What is the purpose of the Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant I trust that cardinals pray when selecting a pope, & thus receive guidance from the Holy Spirit.
 
phil19034 said:
Here is the thing that our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters fail to understand when looking at the past.

The Bishop of Rome also served as the Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Churches also had a Patriarch. All 5 Patriarchs out ranked all other Bishops. Each Patriarch was (and still is) the head of their respective Church. And they were all in communion with one another, but all 5 were not on equal footing. There was a ranking in precedence and in power.

Only the Bishop of Rome held the keys to the Kingdom. However, the Bishop of Rome did not have to closely manage or be involved with the affairs of other patriarchs. The only thing the Bishop of Rome needed to do was make sure the other Patriarchs were doing their jobs, without heresy, and then focus on what was going on with the Bishops of the West and in Rome.

Why is there little documentation during the first 1000 years? Because, typically, the Patriarch of Constantinople was doing his job.

But there are a number of letters written by Bishops in the East that reference their need to defer to the Bishop of Rome for clarification, including the Ignatius of Antioch who was Bishop (Patriarch) of Antioch regarding the need to defer to Rome.
Click to expand...
I also want to add… Bishops do no micromanage other bishops in the Catholic Church. Even the Pope. The Pope does not micromanage other bishops, and the Pope surely doesn’t micromanage other Patriarchs.

Each bishop does his own thing, but the Pope (as the holder of the keys) has veto when a bishop does something that goes against the rules of the Kingdom.

God Bless.
 
Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock, I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”.

Jesus said it.

[Of course, Jesus did not say it in English.]
 
Right. What the Pope can do and should do are two different things. Catholic dogmatic propositions on the Pope’s jurisdiction focuse on the abstract principles, and therefore seem very sweeping, because the “should” of every situation cannot be foreseen.

The Pope’s job is to serve unity, not to take over the roles of the divinely instituted episcopate or the Patriarchates created by council and custom. But, sometimes he needs to take action outside of Rome to serve unity according to the times and circumstances. Jurisdictional power and authority is therefore necessary for his ministry to be anything but illusory.
 
From a pure organizational and strategic theory standpoint, an organization needs a leader. ONE leader, not a committee trying to run the place, or a bunch of sub-leaders who might not agree on everything, each going their own way.

Jesus understood this when He made Peter the first Pope.

Sure, all leaders aren’t perfect. That just means you get another leader who is better, not that you do away with the concept of leadership. If a Fortune 500 company has a bad year due to an ineffective CEO, they get another CEO. They don’t say, “Why do we need a CEO? I don’t see the purpose of it since our CEO was so incompetent.” If an army is losing all over the place because of a bad general, then another general is put in place (or in old time armies, would simply rise up and take power). The soldiers don’t say, “Our general isn’t very good. Why do we need a general? Let’s get rid of that concept.”
 
Last edited:
The apostles were indeed representatives of God. They shared in the ministry of Christ.
Christ said to them “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21) and “Whoever welcomes you, welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me” (Matthew 10:40). St Paul writes “For we are ambassadors for Christ…” (2 Cor 5:20). What is an ambassador if not a representative?
 
I sort of get it now. But still a bit skeptical but anyways thanks for the answers to my question.
 
Masihi said:
on what is the purpose of the Pope how can God need a representative on Earth.
Click to expand...
It is a good honest question. I read their encyclicals now and then. It is good to read something, you know has spiritual authority. We need guidance and for me the Pope represents that ideal guidance. They aren’t perfect but I believe they are Holy Spirit inspired and that is what counts.
 
Masihi said:
I’ve been thinking to myself for a long time on what is the purpose of the Pope how can God need a representative on Earth. Christ said I will be with you till the end. Also not all popes were perfect some did commit terrible mistakes like massive atrocities and if they were capable of sinning then how can an imperfect human being claim the title of the representative of a God on Earth. Also it makes no sense for Jesus Christ to have a pope represent him since he is all powerful.
Click to expand...
Who created the office Peter held?
. Did Peter lobby for his position? No
. Did Peter ask to be renamed? No
. Did anyone lobby for Peter to be leader of the apostles? No
. Did Peter ask for the keys to the kingdom of God? No
. Did he ask for the power to bind and loose? No

Who chose Peter and created all that for Peter? Jesus, the one who spoke in the beginning and everything that is, came into existence

Was all that for Peter and Our Lord’s Church to go away when Peter died? No.

And we have 2000 years of history to show it didn’t go away
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
The Pope’s job is to serve the unity of the Church. That’s the whole point. As far as teaching, the poster above me correctly noted having one person with the final, definitive say, is important for the unity of faith.

The Church’s one-ness requires the jurisdiction of the papacy as well. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are a good example of this. They get into situations where EO Church A is in communion with B, B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in communion with each other (A=B=C≠A) (e.g. the Moscow Patriarchate breaking communion with Constantinople over who had jurisdiction over Estonia in 1996 while other Churches remained in communion with both; ROCOR’s situation until 2006; the Bulgarian schism of the 19th century when most patriarchates, but not Moscow, broke communion with the Bulgarian Church, etc.). How can one Church simultaneously have some parts in communion with other parts, while other parts are separated from each other? This doesn’t even make any sense unless there is only a plurality of Churches, rather than just one.

Also, look at the recent pan-Orthodox Synod (or whatever it ultimately was classified as). It barely even got off the ground because Churches were threatening to boycott (and many did) because they were fighting with other Churches over who had jurisdiction over what. And for all the EO polemics about all bishops being equal, if you look at how that synod was organized and carried out, the bishops who participated in that synod did not do so as equal bishops of one Church, but as representatives of multiple national Churches and patriarchates. What was sought was not a consensus of bishops of one Church, but of national Churches/patriarchates (which didn’t happen anyway). They lacked anyone to coordinate all the bishops as each true bishops of the one Church.
Click to expand...
To your point

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

wrote:

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

from The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper - ZENIT - English
 
Jesus could have stayed on earth to reign over the church. However, he preferred to leave imperfect humans in charge who would trust in God. Jesus built the church on Peter and gave him the keys. The keys represent delegation of authority.
 
Masihi said:
I’ve been thinking to myself for a long time on what is the purpose of the Pope how can God need a representative on Earth. Christ said I will be with you till the end. Also not all popes were perfect some did commit terrible mistakes like massive atrocities and if they were capable of sinning then how can an imperfect human being claim the title of the representative of a God on Earth. Also it makes no sense for Jesus Christ to have a pope represent him since he is all powerful.
Click to expand...
From an Eastern Catholic bishop John Edel Elya

Q and A

First claim: We are the Orthodox Church in communion with Rome!”

Answer: (emphasis mine)
Objection: “When the Patriarchate of Antioch was divided into two branches in 1724, one branch kept the name Orthodox and the other branch which sealed its union with the Holy See of Rome, kept the name Melkite given to it since the Sixth Century and called itself Catholic. It became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. In the Middle East, although both branches claim orthodoxy as well as catholicity, however being Catholic means not Orthodox and being Orthodox means not Catholic.
To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches) If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
(source: https://holysynergy.wordpress.com/2...lic-church-of-newton-hammers-false-ecumenism/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top