture in an attempt to prove that I’m wrong. (okay, maybe someone did, but I’m on a roll…) And YOU’RE the sola scripturists, not me, for cryin’ out loud.

So, why not read my posts, think for yourself, and actually interact with what I’m saying?

 

[steido01]

Lutherans, I’m disappointed in you so far.

You keep quoting from this Concord or those Confessions…I don’t give a hoot what Luther had to say about the papacy. Luther was pathetic man, wracked by scruples, and fearful for his own salvation. This thread is not about him.

This thread is about what YOU think about the scriptural evidence being presented in support of the idea that universal jurisdiction was conferred upon Peter and His successors as the cement that Jesus has used to build His Church.

Not one of you has posted a single scripture in an attempt to prove that I’m wrong. (okay, maybe someone did, but I’m on a roll…) And YOU’RE the sola scripturists, not me, for cryin’ out loud.

So, why not read my posts, think for yourself, and actually interact with what I’m saying?

I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack Luther as “pathetic,” etc. We attempted to explain our beliefs. We subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions which -if you took a moment to actually read, you would know- quote Scripture left and right. Asking an individual Lutheran what they think is like asking an individual Roman Catholic what they think - it’s irrelevant; we are bound to our respective confessions.

 

[concretecamper]

I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack Luther as “pathetic,” etc. We attempted to explain our beliefs. We subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions which -if you took a moment to actually read, you would know- quote Scripture left and right. Asking an individual Lutheran what they think is like asking an individual Roman Catholic what they think - it’s irrelevant; we are bound to our respective confessions.

Wow…what a bombshell. Out the window with sola scriptura! the only difference then between RC and Lutherans is that your tradition is only 500 years old and had it’s founding with Luther rather than Christ’s disciples.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack Luther as “pathetic,” etc. We attempted to explain our beliefs. We subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions which -if you took a moment to actually read, you would know- quote Scripture left and right. Asking an individual Lutheran what they think is like asking an individual Roman Catholic what they think - it’s irrelevant; we are bound to our respective confessions.

You read the Bible?

You see the verses I quoted?

What do you think about them?

 

[pablope]

Checking into the history, I can see why my dismissal is concerning.

As I understand it, when Lutherans dismiss the title of Vicar of Christ, we’re objecting to the new promulgation of the dogma of Papal Infallibility and how the term was used by the Byzantine emperor. We view the Pope using the same term as perhaps harking back to the attempt to wield the two swords again.

I think wee Luterans could be coaxed back into acknowledge the Primacy of Peter, but I don’t think we’d do that when so many (as we view it) powers and obligations have been added to the office.

Well…these additions and obligations…how do you know these are not needed or necessary for the administration of the office?

Is Christianity better served without these additions and obligations?

And if it is not the bishop of Rome…what is the alternative do you propose take over?

 

[pablope]

We don’t understand the Primacy of the Pope to be mutually dependent upon the claim of Vicar of Christ; in fact, our Confessions abhor the title as boastful and “pernicious to the Church.” In our view, claiming that title (and its innovations - i.e., speaking ex-cathedra, infallibility…) is abuse of that primacy. Insofar as these perceived abuses continue take place, Lutherans do not recognize the Bishop of Rome’s primacy.

If you do not see the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ:

a). First, should there be only one who can speak for Christ or many who can speak for Christ?

b). If there are many vicars…then who should be believed?

c). If you do not believe the bishop of Rome as the vicar…then what is the alternative? Who do you think it should be?

 

[pablope]

Hi rinnie,

A final say regarding what, rinnie? What kind of special authority is St. Peter granted? Does he appear to have a leadership role among the 12? Yes. Even though he is not in charge at the council in acts, his word is clearly respected. How does this show universal jurisdiction?

Jon

In Matt 16, when Peter makes this statement:

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Was he granted a special revelation or not? And why to Peter only?

Is this statement not a dogmatic infallible statement believed by all today?

In Acts 15, why would you say he is not in charge? Who made the doctrinal statement in the council in Acts 15? James or Peter?

 

[steido01]

Wow…what a bombshell. Out the window with sola scriptura! the only difference then between RC and Lutherans is that your tradition is only 500 years old and had it’s founding with Luther rather than Christ’s disciples.

Where have I ignored Sola Scriptura? :ehh:

You read the Bible?

You see the verses I quoted?

What do you think about them?

Yes.
Yes. Read them, even.
I think the way you interpret them is inconsistent with Scripture as reflected in the Confessions. Naturally, your communion disagrees. What either of us think as individuals is, as I noted, unimportant.

 

[steido01]

Well…these additions and obligations…how do you know these are not needed or necessary for the administration of the office?

The Church was doing just fine without them. In fact, it was largely undivided until such time as they were imposed.

Is Christianity better served without these additions and obligations?

Well, considering the 40,002+ denominations that currently exist, exist largely due to the fact that 40,001 of those denominations disagree with those additions and obligations, I’d say ‘no.’

And if it is not the bishop of Rome…what is the alternative do you propose take over?

The good Bishop may retain his place of honor as the head of Christendom - so long as he recognizes that this is by human necessity, not Divine order.

 

[pablope]

Where have I ignored Sola Scriptura? :ehh:

Yes.
Yes. Read them, even.
I think the way you interpret them is inconsistent with Scripture as reflected in the Confessions. Naturally, your communion disagrees. What either of us think as individuals is, as I noted, unimportant.

And how do you know what is the right reflection of Scripture?

And how do you know your communion is correct on the matter?

 

[pablope]

The Church was doing just fine without them. In fact, it was largely undivided until such time as they were imposed.

Ah…you mean before Luther went on his own…got excommunicated…and opened the floodgates further…and made the division worse than it already was…

Well, considering the 40,002+ denominations that currently exist, exist largely due to the fact that 40,001 of those denominations disagree with those additions and obligations, I’d say ‘no.’

 

[concretecamper]

concretecamper:

Quote:

Originally Posted by steido01

I don’t understand why you feel the need to attack Luther as “pathetic,” etc. We attempted to explain our beliefs. We subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions which -if you took a moment to actually read, you would know- quote Scripture left and right. Asking an individual Lutheran what they think is like asking an individual Roman Catholic what they think - it’s irrelevant; we are bound to our respective confessions.

Wow…what a bombshell. Out the window with sola scriptura! the only difference then between RC and Lutherans is that your tradition is only 500 years old and had it’s founding with Luther rather than Christ’s disciples.

@steido01:

you said you are “bound to our respective confessions”.

You said the Lutheran Confessions quote scripture left and right but they, by your explanation, are not scripture.

Now, are you saying the Lutheran Confessions “are” scripture or they are the “correct interpretation” of a scripture?

what are you saying?

…sounds like a 500 year old tradition to me.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[steido01]

Ah…you mean before Luther went on his own…got excommunicated…and opened the floodgates further…and made the division worse than it already was…

No, no. Divisions over the supremacy of the Pope happened long, long before the Reformation of the 1500’s. I was also referring to the split between Orthodoxy and the West. IMHO, the schism between East and West would not have occurred if supremacy had not been claimed.

How do you know the rest of the 40000 other denoms are correct?

And how would you know the additions and obligations were indeed needed for the growth of the Church and as the world grew more complicated?

So you would have the church remained stagnant as the world grew more complicated and not react to the changes around it?

I would have the Church stand firm in its Truth, rather than invent novel doctrines.

Ah…so you have no alternative then? Then why still refer to the office as anti-Christ?

And how do you know it was not by Divine order?

If we both understand from Holy Scripture that Rome has a place of primacy, who am I to contest it with an alternative? Primacy, however, is not supremacy. We’re starting to repeat our conversation. :banghead:I’ve already noted the Lutheran reasoning for maintaining the label.

 

[steido01]

@steido01: you said you are “bound to our respective confessions”.

I said that we are each bound to our respective confessions; I to the Holy Scriptures as rightly reflected in the Book of Concord, and you to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

I said this in response to Randy, who refused to take the Confessions as an acceptable ‘Lutheran answer’ and then proceeded to dance over the grave of a man long dead. That was rather silly, not only because Randy is not the rulemaker deciding what Lutherans can or cannot use to answer, but also because Lutherans profess their faith in the Confessions - which they consider a right reflection of Scripture. If we cannot answer with our Confessions, how are we to answer? In other words, I was tasked to, “Give the Lutheran answer for why you don’t agree with Universal Jurisdiction, but you can’t use the Lutheran answer!” :jrbirdman:

As I said earlier, the Confessions cite some of the very same verses from Scripture that Randy cited at the beginning of this thread, but come to an entirely different conclusion than Rome (as do the Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, the PNCC, etc). Nobody cared to read my links to the Confessions, however.

I think this website is best used when people seek simply to understand where each other are coming from, not when it is used as a platform to say “you’re wrong!” I’m not sure I can contribute anything more to this thread.

Peace,

 

[concretecamper]

steido01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

@steido01: you said you are “bound to our respective confessions”.

I said that we are each bound to our respective confessions; I to the Holy Scriptures as rightly reflected in the Book of Concord, and you to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

I said this in response to Randy, who refused to take the Confessions as an acceptable ‘Lutheran answer’ and then proceeded to dance over the grave of a man long dead. That was rather silly, not only because Randy is not the rulemaker deciding what Lutherans can or cannot use to answer, but also because Lutherans profess their faith in the Confessions - which they consider a right reflection of Scripture. As I said earlier, the Confessions cite some of the very same verses from Scripture, but come to an entirely different conclusion than Rome (as do the Orthodox, Anglicans, Oriental Orthodox, the PNCC, etc). Nobody cared to read my links to the Confessions, however. In other words, I was tasked to, “Give the Lutheran answer for why you don’t agree with Universal Jurisdiction, but you can’t use the Lutheran answer!”

I think this website is best used when people seek simply to understand where each other are coming from, not when it is used as a platform to say “you’re wrong!” I’m not sure I can contribute anything more to this thread.

Peace,

I am asking to understand. You have not answered my questions which is your option.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Just to make sure we’re not talking past one another, could you define universal jurisdiction as you understand it?

Hi Randy,
From the linked:

Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons”

and

For this reason the Council underscores that the Pope’s power “is ordinary and immediate over all the churches and over each and every member of the faithful” (DS 3064). It is ordinary, in the sense that it is proper to the Roman Pontiff by virtue of the office belonging to him and not by delegation from the bishops; it is immediate, because he can exercise it directly without the bishops’ permission or mediation.

bolding mine.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well, obviously, I disagree. EVERYTHING in the passage from Luke tells us that Peter has been prayed for specifically by Jesus so that Peter could support the others. Why didn’t Jesus just pray for all of them equally?

Let’s say you have two or three kids and some another couple with their kids come over to your house. The grown ups are going out to dinner, while the kids have pizza and a movie. So you give ALL of the kids strict instructions to “be good”, etc. etc. And then you tell them that Peter, their oldest son, is in charge because he’s the oldest or most mature of the group. You give Peter $20 for the pizza dude. You tell Peter what time the little have to be in bed. Now, you gave all of them the same instructions about how to behave, etc., but Peter has more than a primacy…he is in charge of making sure that the others behave.

Similarly, the Apostle Peter was charged with making sure that all the others stood firm in the faith, and I daresay (as we see in Acts 15) correcting his “peers” when they were in error.

Remember, I building a case, and when I have presented everything, I believe that the preponderance of evidence will be sufficient for anyone who is objective to see that Peter received universal jurisdiction from Jesus.

In what I have already presented, it is clear that Peter - not James or John or Matthias - but Peter was charged by Jesus for keeping the other Apostles encouraged and supported

Sure he did, Jon, but Paul’s role in the church was very different from the role that Peter had, don’t you think?

Different, yes, and interestingly not subject to Peter.

Jon