What is Papal Authority?

[noma]

Hello all!

I am back, after a time wrestling with things. And I have left the Roman Catholic Church (I stopped going to mass, and am about to make my dissent public). I felt as though it was important to wait until Easter, but the more study I do, the more I come to the point where it is clear that I am not going to be Roman Catholic.

However, though I am not going to be Catholic, I need to find out what kind of Christian I am going to be. It is important to know whether there is one true visible Church, or whether the Church is invisible. This will likely be the topic of the next thread I start.

As for this thread, I would first like to explain and defend why I deny the Pope the authority the Catholic Church gives him.

What the Roman Catholic Church teaches:

That all of his teachings concerning faith and morals, spoken ex-cathedra, should be held to be infallible.

And that all his teachings about faith and morals, even if not spoken ex-cathedra, should be assented to fully.

Why I disagree:

After reading through each specific verse in Scripture concerning this, and after reading the statements of the Church Fathers, it is clear that (if we submit both to the teachings of Scripture and the Church Fathers) the Bishop of Rome should be given some special authority above all the rest of the Bishops. But I have seen no good reason to accept that this authority defends at all the statements above.

The main reason, however, is that I actively disagree with some of the things the Pope has officially taught (that the Pope is Infallible in the manner listed above, the Immaculate Conception, Contraception and other sexual teachings, that the Apocrypha should be held to be equal in authority to the rest of the Scriptures, among other things).

What’s next:

Either the Church is protected from error from the beginning, or it is not. If it is, then I should become Orthodox. If it is not, but rather is in a realm of uncertainty evolving toward inerrant teaching through God’s Love, or is necessarily and perpetually in uncertainty until Christ returns, then I should become Protestant.

At this time, I find neither view holds much over the other.

These are the two things I hope to discuss here.

 

[DeFide]

The main reason, however, is that I actively disagree with some of the things the Pope has officially taught (that the Pope is Infallible in the manner listed above, the Immaculate Conception, Contraception and other sexual teachings, that the Apocrypha should be held to be equal in authority to the rest of the Scriptures, among other things).

.

Let’s go back to before 1930 when all Christian bodies taught that contraception was intrinsically evil.

Now what is your assessment? I guess it is that Jesus handed you the keys of the kingdom and the power to loose and bind instead of Peter and his successors.

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

I’d also recommend the book Good News About Sex & Marriage by Christopher West.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Hello all!

I am back, after a time wrestling with things. And I have left the Roman Catholic Church (I stopped going to mass, and am about to make my dissent public). I felt as though it was important to wait until Easter, but the more study I do, the more I come to the point where it is clear that I am not going to be Roman Catholic.

However, though I am not going to be Catholic, I need to find out what kind of Christian I am going to be. It is important to know whether there is one true visible Church, or whether the Church is invisible. This will likely be the topic of the next thread I start.

As for this thread, I would first like to explain and defend why I deny the Pope the authority the Catholic Church gives him.

What the Roman Catholic Church teaches:

That all of his teachings concerning faith and morals, spoken ex-cathedra, should be held to be infallible.

And that all his teachings about faith and morals, even if not spoken ex-cathedra, should be assented to fully.

Why I disagree:

After reading through each specific verse in Scripture concerning this, and after reading the statements of the Church Fathers, it is clear that (if we submit both to the teachings of Scripture and the Church Fathers) the Bishop of Rome should be given some special authority above all the rest of the Bishops. But I have seen no good reason to accept that this authority defends at all the statements above.

The main reason, however, is that I actively disagree with some of the things the Pope has officially taught (that the Pope is Infallible in the manner listed above, the Immaculate Conception, Contraception and other sexual teachings, that the Apocrypha should be held to be equal in authority to the rest of the Scriptures, among other things).

What’s next:

Either the Church is protected from error from the beginning, or it is not. If it is, then I should become Orthodox. If it is not, but rather is in a realm of uncertainty evolving toward inerrant teaching through God’s Love, or is necessarily and perpetually in uncertainty until Christ returns, then I should become Protestant.

At this time, I find neither view holds much over the other.

These are the two things I hope to discuss here.

My prayers are with you noma! No matter where you go always seek His face not His hands.

May the Holy Spirits guidance be with you throughout this.
He is worthy to be sought!!! always!
Simon

 

[FightingFat]

I think you are viewing the issue out of context and therefore over simplifying it.

Christ handed on his message to twelve apostles led by Simon Peter and Paul after his resurrection. When a dispute arises, the whole ‘Twelve’ must decide whther or not a particular doctrine is orthodox. History is that the successors of those Apostles are the Bishops of the Catholic Church and the representation of the ‘Twelve’ is the whole body of bishops meeting together to make decisions for the whole church; that is for the ‘universal’ or ‘catholic’ church.

The Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter is the leader of the ‘college of bishops’ worldwide, and has what is called ‘ordinary jurisdiction’, that is full authority over the bishops, given to him by Christ.

The highest category of Church assembly, therefore is the ecumenical or general council. This is a council which consists of the entire body of bishops worldwide, united with the Pope.

The General Council of Bishops came very much into it’s own during the controversies about the nature of Christ- the council came into it’s own-- defining orthodox doctrine (e.g Nicea 325)

Since the role of the Papacy grew throughout the Christian centuries, more Papal documents were issued climaxing in the 19th Century with Vatican I’s definition of Papal infalibility and universal primacy (which is probably more important).

This statement is based on the belief that the Pope possesses, by virtue of his office as successor of Peter in being Bishop of Rome, the charism to represent in himself the entire body of bishops and faithful.

Despite this, the Church has always considered the decrees of a general council to be superior to the decrees of the Pope alone, if for no other reason than that the whole college of bishops united together with the Pope is a better sign of the catholicity of the Church than the Pope acting alone, albeit representing the body of bishops.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your understanding of the role of the Pope is incorrect. The Doctrines of the Catholic Church are not based to any great extent on papal pronouncements. Let me explain:

Christ created the Church, giving it the mission to teach His message. That mission is the Magisterium (literally teaching authority.) Understanding human nature as He did, he also gave it a gift (kharisma, in Greek) taht the Church could not teach error. This is called the *Kharisma *of Infallibility. It is exercised three ways:

1. The Ordinary Magisterium, which is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops, world-wide under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome. What the Bishops are in agreement on is the Catholic faith.
2. The Extraordinary Magisterium, which is the Catholic Bishops meeting under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome in an Ecumenical Council. If the council is called to discuss matters that are in dispute, the decisions of the council also partake of the Kharisma of Infallibility.
3. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, speaking ex cathedra (“from the chair” of Peter.) This is extremely rare – it happens about once every thousand years, and never without long discussion amongst the bishops on the matter.

 

[noma]

Let’s go back to before 1930 when all Christian bodies taught that contraception was intrinsically evil.

I think mostly because these Christian bodies did not understand the science of contraception, and also had a poorly-developed philosophy about it.

 

[noma]

The highest category of Church assembly, therefore is the ecumenical or general council. This is a council which consists of the entire body of bishops worldwide, united with the Pope.

Even if I grant this, I can still give one Orthodox Christian response, that there have only been seven ecumenical councils, and after this the Pope never held a council with the entire body of Bishops.

 

[noma]

1. The Ordinary Magisterium, which is the teaching of the Catholic Bishops, world-wide under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome. What the Bishops are in agreement on is the Catholic faith.

We leave this for later…

1. The Extraordinary Magisterium, which is the Catholic Bishops meeting under the supervision of the Bishop of Rome in an Ecumenical Council. If the council is called to discuss matters that are in dispute, the decisions of the council also partake of the Kharisma of Infallibility.

Of which a good portion of the Christian population claims there have only been seven.

1. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, speaking ex cathedra (“from the chair” of Peter.) This is extremely rare – it happens about once every thousand years, and never without long discussion amongst the bishops on the matter.

Except that the Pope is granted even more teaching authority. For example, most people accept that the encyclical Humanae Vitae also is protected by the gift of infallibility, and this because of what a supposedly ecumenical council (Vatican II) has said that the Pope’s teaching, even when not ex cathedra, must be adhered to both in statement and in the will.

But even if the Pope only had his power over councils, and to make two ex-cathedra statements, that I disagree with one of the statements made, and with some of the canons after the seventh council, this would be enough for me to deny said authority to the Pope that the Catholic Church believes.

Finally, this does not even approach the real question, which is, why should we accept that such a system (the magisterium) is even in place with the gift of Christ at all?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Even if I grant this, I can still give one Orthodox Christian response, that there have only been seven ecumenical councils, and after this the Pope never held a council with the entire body of Bishops.

All they had to do was show up.

The business of the Church cannot be brought to a standstill by bishops who choose to boycott a council.

 

[noma]

All they had to do was show up.

The business of the Church cannot be brought to a standstill by bishops who choose to boycott a council.

The Orthodox Church has not been brought to a standstill; and there have been many true teachings made by its bishops, guarded by the faithful.

And why should they show up, if the Pope always gets the final say? Since he’s misrepresenting the Christian faith by his authority, it seems to me to be dishonest to participate in what would be a mockery of God’s gift.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Except that the Pope is granted even more teaching authority. For example, most people accept that the encyclical Humanae Vitae also is protected by the gift of infallibility, and this because of what a supposedly ecumenical council (Vatican II) has said that the Pope’s teaching, even when not ex cathedra, must be adhered to both in statement and in the will.

But even if the Pope only had his power over councils, and to make two ex-cathedra statements, that I disagree with one of the statements made, and with some of the canons after the seventh council, this would be enough for me to deny said authority to the Pope that the Catholic Church believes.

Finally, this does not even approach the real question, which is, why should we accept that such a system (the magisterium) is even in place with the gift of Christ at all?

Because if you do not accept it you are unable to answer in the negative to the question, “Is it possible that what you teach is wrong?” You wind up like Protestants, splitting and resplitting over matters of doctrine until no one can say what you believe or teach.

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He sent the Paraclete. Do you think after all that He meant to leave His Church open to teach error?

 

[DeFide]

I think mostly because these Christian bodies did not understand the science of contraception, and also had a poorly-developed philosophy about it.

And thusly you would dismiss any teaching you find incompatible with your preferences.

 

[noma]

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He sent the Paraclete. Do you think after all that He meant to leave His Church open to teach error?

That we do not know. That the gates of hell will not prevail may imply that only one person at any given time actually accepts no error. Or it may mean that we are all in error but things are improving. Or it may mean that all things are in error now, but will be repaired in the end.

It may just mean that those who love and follow Christ, and who teach Christ’s message, however imperfectly, will live forever.

It may also mean that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church, and that its teachings are protected from error.

 

[noma]

And thusly you would dismiss any teaching you find incompatible with your preferences.

Not if that teaching had good reason behind it. I have yet to see any good reason for rejecting contraception, except that “the Pope sayith”.

 

[MariaG]

I think mostly because these Christian bodies did not understand the science of contraception, and also had a poorly-developed philosophy about it.

Not if that teaching had good reason behind it. I have yet to see any good reason for rejecting contraception, except that “the Pope sayith”.

While this is slightly off topic to papal authority specifically, it does address one of your specific areas of WHY you disbelieve papal authority.

Respectfully, we NOW even have a better understanding about contraception than before.

Do you realize that the pill is an abortifacient? That is that is does not always prevent conception but will prevent a fetilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall?

So in fact, there have been millions of babies aborted by their unknowing moms? So the Protestant church, as well as the Orthodox, have unknowingly encouraged the abortion of millions of babies, before science caught up?

How is/was the Catholic Church wrong to teach against aborting babies even unknowingly, and the Protestant and Orthodox are right? And how does this prove the case against papal infallibility and authority, when in fact the Catholic Church was the only Church to stand against the murder of unborn children, even though science did not yet know that this was happening? And where is the teaching in the Protestant and Orthodox Churches about seeking and finding ABC that does not have the “side effect” of aborting fertilized eggs so women don’t accidently abort their babies?

 

[DeFide]

Not if that teaching had good reason behind it. I have yet to see any good reason for rejecting contraception, except that “the Pope sayith”.

See? You’ll accept church authority only so long as you understand and agree with each and every issue.

If that’s the way it works, why did Jesus bother establishing a teaching church authority at all?

You have a pope: It’s you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Orthodox Church has not been brought to a standstill; and there have been many true teachings made by its bishops, guarded by the faithful.

Would you have the Catholic Church come to a standstill, deferring all councils while waiting for bishops from the east who will not show up?

And why should they show up, if the Pope always gets the final say?

I think you’re laboring under a misapprehension of the Pope’s role. He “gets the final say” in exactly the same way the Patriarchs of the various Orthodox Churches “get the final say.”

Since he’s misrepresenting the Christian faith by his authority, it seems to me to be dishonest to participate in what would be a mockery of God’s gift.

If you’re looking for a fight, you’ve come to the wrong place.

The Catholic Church has the utmost respect for the Orthodox Churches. We admit Orthodox Christians to communion (something denied to Protestants) and those Orthodox Churches which have resumed communion with the heir of Saint Peter retain their own rites and customs – and have full rights within the Catholic Church. The best of both worlds.

 

[noma]

Respectfully, we NOW even have a better understanding about contraception than before.

Agreed. And because we as humans have a better understanding of contraception, most of us have no serious moral qualms in practicing contraception. This includes officially virtually every denomination besides Catholic, and virtually every Christian, including most Catholics.

Do you realize that the pill is an abortifacient? That is that is does not always prevent conception but will prevent a fetilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall?

Merck Manual, a peer-reviewed text cataloguing and describing medicines contradicts this.

What peer-reviewed study do you have that supports this claim?

 

[noma]

You have a pope: It’s you.

Except I don’t claim that I’m infallible in this matter, or that I should be adhered to. I may be wrong. But if I am, somebody better be able to establish it.

I am willing to make this claim. I doubt the Pope would. This is what separates my claims from his.

 

[noma]

I think you’re laboring under a misapprehension of the Pope’s role. He “gets the final say” in exactly the same way the Patriarchs of the various Orthodox Churches “get the final say.”

So if the Pope is equal to the other Patriarchs in this manner, how can he act, as he is only one Patriarch, with the other four considering that his decisions are at best in error, and at worse heresy?

The Catholic Church has the utmost respect for the Orthodox Churches. We admit Orthodox Christians to communion (something denied to Protestants) and those Orthodox Churches which have resumed communion with the heir of Saint Peter retain their own rites and customs – and have full rights within the Catholic Church. The best of both worlds.

The impressive respect that the majority of the Christian world, and Catholicism have in Orthodoxy makes me very much want to become Orthodox.