Universal Jursidiction

[Cavaradossi]

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox did not agree with what was said at Chalcedon, regarding the nature of Christ?

I thought only the Oriental Orthodox were the ones that dissented after this Council

I am using the term Chalcedonian Church as an unambiguous and historically neutral term to call the the body of Christians who adhered to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon before the East-West Schism (that body being the predecessor of the two bodies which today are commonly called the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). It would be too ambiguous to say the Catholic or Orthodox (or Catholic and Orthodox) Church, since the Non-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians both also claimed (and still claim) to be the Catholic Church, and to hold to the Orthodox faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would also like to point out that when the Greek Church fathers talked about the Bishop of Rome they used the word “υπεροχή” which is the word for Primacy and Supremacy. This could point out the fact that there was actually no difference in the meaning of the word.

Just Saying

Of course, we could have gleaned that much, that the bishop of Rome had a primacy of some sort, from the canons held in common between the East and West, as to be prime simply means to be the first, which the canons affirm of the Roman See. But Roman Catholic apologists are misjudging here what is to be proved, for we never denied that the see of Rome had a primacy of some sort in the first millennium. We deny, however, that it was an article of Christian faith 1) that the bishop of Rome could be infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex-cathedra, 2) that the bishop of Rome had immediate ordinary jurisdiction in every place of the world, and 3) that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction flows from being in communion with the bishop of Rome. These three things are what you must prove if you are to convince any Orthodox Christian that the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Council are true reflections of the Christian tradition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But that kingdom is not of this world.

Why not?

There’s another verse in scripture which confuses me… "When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:24-28, NIV)

So how is this talking about a monarchy?

None of them were better than another, they all held equal spiritual authority.

:banghead:

From my previous post in this thread:

OBJECTION: But this principle applies equally to all bishops. This proves nothing regarding universal jurisdiction.

Not directly. However, the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church. Turn with me to Luke’s gospel.

Luke 22:24-32
24 A dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

This passage is often quoted by non-Catholics who believe it proves that Jesus never intended for Peter to be the head of the Church. Instead, it actually proves that He did.

First, notice that in verse 31, Jesus says that Satan has asked to sift or test ALL of the apostles - the word “you” there is plural. But in verse 32, the “you” is singular meaning that Jesus has not prayed for ALL the apostles but for Peter alone who was tasked with strengthening his brother apostles.

So, what about those Greek words in the passage above - hegeomai and sterizo? What do they mean?

Hegeomai (Jesus is referring to Simon)

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
5. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
6. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
7. to consider, deem, account, think

Sterizo

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2. to strengthen, make firm
3. to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

In addressing the question of who would be the greatest, Jesus DID NOT deny that one would be greater than the others. Instead, he focused on teaching about the proper character of the one who would lead.

Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? No.
Did He say one would NOT be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No.

In fact, his language actually confirms that one would lead because He explicitly stated the character traits needed for the job. Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels…make his brothers stable, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. After all, isn’t it the purpose of a rock to provide a sure foundation that stabilizes the entire Church?

Has the need for this changed with the passage of time? No.

That, my friends, is why Jesus established universal jurisdiction in the Petrine office.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as what we believe, we don’t care about Luter either!

Luther will often provide a pithy bit of instruction peppered with amusing insults, but it’s to scripture and the confessions (that reflect scripture) that we look to.

Often, I’ll put up my personal opinion and a horrid Lutheran (I’m really not that good of one) - but when someone plonks down the appropriate passage from the Book of Concord or Scripture, for us Lutherans, the speculation is over!

This is what floors me about Protestants. Not only do you not agree with what the Catholic Church for 1,500 years before the Reformation, you don’t even agree with what your founders taught just a few hundred years ago.

Luther? Calvin, Wesley? Who needs them. We’ve got Jesus and a Bible…we can figure this out for ourselves.

 

[Randy_Carson]

At one point, the Nestorian Church was even larger than the Chalcedonian Church (from which the Roman Catholic Church is historically descended).

Honestly, where do you people get this stuff?

First, are you sure you don’t mean Arianism instead of Nestorianism?

Second, descended from Chalcedon? Really?

So, Peter and Paul were never in Rome? The ECF’s didn’t trace the lineage of the Bishops of Rome from Peter?

The Corinthians didn’t write to Clement at Rome when they could have consulted with a living Apostle, John, instead?

 

[benjohnson]

This is what floors me about Protestants. Not only do you not agree with what the Catholic Church for 1,500 years before the Reformation, you don’t even agree with what your founders taught just a few hundred years ago.

Luther? Calvin, Wesley? Who needs them. We’ve got Jesus and a Bible…we can figure this out for ourselves.

Conversely, looking to God and God’s Word seems to be more appropriate than looking to wayward men.

Generally we agree with what the Catholic Church taught for 1,400 years before the Reformation - those last 100 years or so seemed to be a bid odd. Our last pope in Leo X wasn’t even an ordained priest.

Thankfully it seems, the secular world is driving us back together even if we don’t like it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am using the term Chalcedonian Church as an unambiguous and historically neutral term to call the the body of Christians who adhered to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon before the East-West Schism (that body being the predecessor of the two bodies which today are commonly called the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church). It would be too ambiguous to say the Catholic or Orthodox (or Catholic and Orthodox) Church, since the Non-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians both also claimed (and still claim) to be the Catholic Church, and to hold to the Orthodox faith.

10-4, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Conversely, looking to God and God’s Word seems to be more appropriate than looking to wayward men.

Catholics do not look to “wayward men” any more than you do.

We have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Additionally, as I could argue from scripture (again), the Holy Spirit prevents the men from becoming “wayward” in their formal teaching on matters relating to faith and morals.

You, apparently, rely on Sacred Scripture and Lutheran tradition which unlike Sacred Tradition springs not from the same source as Sacred Scripture but from the pen of Martin Luther.

Whether he was “wayward” is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wow.

Not a single response to posts 108 & 109?

I can wait…

:coffeeread:

 

[Cavaradossi]

Honestly, where do you people get this stuff?

Things called history books. You should familiarize yourself with them.

First, are you sure you don’t mean Arianism instead of Nestorianism?

Yes I am sure (in fact, I would appreciate it if you would not treat me like an absolute moron, who would make such an elementary error as to mistake the Arians for the Nestorians, two very different groups). The Nestorian Church at one point covered an enormous geographical span, far larger than Chalcedonian Christianity. The fact is, if the Early Christians truly had believed that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stemmed from the bishop of Rome (as was taught at the Second Vatican Council), the Nestorian Church of the East would not have been so successful initially, nor would it have managed to grow so large.

Second, descended from Chalcedon? Really?

So, Peter and Paul were never in Rome? The ECF’s didn’t trace the lineage of the Bishops of Rome from Peter?

It is an historical fact that two bodies commonly called today the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are descended from Chalcedon-affirming side of the split between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians. I am sorry that you seem to find the facts so dismaying

The Corinthians didn’t write to Clement at Rome when they could have consulted with a living Apostle, John, instead?

That is fallacious reasoning. You do not know that the Corinthians did not write to John, nor do you know that there was any particular significance in them writing to St. Clement. It is entirely possible that they did write to St. John, and that St. John did not reply or his reply was lost. Likewise, it is entirely possible that they did not write to St. John, but that they did not attach the special significance to their own writing to St. Clement that you are attaching to it.

 

[benjohnson]

You, apparently, rely on Sacred Scripture and Lutheran tradition which unlike Sacred Tradition springs not from the same source as Sacred Scripture but from the pen of Martin Luther.

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.

 

[MaryT777]

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.

The Catholic Church does not teach his Love is exclusive for one man upon one seat.
Mary.

 

[bzkoss236]

In terms of the Bishop of Rome having the ability to act infallibly on his own, I personally feel that Scripture indicates this by the fact that Peter was singled out when given the authority to bind and loose. This to me indicates that he can execute the ability to bind and loose on his own, without the other apostles. After which the ability to bind and loose was given to the apostles as a whole, which would imply that as a whole they also have the ability to bind and loose, which would be exemplified by the councils of which Orthodox and Catholics would agree with.

Also, with the idea of holding the Keys of the Kingdom, that in the absence of the King, the one who holds the Keys has a limited authority of the King of which one would think would include the ability to make decisions that would be binding on the entire Kingdom, which one could relate to disciplines and dishing out disciplinary action for anyone in the Kingdom who steps out of line. The Kingdom itself should run fairly efficiently on its own, but when the need arises, and something would end up being brought to the King, in his absence, it would instead be brought to the one with the Keys.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Things called history books. You should familiarize yourself with them.

Yes I am sure (in fact, I would appreciate it if you would not treat me like an absolute moron, who would make such an elementary error as to mistake the Arians for the Nestorians, two very different groups). The Nestorian Church at one point covered an enormous geographical span, far larger than Chalcedonian Christianity. The fact is, if the Early Christians truly had believed that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stemmed from the bishop of Rome (as was taught at the Second Vatican Council), the Nestorian Church of the East would not have been so successful initially, nor would it have managed to grow so large.

It is an historical fact that two bodies commonly called today the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are descended from Chalcedon-affirming side of the split between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians. I am sorry that you seem to find the facts so dismaying

That is fallacious reasoning. You do not know that the Corinthians did not write to John, nor do you know that there was any particular significance in them writing to St. Clement. It is entirely possible that they did write to St. John, and that St. John did not reply or his reply was lost. Likewise, it is entirely possible that they did not write to St. John, but that they did not attach the special significance to their own writing to St. Clement that you are attaching to it.

First, as you may note if you check, I deleted my previous post immediately because it dawned on me how you were using the term “Chalcedonian”. In that light, my post was meaningless.

Second, Arianism was the first major heresy that the Church faced, and since the Catholic Church was already in existence long before then, I would argue that Arianism, and not Nestorianism, was the heresy that nearly engulfed Christianity. Athanasius contra mundum! Since most bishops in his day were Arian, wouldn’t that have been a bigger crisis? Or at least the first big one?

So, if you agree that Catholicism is much older than the Edict of Milan, etc., then we have no argument. But if you hold that Catholicism didn’t really come into existence until the fourth of fifth century, then we will cross swords!

Finally, concerning the Corinthians, John and Clement…well, you could be right, I suppose. However, two facts remain: 1. While any letter to the Corinthians that John may have written vanished without a trace, Clement’s extant letter was so revered in the early Church that it was revered as inspired scripture and was considered as canonical by some; 2) Clement himself certainly had no reservations about exercising his authority in a local matter nor, and this is telling, did the Corinthians object to the head of the Church in Rome doing so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We do however doubt that His love is exclusive for one man upon one seat.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit only loves one man, the pope?

 

[MaryT777]

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.

Ben:
Is this what you really meant to post?
Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Wow.

Not a single response to posts 108 & 109?

I can wait…

:coffeeread:

109 - my response is basically thus:

That Peter was picked by Jesus is cause for joy.

That we were adopted by Jesus is cause for repentance, forgiveness, and salvation.

 

[JonNC]

But that’s exactly how it worked, and heresies did flourish in the first millennium. Did you just think that a heresy was ruled against by a council, and that was the end of the story? At one point, the Nestorian Church was even larger than the Chalcedonian Church (from which the Roman Catholic Church is historically descended). In fact, if it were a widely recognized tenet among early Christians that the bishop of the Roman Church was infallible on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex-cathedra, and that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stemmed from being in communion with the Roman pontiff, one would have expected for the heretics to have been far less successful than they were, since all of the faithful would have refused to recognize the legitimacy of a bishop who had broken communion with the bishop of Rome, since according to the teachings of the First and Second Vatican Councils, any bishop who performed such an act would cease to have legitimate episcopal jurisdiction.

That bishops were equal is seen in that they all signed the decisions of the sessions of ecumenical councils, not just the pope or the pentarchy or just the few top bishops (which is to say that a top-down ecclesiology was inconceivable to the fathers). It is true that there was an ordering among the bishops, but that did not make the bishops different in the charism which they had received, but rather only in how they exercised that charism practically.

This.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s more like… “You take care of the things that are going on in your jurisdiction in Western Europe, and we’ll take care of our own sheep.”

Except that they are HIS sheep.

One flock. One Shepherd.

His words.

 

[benjohnson]

Ben:
Is this what you really meant to post?
Mary.

Perhaps I’m being daft (again) but I don’t see the controversy. That the Holy Spirit manages to love us poor Lutherans is nothing too far fetched.