But, as long as we're discussing this, let's not miss all the fun - here is a link to The Gift of Authority.

The present authorititave power structure of the Pope and the Vatican will never do in its present form for us schismatics. With all the corrupt, power crazed Popes we have put up ith in history, I for one would never be willing to agree to Papal infallibility. I know that you belong to a much more authority led chuch then I do, so I don't know how you see it, but on another thread you objected to people thinking they could have a "hot line" to God.

I`m a member of a High Church order in the Church of Sweden(SSB), and, as a evengelical, I can´t accept some of the teaching´s that Rome is dictating!

On the other hand, as a catholic I can´t accept all this heresys that began in 1517!
I refuse to think belive that the church can be devided into national-churches, ruled by earthly powers! Ie, I still belive in one earthly Church, under Rome!

But, the present role of the bishop of Rome has been hyped to far, the eastern churches prefer to consider him "Primus inter Pares", or, "First among Equals". Somehow, I think the truth lies somewhere between the present papacy, and that formula!

So, my conclusion is that a revised papacy, relivied of that hiddeous "Ex Cathedra" dogm, but on the other hand, accepted as the leader of the Church of this world, is the only way the papacy can be a unifying factor, bringing the divided churches together again!

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
Shall I 2nd guess you Fr Gregory? The Pope being the Patriarch of Rome would take his place amongst the other Patriarchs. (And if we are talking of the 'first among equals' traditionally this title belongs to the Holy Throne of Constantinople).

---

quote:

---

Shall I 2nd guess you Fr Gregory? The Pope being the Patriarch of Rome would take his place amongst the other Patriarchs. (And if we are talking of the 'first among equals' traditionally this title belongs to the Holy Throne of Constantinople).

---

Uhmmm! I think the first amongst equals thing has already been settled historically by the Orthodox. If Rome became Orthodox again, she would have this honour. In any case, Constantinople is but a shadow of her former sense. If Rome was in this position then the whole thing about "primus inter pares" would be rather academic. There's no particular significance attached to ANY city detached from the Church's actual position in that city. The Patriarchate of Antioch for example vacated Antioch long ago and now operates from Damascus, (Straight Street!)

Dear Hull Hound

quote:

---

Bede Griffiths, the radical Benedictine monk also advocated a more shared authority. I hope and pray that Catholicism adopts a more conciliar approach that moves forward from Vatican II and the centralising blip of JPII. Vatican II was the first step it must go further that will see Catholicism as part of a wider Christianity and search for God. Hubris is a high stool to slip off of, I hope we can climb down gracefully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Perhaps "Vicar of Christ," (who says He's absent anyway), "Supreme Pontiff," (I know no other bridge builder than Jesus), and all the rest ought to go in the same trash can!

---

Nice one! Fr. Gregory, you've motivated me to find out more about Pope Gregory, and about the history of the Orthodox relationships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
I can see this one getting provocative! I think in any future reunification of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church, and I don't intend to attempt to define what that means here, there would be a good case for considering the Pope as the "first among equals" as the AOC is in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

---

I'm looking forward to running this one past my baptist friends.

Only recently has the RC church admitted that other churches exist at all. This seems to me to be an attempt to remind everybody who the boss is, perhaps to encourage us nearer to the fold. Really it's difficult to see where it can lead.

I am happy to acknowledge the Pope's ecumenical importance, but it's on the basis that he is the head of one of largest Christian groups in the world, not because of some inherent authority that I have to acknowledge.

The primacy of Rome was cooked up in early times for the very same purpose of whipping unruly churches into line. It was counter-productive then, and it is now.

No, these titles are alive and kicking in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church ....

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 882)

Follow the link for Pope Gregory's teaching ...

Servant of the servants of God.

Let me play Devil's Advocate here, since everyone else will be beating up on the poor old Pope:
The Catholic Church is the only Christian church with unbroken historical roots, through the succession of Popes, to the church founded by Peter. "You are Peter, and on this rock I found my church." Peter eventually moved to Rome and was Martyred there.

Jesus said three times to Peter only to feed his sheep (NOT just SOME of his sheep.) Jesus established a clear hierarchy: Peter at the top, then James and John, then the rest of the Twelve, then assorted disciples and multitudes. We may not like authority, but Jesus founded one church with a clear leader.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermit3:
Jesus established a clear hierarchy: Peter at the top, then James and John, then the rest of the Twelve, then assorted disciples and multitudes...
(Hermit ducks and runs for cover.)

---

I don't want to down the Pope either but I wonder...

I've always wondered about that Peter, James and John muscling into the guest list 'A' slot, the squeeky wheels get the oil or leaders move to the front, I don't know.

[QUOTE Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I think the first amongst equals thing has already been settled historically by the Orthodox. If Rome became Orthodox again, she would have this honour.
[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

The title which I think this present Pope likes to use, and which for me, sums up what the papacy should be is this:
Servant of the servants of God.

---

.... first used of course by the same saint, Pope Gregory the Great in the context of his disavowal of universal jurisdiction. It seems as though you can't have both. Many people like to pick and choose the bits they like from the Catholic Church. What many people fail to understand is that it is the whole package and that in no way has Vatican 1 been superceded by Vatican 2.

Dear Hull Hound

I am going to stick my neck out here because you very, very rarely hear Roman Catholics or Orthodox spelling out clearly an agenda for unity. These are only my ramblings and do not constitute the official position of my Church.

For the Pope to become Orthodox would mean that he would either have to resign as Pope, (hence disinventing himself in his office), or that the whole of the Catholic Church would have to return to Orthodoxy in which case he could stay in place. The crucial question is how the Catholic Church could become Orthodox AGAIN. Well, let's first say what WOULDN'T have to happen. Rome would not have to accept:-

(1) Any dismantling of the papacy once restored to its original function and the structure that supports it.
(2) Any wholescale replacement of rites, liturgies etc. The Roman rite could easily become the Western Orthodox rite again with a few important "tweaks."
(3) Any amendment to its calendar, saints etc. Perhaps a few of the more ecumenically dubious ones could fade from view though.

Rome would have to:-

(1) Restore the Nicene Creed to its original form minus the filioque. It it did insist there was still an issue it would by then have accepted that such a thing was for an Ecumenical Council to decide.
(2) Accept the Orthodox Catholic unity of the Church on its original model as a unity of equals with precedence of respect as to teaching and ecumenicity accorded to Rome as the "senior brother," subject to the agreement of the rest of the Church. The concordance of Pope Leo the Great and his Tome with the Council of Chalcedon is a good working model of this role of the papacy.
(3) Undertake a review of those dogmas lacking ecumenical warrant and in the meantime, cease to make them binding on the faithful, (eg., the Immaculate Conception). All must be subject to the papacy, Councils and people working in consensual union.

Funny You should say this, i speaking as a Catholic, was chat chatting with some chums of mine (also RC's) and we all agreed that basically out of all the religions (and this will seem like a complete contradiction but...) RC is the most stable, but also the most hyppocritical and hilarious of all religions. Why? because the Papacy says one thing, which is meant to be holier than thou, and then some of the common preists completely ignores it!

E.g abortion, contraception etc. 'you are strictly forbidden to use condoms... but then again its up to the individual.' etc etc.

267 ??? 111 Gloria olivae

quote:

---

Originally posted by thethinker:
Papacy = head of a special club that no one really pays attention to.

---

I do.

I'm not sure about the authority thing either, but I would still take his word over some other peoples

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
Father Gregory
I think in any future reunification of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church, and I don't intend to attempt to define what that means here, there would be a good case for considering the Pope as the "first among equals" as the AOC is in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

---

Despite attempts to turn Lambeth into a Magisterium, the Anglican approach to authority seems to me to be completely irreconcilable with the RC one, and that the ARCIC compromise is only possible because a) the Anglicans on ARCIC have 'gone native' and don't reflect the broad sweep of Anglicanism any more, and b) the RCs probably have a completely different idea of what 'primus inter pares' means in this context.

The idea that Anglicans are going to accept 'the possibility, in certain circumstances, of the Church teaching infallibly at the service of the Church’s indefectibility' (para 52) is simply wishful thinking. Similarly, I suspect that the idea of 'a universal primacy, exercised collegially in the context of synodality'(loc.cit.) is also going to be entirely unacceptable to RCs when it is understood that this might involve the Pope making pronouncements on behalf of the Universal Church with which he and the RC bishops did not agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hermit3
The Catholic Church is the only Christian church with unbroken historical roots, through the succession of Popes, to the church founded by Peter.

---

quote:

---

Essentially the role is similar to that of the leaders of the other Christian Churches, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, and the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church.

---

Hull Hound,

quote:

---

I hope and pray that Catholicism adopts a more conciliar approach that moves forward from Vatican II and the centralising blip of JPII.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jus:
The Curia needs to come and sort this mess out.

---

The Pope himself might be able to sort out some mess, but I'm sure the curia would only make matters worse.

So it is not like the folks in the pews read encyclicals or even listen to what the pope has to say about birth control, globalization, abortion, capital punishment or war. But the sermons they hear, the liturgies they celebrate, and the patoral care they receive are certainly affected in the long term by the pope.

Of course, there are often countervailing influences, but I think the influence of the pope is undeniable.

Their influence on Christian and world opinion is still significant and long may it stay so. I say that even though I have stuggled with JPII's "conservatism" but who am I to say that that wasn't what has been best for the world during his time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
I think the point about infallability mentioned above is very misunderstood by most people. As far as I understand, it is only in very rare and specific circunstances that this applies.

---

My parents believed that on questions of faith and morals, one must ask the priest. My generation believes that on questions of faith and morals, one might consult a priest, and might even pay attention to what he says. My childrens' generation are hard pressed to see any reason to ask a priest anything.

It's Pandora's box... They'll never get the lid on again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thethinker:
ahh daisymay but the thing is that although the papacy says it is wrng to use contraception many of the lay preachers are pro choice! because they know that if they dont take the line of 'we are against abortion contraception etc, but of course its up to you' they would have masses of people turning against them! Its sort of 'you know what we think but you are free to make your own decision' and in any case i honestly believe that half of the common preists realise that realise that the stance of the papacy is a load of old boots!
hierachial misnomers are endemic of every religion!

---

I like this argument against the pope and the authority of the church the most. As if religion and the God's everlasting spirit has always been a popularity contest. So, what we say today, more than 30, 40 or 100 years ago, is that the more people on the side of an argument, especially where love and the everlasting are concerned, makes the argument right.

I forget but didn't the crowd call for Barabus? Didn't all of Christ's apostles run away, except for John? Later the spirit came and roused them up, regardless of their weakness and misunderstanding. Popularity means something in public elections, TV ratings and the fashion world. This is about the body of Christ on earth.

I think the Pope means something today because its the best we can do on earth. We no longer have the Bride Groom (darn it - 'cause it would be easy then, almost no religion - just the reality of heaven on earth). Just in normal reality, everything needs a leader. By our own experience, we know that anything without a leader will eventually crash. (Boat without a captain, a busy intersection without a streetlight ...).

The Pope sounds like the duck, walks like the duck, looks like the duck so he must be the duck. Sure we can find reasons why he is not the duck, but show me who then is the duck? Is it each of us ourselves? Is it the richest person in the world?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanuensis:
I recently heard the theory that the doctrine of papal infallibility has in fact weakened the authority of the Papacy.
The basis for this is the observation that it is extremely rare for (RC) theologians to universally agree that any particular statement is really ex cathedra. Therefore there are very few papal statements that can be regarded as truly authoritative, whereas in earlier centuries all his statements were authoritative, and nobody argued about it!

---

Except for the "nobody argued about it" part, I think there is a lot to what you say. Increasing precision in defining papal authority is as useful to those who want to avoid it as to those who want to assert it, maybe more useful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
I see no reason at all to listen to someone who is both arrogant and silly enough to tell other people not to use contraceptives. Women, men and children in the world are suffering because of that.

---

I realize this is not hell so I should watch my language (see the language thread), but this is a load of crap. I've seen no evidence that the denial of contraceptives to people is a significant source of suffering in the world. Why don't you try war, capitalism, hunger, or some of the other more obvious candidates? And even if not being able to chemically or mechanically regulate our fertility is a source of suffering, who says that we cannot tell other people that they ought to suffer? Indeed, the role of the Pope is to call the church to discipleship, and the call of the disciple is to suffer, even to die (see Bonhoeffer).

Now you might (quite reasonably, I think) make the argument that contraception is not a matter of discipleship. And I might (quite reasonably) make the argument that in a world in which sex has been reduced to recreation and children are viewed as tools of self-fulfillment that it just might be. But the logic of:

"x teaches that we should do y"
"doing y causes suffering"
"therefore I reject the authority of x"

is as much an argument for rejecting the authority of Jesus as of the Pope.

FCB

[UBB fixed]

quote:

---

I see no reason at all to listen to someone who is both arrogant and silly enough to tell other people not to use contraceptives. Women, men and children in the world are suffering because of that.

---

What theologian declared in the 1500's that birth control was the murder of future persons? His name is John Calvin! Presbyterians and Baptists follow in his tradition. What minister in the 1700's declared that taking "preventative measures" to prevent conception was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it? It was John Wesley the founder of the Methodist religion! Who declared that birth control was sodomy? That was Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation and is the founder of the Lutheran tradition! What church group ruled in the 1600's that a church official found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his position? The Pilgrims! Up until 1930 all Christian churches condemned artificial contraception as gravely immoral. The break in nineteen hundred years of unanimous Christian teaching came on August 14, 1930 at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, which had condemned contraception in both 1908 and 1920.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
It's the old contraception is the only logical/proper/capable reality when it comes to limiting the number of children one has argument.

I like this argument against the pope and the authority of the church the most

---

But one (in your view) weak argument against the papacy doesn't remove any other argument against the papacy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
I think the Pope means something today because its the best we can do on earth

---

Is he? We may be in more trouble than I thought

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
[QBBy our own experience, we know that anything without a leader will eventually crash[/QB]

---

The life for the RC Church can only get easier, just wait around long enough and all the Atheists, Baptists, Quakers etc will eventually crash and the papacy will inherit the earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
.... a busy intersection without a streetlight ...

---

But an intersection with a faulty streetlight will have more accidents than one where there are some simple lines painted on the road and people get on with following them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sniffy:
He is the duck. Quack. Quack. Quack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jus:
Daisymay,
What theologian declared in the 1500's that birth control was the murder of future persons? His name is John Calvin! Presbyterians and Baptists follow in his tradition. What minister in the 1700's declared that taking "preventative measures" to prevent conception was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it? It was John Wesley the founder of the Methodist religion! Who declared that birth control was sodomy? That was Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation and is the founder of the Lutheran tradition! What church group ruled in the 1600's that a church official found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his position? The Pilgrims! Up until 1930 all Christian churches condemned artificial contraception as gravely immoral. The break in nineteen hundred years of unanimous Christian teaching came on August 14, 1930 at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, which had condemned contraception in both 1908 and 1920.

So by your very own logic, you really shouldn't be giving a hoot about what the great fathers of the Reformation say. After all, they are silly and arrogant?

---

This Pope was living in the 20th Century (and now too, of course) when it became obvious that women's health is drained by having loads of children, and that means they can't look after those children they do have, who've survived. He needs to have a bit more common sense.

I am not aware that any of the reformers you mention set themselves up, or were set up by their followers as 'infallible' in any of their pronouncements. One of the foundations of the reformation was the education of the ordinary folk and the encouragement to think for ourselves. I think that's part of the priesthood of all believers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
Perhaps a RC can confirm, but I don't any of the Pope's pronouncements on contraception would be considered infallable?

---

Authoritative, yes. Infallible, no.

Daisymay,

I'm still waiting for evidence that prohibiting chemical or mechanical contraception is a significant source of suffering. And if so, does that make the prohibition wrong?

Just as medieval kings were surrounded by courtiers, who gained their own self-importance from the importance of the monarchy, and were thus far more protective of the royal dignity than was the king himself. So John Paul II, good man that he is, is surrounded by an institution dedicated to maintaining the prestige and infallibility of the Papacy, with the most conservative organisational culture on the planet.

Let us, at the head of the reunified church that we long to see, have a Pope who is a holy man. Who writes no encyclicals, and issues no bull. Who resolves disputes that are brought to him, rather than initiating policy. Who appoints cardinals on merit rather than their "soundness" on disputed questions. Who drops in informally on Christian bishops and world leaders alike. Who can admit where necessary that he was wrong and his predecessors were wrong.

Someone who's more the ship's doctor than the ship's captain.

Catholicism is a mostly Southern Hemisphere religion of the poor and if my respect for the office of the Papacy is not to dissolve further, then this is where the focus must be. The Papacy like any historic office faces the pressure to respond to the world to remain relevant, it also faces the pressure to fossilise into an eternal truth.

quote:

---

John Calvin! .... Baptists follow in his tradition.

---

quote:

---

This Pope was living in the 20th Century (and now too, of course) when it became obvious that women's health is drained by having loads of children, and that means they can't look after those children they do have, who've survived. He needs to have a bit more common sense.

---

Christians have held on to an anti-artificial contraception view for centuries. Just because society deems promiscous sex to be the norm, does not mean that christians have to change its morals and teachings to suit what it considers to be wrong. As Christians, we are to set the standard. Christ calls us to be the "salt of the earth". (Matt 5:13). This change in Protestant teaching, that now upholds the morality of artificial birth control, should pose a major problem for any Christian. Why? You are affirming, in effect, that the Holy Spirit failed to guide all Christians in a serious moral matter for 1,900 years! This is an unreasonable position for any Christian. If for 1,900 years all Christian churches can be wrong about contraception then they can be wrong in anything.

quote:

---

I am not aware that any of the reformers you mention set themselves up, or were set up by their followers as 'infallible' in any of their pronouncements.

---

This is what Martin Luther has to say regarding Catholics protest about the insertion of the word "alone" in his translation of Romans 3:28.

[I]If your Papist makes much unnecessary fuss about the word (Sola, alone), say straight out to him, Doctor Martinus Luther will have it so, and says, Papists and donkeys are one and the same thing. . . thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough. For we will not be the scholars and or the disciples of the Papists, but their masters and judges. We must once in a way act a little haughtily and noisily with these jack-asses.

From Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results. Taken Exclusively From the Earliest and Best Editions of Luther's German and Latin Works, By Henry O'Connor, pp. 23-26.

If this is not tantamount to a claim of infallibility, then I don't know what is.

Now, I don't admit to knowing anything about you so I am assuming you have done some research regarding the Catholic stance on contraception, before you make a judgement that the pope is silly and arrogant. (BTW, I have non-Christian friends who have met him personally, and while they may not agree with his teachings they claim that he exudes humility nonetheless)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jus:
Christians have held on to an anti-artificial contraception view for centuries. Just because society deems promiscous sex to be the norm, does not mean that christians have to change its morals and teachings to suit what it considers to be wrong.

---

This appears to be saying

Artificial contraception = promiscuous sex

From this logically follows the idea that those who use artificial contraception are not only sinning but also, by definition, promiscuous.

I suppose that this fits with the idea that a married couple who do not use contraception, resulting in a pregnancy that is terminated, commit a sin. those who use contraception sin every time they have sex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jus:
You are affirming, in effect, that the Holy Spirit failed to guide all Christians in a serious moral matter for 1,900 years! This is an unreasonable position for any Christian. If for 1,900 years all Christian churches can be wrong about contraception then they can be wrong in anything.

---

An error repeated is still an error. Longevity does not give authority. For hundreds of years the Church, at various times and places, persecuted Jews, it did not make it right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Authoritative, yes. Infallible, no.

Daisymay,

I'm still waiting for evidence that prohibiting chemical or mechanical contraception is a significant source of suffering. And if so, does that make the prohibition wrong?

FCB

---

The evidence is in the deaths over many years of so many women in childbirth, the bad health they endured, & the effect this had on their other children and husbands. Also that if a husband was willing not to have sex, this caused a strain on the marriage. And many women were so afraid of becoming pregnant and tried not to have penetrative that their husbands raped them.

This does not sound to me like suffering that does good in any way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

JPII - a nice man, great dress sense, but head of my church - no thanks.[/QB]

---