Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

[Roamin_Xian]

You don’t believe God uses people to speak for him?

You don’t believe God calls us to specific service?

I do- regular people who feed the hungry and clothe the naked speak for God. When you give a homeless person a coat or a orphan a toy, you are representing God. All acts of mercy are service to God…no special powers required.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Lack of a strong central leadership position in the Anglican Community is causing it to become absolutely unglued. Transubstantiation isn’t a theory of matter at all. It’s religious dogma.

And a belief central to Christianity!

 

[stbruderklaus]

Sorry to come to this discussion so late… looks like there has been a lot of dialogue on this topic.

As a Lutheran pastor, I’ve fumbled around with this concept, too. One of my major concerns, from a historical perspective, is that the claims of Rome to Papal supremacy are not supported by the early councils… in fact, at least one ecumenical council excommunicated a Pope of Rome (Honorius.)

I do, however, recognize the value and historicity of the apostolic episcopate, and there are those of us in Lutheran communions seeking to restore this deficiency among us. Frankly, the argument that the Church of Christ would be wiped off the map without the Pope seems ludicrous… otherwise, how have the Eastern Orthodox survived their seperation from Rome for 1000 years, each with Patriarchs that have just as valid Apostolic roots as the bishops of Rome?

Don’t get me wrong, when the Pope is faithfull, I think all we Christians in the west have a particular responsibility to saddle up and ride with him… since he is, afterall, the Patriarch of the West. When he’s out of his theological mind and teaching heresy, we have an obligation to resist him. The bonds we share are faith, hope, and love… the greatest of which, we are taught, is love. I love Pope Benedict XVI and pray for him daily, along with our archbishop of Seattle… but as a confessional Lutheran, love and hope is what I can share most fully with them, since they have not made provision for a Lutheran confession of a simple catholic faith within their communion. I still look forward to that day.

Peace.

 

[jam070406]

Sorry to come to this discussion so late… looks like there has been a lot of dialogue on this topic.

As a Lutheran pastor, I’ve fumbled around with this concept, too. One of my major concerns, from a historical perspective, is that the claims of Rome to Papal supremacy are not supported by the early councils… in fact, at least one ecumenical council excommunicated a Pope of Rome (Honorius.)

I do, however, recognize the value and historicity of the apostolic episcopate, and there are those of us in Lutheran communions seeking to restore this deficiency among us. Frankly, the argument that the Church of Christ would be wiped off the map without the Pope seems ludicrous… otherwise, how have the Eastern Orthodox survived their seperation from Rome for 1000 years, each with Patriarchs that have just as valid Apostolic roots as the bishops of Rome?

Don’t get me wrong, when the Pope is faithfull, I think all we Christians in the west have a particular responsibility to saddle up and ride with him… since he is, afterall, the Patriarch of the West. When he’s out of his theological mind and teaching heresy, we have an obligation to resist him. The bonds we share are faith, hope, and love… the greatest of which, we are taught, is love. I love Pope Benedict XVI and pray for him daily, along with our archbishop of Seattle… but as a confessional Lutheran, love and hope is what I can share most fully with them, since they have not made provision for a Lutheran confession of a simple catholic faith within their communion. I still look forward to that day.

Peace.

You speak highly of the Eastern Orthodox which begs the question. Why do you remain Lutheran? You state that the supremacy of the Pope isn’t supported historically yet you hold to a church with teachings that don’t follow historically with the early Church. I find this ironic. No offense.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Friend,

I don’t think our communion is holding to anything contrary to the ancient and unified Church. We are a smaller group of episcipal Lutherans, who have a recognized Apostolic Succession, and are faithful to Scripture and the Great Tradition to the best of our knowledge and understanding.

As for why I have not become Eastern Orthodox… to be fair, I struggled with that question. At the moment, my conscience leads me to recognize that I am a son of the western Church, not the east. My Lutheran heritage is a living and ongoing attempt to reform and gain reunion with the Patriarch of the West… meaning that to abandon that work of reform and reunion by heading east might be tremendously comfortable for me, pushing off that work on someone else, but seems to shirk the cross I have been given to bear.

Was there another tact you were taking with that question? There aren’t many Eastern Orthodox communities where I live, and the ones that are there seem to speak foreign languages… Russian, Ukranian, etc. Tough place to be with a family, and I don’t think the ministry God has called me to could be very well conducted there.

Peace to you.
Rev. Brad

 

[believers]

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

Leaders and leadership positions exist in every aspect of our lives.

A “chain of command” with a leader at the top and an upper echelon (central leadership) is essential to any large organization. Any organization without a central command, where authority is not passed down from the top, through a series of steps or positions, with each person accountable to the one(s) directly above them, leads to confusion, chaos and that organization is ultimately doomed to failure.

Christianity has never been a democracy and Christianity has always had leaders.

Decision-making responsibilities always originate from the “top” of any properly structured organization, from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels. This is called leadership.

Leadership encourages compliance without dissension. Most organizations’ have a ‘pyramid” type structure or something very close.

All Governments have various leadership positions.
All Businesses have various leadership positions.
All Militaries have various leadership positions
All Professional Sports Teams have various leadership positions.

They all have a leadership structure or “chain of command", which starts at the top from the higher levels of authority to the lower levels.

I can go on forever with examples of leaders, leadership and various organizations with a “chain of command”.

Leadership is “structure”, that’s all it is. Human beings have always craved “structure” in their lives, going all the way back to tribal leaders, it’s in our nature.

Structure is a good thing, it prevents confusion and chaos.

There are 2500+ Catholic Dioceses worldwide and one billion Catholics. It is unreasonable to expect there not to be a “chain of command” and a leadership structure in the Roman Catholic Church and this would include the head of the Church here on earth, the Pope.

The Pope is the “glue”, which holds it all together.

If it was not for the Roman Catholic Pope and the centrally organized structure of the Roman Catholic Church, there would not be a Bible today, there would not be Christianity today, and we would not be having this discussion.

Christianity would have been wiped from the face of the earth, well before any “Protestant” movement.

Why is it, that there are so many “Christians” who experience a “chain of command” or a hierarchy in ever aspect of their lives cannot accept this concept, when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope?

Finally, all families have a “pecking order’ or various levels of authority, with the parents at the top, over their children. there is no democracy in a family. Christianity (Catholicism) is one big family, and our “papa” is the Pope.

Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

The Pope is nowhere to be found in this verse.

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Another thought occurs to me, as I read the end of that introductory question…

The image of Papa for the Roman Pontiff, and why us knuckle-headed “Protestants” won’t acknowledge him as our head, leaves me with funny follow-on images…

For the Churches of Germany that embraced the Augsburg Confession, none of us wanted to leave the Bishop of Rome… we were even content to remain in the Roman Communion with him, as long as he could make room for us and our simpler expression of the catholic faith. Our Papa kicked us out of the house and tried to kill us for hampering his indulgence trafficking. When the churches in England and Scandinavia had similar disputes, our Papa booted them out, and tried to kill them, too. Bad Papa.

So, now that us wounded children feel safe enough to swallow our own pride and knock on Papa’s door, without fear of our Papa’s big political stick (somebody took that away from him, thanks be to God) the awkward reunion seems to be stalled at the front porch (post Vatican II.)

Papa: you’ve been bad, but we still love you-- join us.

Lutherans: if you promise not to try to kill us anymore, can we peacefully coexist?

Papa: well, maybe… as long as you swear an oath of loyalty to me that I’m always right, have always been right, and will always be right, and that you’ll never try to confront or reform me again.

Lutherans: Uh… that’s playing a little fast and loose with history, isn’t it? Besides, look at all the working of the Spirit of God in our communions over the last 450 years… wasn’t there some good that came of our conflict?

Papa: yeah, well, maybe… but you still have to swear that I’m always right… cuz I say that I am… and that means that I am… and this is my house, and as long as you want to be here, you’ll play by my rules.

Lutherans: Well, your rules today seem a lot better than your old Inquisitorial days, but if you won’t admit that you were ever wrong before, how can we be sure you won’t go back to your old abusive ways? Heck, you haven’t even made up with our distant Uncle Orthodox yet.

Papa: trust me!

Lutherans: Uh…yeah… we’re working on that trust thing… but we have some of our own baggage to sort out.

Papa: is there anything I can do to make you trust me?

Lutherans: hmmm… let’s call in a neutral arbitrator… or better yet, a real ecumenical council, with all the valid bishops from all over the world, seated together. We’ll agree to settle with whatever the mind of the whole communion is… will you?

Papa: hmmm… might cost me a little prestige, letting myself finally be accountable to someone, even if it is a truly ecumenical council, with the Orthodox and other legitimate bishops all seated with equal votes. Gosh, I don’t know…

Lutherans: see our trust issue better now?

 

[stbruderklaus]

I know that was a little cheeky above, but the question comes down to this:

How can we trust the Pope to be our leader, when he doesn’t trust a true ecumenical council of both east and west to settle disputes? If the Pope, the Orthodox, and the Lutherans could trust the Spirit to work in an ecumenical council together, I think Lutherans might have a much easier time trusting the Pope enough to fully re-integrate with him.

But until the Pope is willing to submit to an ecumenical council, we beaten and bruised children of the Reformation are pretty leery about trusting the Pope as our leader. We’ve got a rougue Patriarch, who’s been running amok for a millenium… it’s time he let the other historic Patriarchs take him out behind the ecumenical woodshed for theological whoopin, bear his pennance for the sins of the west, and let us children of the Reformation follow his pennetential lead.

That’s a Pope I could follow-- one of faith and repentance, fully reconciled with the Churches of the East.

Peace.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I know that was a little cheeky above, but the question comes down to this:

How can we trust the Pope to be our leader, when he doesn’t trust a true ecumenical council of both east and west to settle disputes? If the Pope, the Orthodox, and the Lutherans could trust the Spirit to work in an ecumenical council together, I think Lutherans might have a much easier time trusting the Pope enough to fully re-integrate with him.

But until the Pope is willing to submit to an ecumenical council, we beaten and bruised children of the Reformation are pretty leery about trusting the Pope as our leader. We’ve got a rougue Patriarch, who’s been running amok for a millenium… it’s time he let the other historic Patriarchs take him out behind the ecumenical woodshed for theological whoopin, bear his pennance for the sins of the west, and let us children of the Reformation follow his pennetential lead.

That’s a Pope I could follow-- one of faith and repentance, fully reconciled with the Churches of the East.

Peace.

Hello stbruderklaus,

I don’t know if I understand what you are saying here…

It sort of sounds like… “If only he would agree with me”… or… “If only, he would agree with us”….

What makes you assume that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong?

There can only be one Pope at a time…

The reason that there exist different denominations is because there exists different beliefs and they cannot all be right.

Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Pope and the Roman Catholic Church concede and submit to other denominations, which broke from Catholicism and accept their errant beliefs?

The Roman Catholic Pope is the leader of Christ’s Church here on earth and he is Infallible when it comes to the issues of Faith and Morals. This is supported, historically, traditionally and biblically.

To come to any conclusion, in opposition of Catholicism, is to reject truths found in the Bible and to reject Christian History and Christian Traditions.

When we reject Christian truths….we reject Christ!

Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has made great strides with the Orthodox Church…our sister Church.

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

 

[stbruderklaus]

Ah, the great risk of using humor, is that it is often poorly communicated. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

I am not supposing that the Pope must bend to my will or understanding, nor to the Lutheran confessions. My primary points were along these lines:

1-- Ecumenical councils, prior to the great Schism of 1054, truly represented the universal Church, east and west. It was only when the Bishop of Rome attempted to force himself as prince over the other great and historic Patriarchs that the Church split. As I’ve heard my Orthodox friends phrase it, at the time of the great schism, it was a 4 to 1 vote between the five great patriarchs, and Rome left the rest of Christendom with their newly minted claim of Roman supremacy. If four of the five Patriarchs remained together and one left, just who is in schism, anyway?

2-- If there are over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, there are nearly a billion Eastern Orthodox as well (around 800 Million was the last number I saw.) I contend that the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, needs to sit down with the other half of Christendom and submit to a truly Ecumenical Council in order to resolve the issues that divide east and west. When the Roman Bishop is willing to be submissive to the will of the whole Church gathered in Ecumenical Council (which both Romans and Orthodox believe to be infallible expressions of the Church… so there shouldn’t be any risk for the Roman Pontiff, if he really is infallible as he claims to be… since both expressions should be guaranteed by the Holy Spirit…) we have a real shot at resolving the east/west schism.

3-- If Rome and the East can settle their differences and find visible unity, I think Lutherans (among many other Christians) will be willing to finally return home to our Patriach of the West. Until then, many of us Lutherans have a huge trust issue with a Roman Bishop who is unwilling to submit to the will of a truly ecumenical council… or allow himself to be judged or reviewed by anyone. When Rome settles with the East and heals that schism, I think the healing will begin in earnest between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation. In essence, it is for our Elder Brother the Pope to make the first moves toward unity with our Elder Uncles of the East… if Rome cannot suffer to heal the schism with who JPII called the other lung of Christ’s Church, hope for reunion with the Reformation Churches seems a long way off; but a united witness of over 2 Billion Christians and all the historic Patriarchs of the Church would draw many Lutherans, among others, back home to Rome.

Did that clarify my points a bit better?

Thoughts?

 

[JonNC]

Ah, the great risk of using humor, is that it is often poorly communicated. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

I am not supposing that the Pope must bend to my will or understanding, nor to the Lutheran confessions. My primary points were along these lines:

1-- Ecumenical councils, prior to the great Schism of 1054, truly represented the universal Church, east and west. It was only when the Bishop of Rome attempted to force himself as prince over the other great and historic Patriarchs that the Church split. As I’ve heard my Orthodox friends phrase it, at the time of the great schism, it was a 4 to 1 vote between the five great patriarchs, and Rome left the rest of Christendom with their newly minted claim of Roman supremacy. If four of the five Patriarchs remained together and one left, just who is in schism, anyway?

2-- If there are over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, there are nearly a billion Eastern Orthodox as well (around 800 Million was the last number I saw.) I contend that the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, needs to sit down with the other half of Christendom and submit to a truly Ecumenical Council in order to resolve the issues that divide east and west. When the Roman Bishop is willing to be submissive to the will of the whole Church gathered in Ecumenical Council (which both Romans and Orthodox believe to be infallible expressions of the Church… so there shouldn’t be any risk for the Roman Pontiff, if he really is infallible as he claims to be… since both expressions should be guaranteed by the Holy Spirit…) we have a real shot at resolving the east/west schism.

3-- If Rome and the East can settle their differences and find visible unity, I think Lutherans (among many other Christians) will be willing to finally return home to our Patriach of the West. Until then, many of us Lutherans have a huge trust issue with a Roman Bishop who is unwilling to submit to the will of a truly ecumenical council… or allow himself to be judged or reviewed by anyone. When Rome settles with the East and heals that schism, I think the healing will begin in earnest between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation. In essence, it is for our Elder Brother the Pope to make the first moves toward unity with our Elder Uncles of the East… if Rome cannot suffer to heal the schism with who JPII called the other lung of Christ’s Church, hope for reunion with the Reformation Churches seems a long way off; but a united witness of over 2 Billion Christians and all the historic Patriarchs of the Church would draw many Lutherans, among others, back home to Rome.

Did that clarify my points a bit better?

Thoughts?

I, as one Lutheran, have said this before. If the East, in council, accepted the primacy of the pope as it is considered by Rome now, and the great schism were resolved even on those terms, I would consider it such an undeniable movement of the Holy Spirit that I would have to accept it, and reunite.

Jon

 

[stbruderklaus]

Jon,

Yep, I’m with you on that. I think the majority of orthodox Lutherans would come to the same conclusion, and the apostate Lutherans would just continue to shrivel up and die as they have been for half a century. I’d bet a case of good beer the Anglicans would respond in kind, as might the Methodists and even a good chunk of the Calvinists.

I think our last few pontiffs have understood this as well, which would explain their focus on working things out with the Orthodox even while they throw a few bones to the Reformation Churches. The real resolution to this unity from schism mess lies first among the great Patriarchs… and then with us wayward children of the 16th century diaspora. I think it’s time for all of us to join with Pope Benedict’s prayer intentions for this month…

Man do I hope to live to see that…

Cheers,
Brad

 

[Jimmy_B]

Brad and Jon,

Thank you for your posts. I wonder how many other non-Catholic Christians feel the same way you two do. Would either of you mind if I started another thread to ask this question?

Peace

 

[JonNC]

Brad and Jon,

Thank you for your posts. I wonder how many other non-Catholic Christians feel the same way you two do. Would either of you mind if I started another thread to ask this question?

Peace

Jimmy,
Have at it. You can quote me.
Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy,
Have at it. You can quote me.
Jon

Thanks Jon,

Here it is.

Peace

 

[guanophore]

Sorry to come to this discussion so late… looks like there has been a lot of dialogue on this topic.

Welcome

As a Lutheran pastor, I’ve fumbled around with this concept, too. One of my major concerns, from a historical perspective, is that the claims of Rome to Papal supremacy are not supported by the early councils… in fact, at least one ecumenical council excommunicated a Pope of Rome (Honorius.)

The idea of “supremacy” is not part of the Petrine gift. He is the servant of the servants of God, and his rule is based not upon some secular notion of “supremacy” but upon divine appointment. This appointment does not mean that he is impeccable (without sin). Pope Honorous, and a goodly collection of other Popes who were not good role modes (just as Peter sometimes was not) does not change the office to which they are appointed, and does not negate God’s ability to work through them for the benefit of the Church.

I do, however, recognize the value and historicity of the apostolic episcopate, and there are those of us in Lutheran communions seeking to restore this deficiency among us.

Well, there is no need! Just swim that Tiber, and this will be fixed.

Frankly, the argument that the Church of Christ would be wiped off the map without the Pope seems ludicrous... otherwise, how have the Eastern Orthodox survived their seperation from Rome for 1000 years, each with Patriarchs that have just as valid Apostolic roots as the bishops of Rome?

God is able to preserve His Church in many and various ways. What He wants is unity, and that is centered around the Truth, which is protected by the HS through the Petrine gift.

Don’t get me wrong, when the Pope is faithfull, I think all we Christians in the west have a particular responsibility to saddle up and ride with him… since he is, afterall, the Patriarch of the West. When he’s out of his theological mind and teaching heresy, we have an obligation to resist him.

Resisting a person who is wrong is not the same as resisting the office which he occupies. We can see this in the book of Acts, when Paul confronted Peter about his behavior, but they were in agreement about the Teaching.

The bonds we share are faith, hope, and love… the greatest of which, we are taught, is love. I love Pope Benedict XVI and pray for him daily, along with our archbishop of Seattle…

Good for you! If we all do this with one another, we will return to unity.

but as a confessional Lutheran, love and hope is what I can share most fully with them, since they have not made provision for a Lutheran confession of a simple catholic faith within their communion.

Can you please elaborate on this? I do not understand what it meants.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church should make “provision” for Lutherans, and if so, how?

 

[guanophore]

The Pope is nowhere to be found in this verse.

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

Well, we read it differently (with regard to headship), however, this passage is about right relations within marriage, and the Church is the spouse of the Pope. The Pope is subject to Christ, who is the Head of the Church, and the Pope is the head of the Bride of Christ, his spouse.

The marriage relationship is a type of the heavenly wedding banquet.

 

[guanophore]

Our Papa kicked us out of the house and tried to kill us for hampering his indulgence trafficking.

Actually, it was not the revolt against the abuse of indulgences that was separating, but changing the doctrine taught by the Apostles. The Church itself “hampered” the abuses that triggered the separation…

the awkward reunion seems to be stalled at the front porch (post Vatican II.)

Can you explain this? Is this related to the other phrase I had trouble understanding?

Lutherans: if you promise not to try to kill us anymore, can we peacefully coexist?

Do you not think that Catholics and Lutherans presently enjoy peaceful co-existence?

Papa: well, maybe… as long as you swear an oath of loyalty to me that I’m always right, have always been right, and will always be right, and that you’ll never try to confront or reform me again.

Please show me where this is being asked of anyone.

Of course those who wish to be in communion have to embrace the faith that was delivered to us by the Apostles. However, that is independent of individual loyalty to an individual pope.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is right, has always been right, or will always be. It is the doctrine that is infallible.

And still more, no one has asked that confrontation and reform not happen. It needs to happen without the promulgation of heresy.

Papa: yeah, well, maybe… but you still have to swear that I’m always right… cuz I say that I am… and that means that I am… and this is my house, and as long as you want to be here, you’ll play by my rules.

You seem to have a very warped perception of the CAtholic TEaching on infallibility.

… let’s call in a neutral arbitrator… or better yet, a real ecumenical council, with all the valid bishops from all over the world, seated together. We’ll agree to settle with whatever the mind of the whole communion is… will you?

I read above where you believe you have “recognized Apostolic Succession”. I wonder by whom it is “recognized”. Yourselves? How does one determine who is a “valid bishop”?

How can we trust the Pope to be our leader, when he doesn’t trust a true ecumenical council of both east and west to settle disputes?

I am curious what makes you think this is not the case.

If the Pope, the Orthodox, and the Lutherans could trust the Spirit to work in an ecumenical council together, I think Lutherans might have a much easier time trusting the Pope enough to fully re-integrate with him.

I know that there are efforts toward unity in all these areas.

But until the Pope is willing to submit to an ecumenical council, we beaten and bruised children of the Reformation are pretty leery about trusting the Pope as our leader.

It is a fact that there are very serious wounds. Do you really imagine that the Pope would somehow be in disagreement with the Magesterium?

We’ve got a rougue Patriarch, who’s been running amok for a millenium… it’s time he let the other historic Patriarchs take him out behind the ecumenical woodshed for theological whoopin, bear his pennance for the sins of the west, and let us children of the Reformation follow his pennetential lead.

This seems to be the product of your imagination. While I will grant that there have been some Patriarchs that have presented a very poor model of Christianity, to suggest that they have all been “rogue” is simply a rebellious fantasy. I don’t think you could find any evidence, for example, of this in our current Patriarch.

That’s a Pope I could follow-- one of faith and repentance, fully reconciled with the Churches of the East.

Peace.

Indeed! However, some of this will depend upon the Patriarchs of the East. For starters, the Catholic Church recognizes their sacraments and succession as valid, whereas, they do not accept ours. I hardly think this can be laid a the feet of the Latin Patriarch.

 

[guanophore]

1-- Ecumenical councils, prior to the great Schism of 1054, truly represented the universal Church, east and west. It was only when the Bishop of Rome attempted to force himself as prince over the other great and historic Patriarchs that the Church split.

I think this is a myopic view of the schism.

 As I've heard my Orthodox friends phrase it, at the time of the great schism, it was a 4 to 1 vote between the five great patriarchs, and Rome left the rest of Christendom with their newly minted claim of Roman supremacy.  If four of the five Patriarchs remained together and one left, just who is in schism, anyway?

I think this has been settled. Both sides have accepted responsibility, and cancelled the decrees against one another.

 2-- If there are over a billion Roman Catholics in the world, there are nearly a billion Eastern Orthodox as well (around 800 Million was the last number I saw.)  I contend that the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, needs to sit down with the other half of Christendom and submit to a truly Ecumenical Council in order to resolve the issues that divide east and west.

I think you may be laboring under the misapprehension that the Latin Patriarch does not see himself in submission with the Magesterium. This is probably connected to your secularized conception of “supremacy”.

  When the Roman Bishop is willing to be submissive to the will of the whole Church gathered in Ecumenical Council (which both Romans and Orthodox believe to be infallible expressions of the Church... so there shouldn't be any risk for the Roman Pontiff, if he really is infallible as he claims to be... since both expressions should be guaranteed by the Holy Spirit...) we have a real shot at resolving the east/west schism.

Although I agree with your point here, this statement seems to represent a misunderstanding on the teaching of papal infallibility.

3-- If Rome and the East can settle their differences and find visible unity, I think Lutherans (among many other Christians) will be willing to finally return home to our Patriach of the West.  Until then, many of us Lutherans have a huge trust issue with a Roman Bishop who is unwilling to submit to the will of a truly ecumenical council...

I don’t understand where you are getting this theme of “unwilling to submit”.

 or allow himself to be judged or reviewed by anyone.

This statement represents an ignorance of how the Church operates.

 When Rome settles with the East and heals that schism, I think the healing will begin in earnest between Rome and the Churches of the Reformation.

I hope it does not wait for that, since there are a lot of stubborn folks in the East! There is no reason why reconciliation cannot be sought in all areas simultaneously. This is like saying, “well, dad, if you can’t invite my brother to dinner,then I am not coming either!”

  In essence, it is for our Elder Brother the Pope to make the first moves toward unity with our Elder Uncles of the East... if Rome cannot suffer to heal the schism with who JPII called the other lung of Christ's Church, hope for reunion with the Reformation Churches seems a long way off; but a united witness of over 2 Billion Christians and all the historic Patriarchs of the Church would draw many Lutherans, among others, back home to Rome.

In spite of your apparent lack of understanding of the nature of the problems, I do agree with your conclusion.

Did that clarify my points a bit better?

Thoughts?

Yes, thank you. It also reveals a significant degree of misunderstanding.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Yowza…

OK, first off, this kind of forum is miserable for demonstrating significant apptitude… even if I had it. I have confessed before, and shall again, that I have no other reference point to examine Roman Catholic teaching and practice but from the vantage I have been given… and that is of a Christian of the Reformation, and specifically Lutheran. It is also certainly true that Romans tend to show themselves clumsy in understanding the Lutheran Reformation, since they tend to see it through the polemical writings of their own tradition. Perhaps we can affored each other a bit of grace, and seek the best possible construction on each other’s words.

I believe (and you can correct me here if I’ve got this mixed up) that the fundamental issues still remaining between east and west, is Rome’s insistence that the Pope has a monarchical role over the rest of Christendom. I may have phrased this poorly, but to my reading of history that seems to be the root issue-- the Bishop of Rome contended that he could call an ecumenical council without the eastern Fathers, change the Nicene Creed without their vote, and declare that without his fellowship there is no salvation.

Over time, this appears to have softened… but certainly not before what the Pope called an “ecumenical” council of Trent; a construct only of the west, headed by three Papal legates who seem to have intentionally misrepresented Reformation concerns in their worst possible light, then issued condemnations against any bishop (either at the council or otherwise) who disagreed with the Papal legates (with all the threats of Inquisitorial torture and death that attended such condemnation.) Of principle concern in the decrees of the Council of Trent was retaining the Pope’s monarchical rule of both the Church and the political kingdoms of Europe, and any challenge to his person or office was declared heresy.

Post Vatican II, we see a much more concilliar spirit in Rome. No longer does the Magesterium teach that they have a divine right to transfer the kingdoms of this world, and no longer do they retain an inquisitorial office that would allow for torture and murder of theological dissidents. In that context, yes-- Lutherans and Romans do peacefully coexist now, but Lutherans are quite wary of our recently reformed brother… and any fair reading of history over the last 500 years should help explain our collective uneasiness.

The American context, however, has been very fruitful in dialogues between our communions. Most, if not all, of the theological disputes that started the Reformation have been resolved. However, as we seek ways to be re-incorporated into the Roman communion, we are continually affronted by the notion of Papal Infallibility, and the duty of every Roman Catholic to yeild to every current opinion of the Pope. This is the same issue that gave C.S. Lewis pause about converting from the Church of England to the Roman Church-- that he could not, in good conscience, affirm that the Pope has been innerrant in his promulgations of faith and practice in the past, nor that he will always be so guaranteed in the future, even if today he seems sound. What essentially emerges (confirmed by my conversation with several priests, and my reading of the CCC) is that unquestioned submission to the Pope is an article of faith necessary for those in the Roman Communion… and that’s a tough pill to swallow for Lutherans.

As for yielding to an ecumenical council, I’m not sure how better to phrase that. When the bishops of the east and west sit down to determine the path necessary to heal the schism, it will risk some dignity from the Patriarch of the West, just as it will from those of the East. All must be willing to submit to the Spirit of God, and abide by the decisions made in that forum. Vatican II invited bishops of the East and Bishops of the Reformation Churches to “observe,” but their voices were not worthy of direct contribution to the verdicts-- Rome could not suffer, at that time, to have it’s own authority challenged. As we enter the 3rd Millennium of the Church, my hope is that we will have another real ecumenical council, and setting our respective communions’ pride aside, return to unity in mutual submission.

Peace be with you.
Brad