Universal Jursidiction

[MaryT777]

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.

There is no Catholic teaching that only the Pope or Catholics are loved.
This must be your own perception or something.

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11129447]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.

Regarding the topic, Randy, it is our contention that universal jurisdiction was not taught for 1,500 years prior to the Reformation. It has never been the contention of the Evangelical (Lutheran) Reformation that any one individual is somehow infallible. ALL teachers are held accountable. In the same way, we all agree that the ECF’s spoke for themselves. The confessions, as a right witness, speaks for Lutheranism, just as the councils speak for the Church.

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

We are thankful for the efforts of Luther and the other Lutheran reformers Calvin and the Wesleys are of other movements.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

Of the Book of Concord, the first section contains the 3 Creeds. It is not by accident that they are first. Of all the remaining documents, Luther penned 3, the Small and Large Catechisms, and The Smalcald Articles. Both parts of the Formula of Concord were written after Luther’s death. To say that Lutheran tradition springs for the pen of Luther is a significant overstatement.

We, therefore, rely on Sacred Tradition as well, in the forms of the 3 creeds and the 7 ecumenical councils.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Oh, it’s that simple, is it? Everyone would simply acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as Pope and simply go along with whatever simply because he was the pope? OBVIOUSLY, the fact that it DIDN’T happen that way proves that the the ECF’s didn’t think of Peter as infallible with Universal Jurisdiction. Got it.

Do you hear the logic of what you’re saying? The happy occasion of heresy in the Church enables you to justify remaining separated from the Pope who clearly had no real control?



Or maybe, and I’m just spit-balling here, the very nature of heresy is to deny a truth REGARDLESS of the source of that truth. The Pharisees, the Sadduccees and even Judas Iscariot all denied that Jesus was who He said He was…but their denial of the truth did not make Him a liar.

Similarly, individual bishops may fall into heresy and deny whatever they choose to deny, but that does not say anything about the authority of the Bishop of Rome, because he doesn’t control them by force against their free will. He leads and serves, etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Of course. But that’s not what you said.

And you know it.

 

[benjohnson]

There is no Catholic teaching that only the Pope or Catholics are loved.
This must be your own perception or something.

Most likely my fault! I probably see triumphant behavior where none exists.

No one ever accused me of being calm and rational.

 

[MaryT777]

Most likely my fault! I probably see triumphant behavior where none exists.

No one ever accused me of being calm and rational.

LOL ~
Just for the record for the lurkers…
There is no Catholic teaching only the Pope or Catholics are loved by God.
What one reads into a post is in the eye of the reader.
Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Regarding the topic, Randy, it is our contention that universal jurisdiction was not taught for 1,500 years prior to the Reformation.

Of course. What else could you say given your church affiliation?

I’m trying to get you (and anyone!) to actually search the scriptures with me to see what Jesus actually said, did and meant with regard to Peter and the papacy.

Give me a verse, an interpretation of a verse, anything that you PERSONALLY think proves that Peter was not intended to the universal head of the Church. Tell me why I’m wrong in my use of scripture; tell me why you’re right.

I gave you plenty, and I’m just getting started. I haven’t even brought out my best arguments, yet.

So, don’t parrot Luther and don’t quote some Lutheran book. Look at the Bible and comment upon it.

 

[benjohnson]

So, don’t parrot Luther and don’t quote some Lutheran book. Look at the Bible and comment upon it.

Ok… taking off my Lutheran hat, and just looking at the bible with my best intentions of hearing your argument, it’s obvious that Peter is beloved by Jesus, and is first among the apostles.

How that translates to modern Popes in Rome (or Avignon) having Temporal Jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility is the hard part to glean from scripture.

 

[benjohnson]

Poking around a bit more:

St. Peter himself said:

"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: "

That doesn’t seem to be a church filled with hierarchy, and almost seems like a priesthood of all believers.

 

[bzkoss236]

Poking around a bit more:

St. Peter himself said:

"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: "

That doesn’t seem to be a church filled with hierarchy, and almost seems like a priesthood of all believers.

The Catholic Church does teach a kind of “priesthood of all believers”, but not to the extent to which the evangelical crowd does.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

There were probably still traces of Arianism, but yes the Nestorians did cover a large geographical area at the time.

Council of Chalcedon (451)

Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod, now in session, in its desire to exclude all their tricks against the truth, and teaching what has been unshakeable in the proclamation from the beginning,

decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the holy Spirit, it
ratifies the teaching about the being of the holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city
– the teaching they made known to all,
not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the holy Spirit by the use of scriptural testimonies against those who were trying to do away with his sovereignty.
And because of those who are attempting to corrupt the mystery of the economy and are shamelessly and foolishly asserting that he who was born of the holy virgin Mary was a mere man, it has accepted

the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, [already accepted by the Council of Ephesus]
pastor of the church in Alexandria, to Nestorius and to the Orientals, as being well-suited to refuting Nestorius’s mad folly and to providing an interpretation for those who in their religious zeal might desire understanding of the saving creed.

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

Yes! This is why I thought your comment to be something else when you included the Catholic Church in parenthesis and not the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[LionHeart777]

Poking around a bit more:

St. Peter himself said:

"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: "

That doesn’t seem to be a church filled with hierarchy, and almost seems like a priesthood of all believers.

Interestingly, there was a priesthood of believers in the OT too; and there was the ministerial priesthood. Look what happened to those in Korah’s rebellion when they tried to usurp this ministerial priesthood.

Just like these two were existent in OT, so they are in the NT (and beyond.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Poking around a bit more:

St. Peter himself said:

"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: "

That doesn’t seem to be a church filled with hierarchy, and almost seems like a priesthood of all believers.

Catholics believe in the priesthood of all believers. But we also know that Jesus established the NT priesthood based on the OT pattern.

In the OT, the structure of the priesthood looked like this:

1. Aaron, high priest
2. Levites, ministerial priests
3. Israel, a nation of priests

We see a similar structure in the NT.

Jesus, Our Eternal High Priest

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” (Hebrews 4:14)

The Ministerial Priesthood

“But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 15:15-16)

The Universal Priesthood of All Believers

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

Additionally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Going further, scripture shows that the ministerial priesthood is also tri-partite.

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[concretecamper]

Bad analogy, as there’s quite a different mindset between a pirate and someone who is willing to be martyred for their faith. I don’t think the Bishops would have all voted for themselves, even if some of them had savvy political skills and speeches (i.e. St. Cyril of Alexandria).

yeah…I know but it what popped into my mind. let me ask it another way. where is salvation history has God established a group of equals to rule his people?

 

[concretecamper]

Cavaradossi:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Reading the link I was reminded of the last installment of the Pirates of the Carribean. Remember when the needed to vote for a new pirate king…they couldn’t elect anyone because everyone always voted for themselves. Sort of gets you wondering what heresies would have flourished in the early church if their were 25-50-100 equals.

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.

If you read the council documents from Chalcedonia you will see specific language giving primacy to Rome.

And the fact that the claim is made about Church size, what does that have to do with anything?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[concretecamper]

Cavaradossi:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

Reading the link I was reminded of the last installment of the Pirates of the Carribean. Remember when the needed to vote for a new pirate king…they couldn’t elect anyone because everyone always voted for themselves. Sort of gets you wondering what heresies would have flourished in the early church if their were 25-50-100 equals.

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.

it is interesting you bring up Chalcedonia. The legates that Pope Leo sent presided over the council…hmmmm

also, Pope Leo refused to ratify cannon 28…why? How did Leo have that authority if the early church was a bunch of equal bishops???

And what does church size have to do with anything???

And the heretics were less successful precisely because of the office of the papacy.

so to have all bishops sign council documents is a good thing. why do you contend that this is counter to the office of the Papacy???

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[JonNC]

Of course. What else could you say given your church affiliation?

I’m trying to get you (and anyone!) to actually search the scriptures with me to see what Jesus actually said, did and meant with regard to Peter and the papacy.

Give me a verse, an interpretation of a verse, anything that you PERSONALLY think proves that Peter was not intended to the universal head of the Church. Tell me why I’m wrong in my use of scripture; tell me why you’re right.

I gave you plenty, and I’m just getting started. I haven’t even brought out my best arguments, yet.

So, don’t parrot Luther and don’t quote some Lutheran book. Look at the Bible and comment upon it.

Randy,
You’re actually trying to get us to prove a negative - “proves that Peter was not intended to the universal head of the Church”. I would say that, and obviously so given your affiliation, the question comes from the assumption that it is a given that he has it, and I must disprove it. If one looks at the history of the Church, it seems to me the issue is the other way around, that is the early Church and scripture do not ascribe universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction to the See of Rome, and the claim does not come up until the latter part of the 1st millennium.

What scripture and the early Church do show, referencing your post 108 and 109, and referencing the council in Acts, is that St. Peter was highly respected and regarded by the apostles, that he was even considered a (or maybe even the) leader. Then can easily be inferred as a sort or kind of primacy, and that is clearly the position of the early Church, and Orthodoxy up until today. And in the calmer, less heated moments of the Reformation era, the Lutheran reformers would have admitted the same. It is a much greater leap, however, to infer from these things, the referenced scripture and Nicea, that this means universal jurisdiction.

One of the distinguishing differences between Lutheranism and most other protestants, is our willingness to reference Tradition, from the creeds to even the ECF’s. Your insistence on only scripture references seems more consistent to a dialogue between either of our communions and a solo scripturist group. But you asked for scripture references, and a response to posts 108-109. So, I offer Galatians 2, and specifically this:

when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

St. Paul here clearly equates his own call to that of Peter’s. There is nothing here to infer that Paul considers Peter to be a higher authority.

If I may add, briefly, John 20, specifically:

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Through this, He speaks to the disciples on equal terms. He says I am sending you(plural). He breathed on** them**, and said to them. Here also he gives the power to bind and loose to all of them, equally.

Now, within this equality there can be leadership, and I don’t deny that, when looking at other scripture verses, Peter clearly has a level of leadership. I just don’t see how that can be construed as universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, is the bolding the part you disagree with? Is everything NOT bolded acceptable?

Randy,

Not necessarily the only part, but it is a big part of it. Again, referencing back to scripture, Peter does not act alone without the other disciples at the council in Acts.
Cavaradossi’s comment speaks well to this issue:

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.

Jon

 

[concretecamper]

Randy,

Not necessarily the only part, but it is a big part of it. Again, referencing back to scripture, Peter does not act alone without the other disciples at the council in Acts.
Cavaradossi’s comment speaks well to this issue:

Jon

Canon 3 from Nicea:

“Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.”

So…doesn’t this suggest positions?