But, as long as we're discussing this, let's not miss all the fun - here is a link to The Gift of Authority.
I'm not going to comment on either document until I see how this thread develops, but I had the oddest thought when I was reading the gospel about Satan's tempting Jesus with the vision of the kingdom's of the world. I had this vague sense of the Father of Lies tempting him to a sense of futility with "Only a handful of people in this world believe in your Father, and those few are Hebrews! Look upon the rest of this pagan world! Who is going to ponder the Trinity, your nature, and such - the Greeks?! And you certainly cannot expect that your message is ever going to have any impact in Rome!"
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 can't agree with that. Although I reject much of what the protestant reformers said, that I, as an individual can come into a relationship with God, is IMHO their greatest legacy to us. When the church tells people that there is no salvation outside the church, then dogmatises and anathematises doctrine, along with excommunication for anyone who disagrees, the seeds are sown for corruption. It's too much power in high places that is so easily abused.
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!
Far-fetched? maybe, but only dreamers reach the stars!
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:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Shall I 2nd guess you Fr Gregory?
I agree, but I'm not sure about the Constantinople bit! 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:
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.
What better example to follow than Pope Gregory the Great, that outstanding Orthodox Bishop of Rome? He regarded the use of the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" as hubris in the extreme. 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! If Rome can get its act together on this one, (which frankly I doubt), then that which it now fights for with subterfuge and ecclesiastical politics would be in its possession without any effort at all. But, sadly, .... we've a long way to go before that happens. With God, however, all things are possible.
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.
Although these titles of self-aggrandisement are still bandied about by us plebs, haven't they been dropped officially?
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.
Excuse me, must take the pills now, I'm feeling a bit hot.
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.
Kirsti
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.
(Hermit ducks and runs for cover.)
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]
Fr. Gregory, intrigued about he Pope becoming Orthodox, what does this mean and how would he do it?
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.
How much better a process like this would be than us all holding hands in Assisi, Geneva, Moscow & wherever, pretending we're one when we're not.
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.
Papacy = head of a special club that no one really pays attention to.
267 ??? 111 Gloria olivae
268 ??? In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremêdus iudicabit populum suum. Finis.
(In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.) http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp
quote:
Originally posted by thethinker:
Papacy = head of a special club that no one really pays attention to.
I do.
FCB
I'm not sure about the authority thing either, but I would still take his word over some other peoples
Tubbs
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.
On the contrary, virtually ALL churches can probably show such unbroken historical roots, in the sense that they are linked back into it - their initital leaders came from a church that was an offshoot of a church that... . They may not be able to show that they 'caught' their apostolic status by the conatagion theory, ie the laying of hands on heads by those who had had hands laid on their heads by those (...) by the apostles, but then it is at least arguable that the RCC can't either. The line of Popes before Sixtus is generally accepted as apocryphal, and the early church (according to Schillebeeckx (sp??!!??))used to say that laying on of hands was not required for those who had been arrested and tortured as Christians and lived to tell the tale.
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.
I wish what you said was true but I think this is a bit of wishful thinking. The papacy claims universal jurisdiction over the whole body of Christ. No matter how cuddly and holy any pope actually is, that's the role; that's the structure .... that's the problem! This is NOTHING like the aforementioned other ministers and their roles.
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.
I hope and pray not. 
I personally believe the Pope has to do MUCH more to ensure that his bishops do not start leading the faithful astray and bring scandal to the Catholic Church. Especially here in the UK with all the sex scandals. It makes the Catholic Bishops seem so incompetent. The Curia needs to come and sort this mess out.
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.
FCB
However do people really believe that the papacy itself wields genuine and significant influence of the catholic church at its grass roots level? in my experience it does not! Please show me otherwise!
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.
FCB
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.
I think the point about infallability mentioned above is very misunderstood by most people. As afr as I understand, it is only in very rare and specific circunstances that this applies. Not whenever he speaks e.g. if he says "hey Monseignor Roma are going to thrash Lazio next weekend" doesn't make it an infallable truth!
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.
A "rare and specifically" infallible pope may only be a very small baby, but it is still a baby, and that's too much baby for many of us.
What do those in the know think of this?
This of course gives the other religions such as orthodoxy and anglicans the chance to cluck about double standards, but it seems to me that they are just as bad! So lets just conclude from this that all religion has its flaws and at the end of the day hierachial misnomers are endemic of every religion! 
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.
--Lou, a former RC observing from the sidelines.
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!
Exactly.
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?
He is the duck. Quack. Quack. Quack.
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]
[ 20 February 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
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.
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?
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.
And a right duck too.
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.
FBC, I think that someone who has held to such ideas about contraception, in the face of so much suffering, needs to be humble enough to submit to education on the subject. Of course there are other causes of suffering and poverty, but to add this one in is a bit of a last straw.
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?
FCB
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.
Russ
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.
I like to remind myself that the Church is the People of God, often, all people. We only need the Papacy if it is effective. I need a hero.
quote:
John Calvin! .... Baptists follow in his tradition.
No they don't he persecuted the Baptists.
General Baptists have never been Calvinist.
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)
Regards
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.
JPII - a nice man, great dress sense, but head of my church - no thanks.
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.
A couple of generations ago, a woman in our family had 6 children who survived at least a few years, and nine more pregnancies that resulted in still-births and then miscarriages. She is not untypical of the type of suffering I am talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:JPII - a nice man, great dress sense, but head of my church - no thanks.[/QB]
QEII - nice lady, terrible dress sense, head of my church - no thanks - oh dear she is!
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
QEII - nice lady, terrible dress sense, head of my church - no thanks - oh dear she is!
LOL MT.
My sentiments entirely.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
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
I don't want to get this thread too far off topic, but I would tend to attribute the drop in deaths during childbirth to medical advances, not to fewer births. Do you really want to argue that giving birth itself is bad for women's health?
But what does this have to do with the Papacy?
FCB
quote:
It is not anyone's business to interfere with what we do in private - it's between us and God.
How far do you take this?
Can't think straight, BTW, too excited about the curling.
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.
Yup, that's right, the Christian churches can be wrong about anything.
Being a Christian means believing that they're basically right about Jesus being worth following, about having appeared to his followers after his death, about his intimate father-son type relationship with God.
But that doesn't extend to having to believe that everything that the churches have ever agreed on is right. Our faith is in God above, not in clergy below.
For centuries the church agreed that it was morally important to be a good master to one's slaves. And now agrees that slavery is wrong.
For centuries the church agreed that lending money at interest was wrong. And now agrees that profiting from the weakness/misfortune of others by excessive interest rates (and selling them loans they can't afford to repay) is wrong.
For centuries the church may have agreed that contraceptive devices were wrong. But how many people actually thought about it and put forward moral arguments ? How many actually prayed about it ? And how many just went along with what everyone else thought ?
God doesn't promise us that our prayers (whether for moral insight or anything else) will always be granted. Christianity does tell us that we are all sinners, we all need a plank taking out of our own eye. And I'd argue that that applies collectively as well as individually.
God shows himself to us in hints and glimpses. He doesn't bestow on us all that instant enlightenment that would let us stand totally outside our cultural assumptions (e.g. about whether slavery is a natural condition, or whether the highest purpose a woman can have is to bear children, or whether out-breeding the infidel is a good idea).
Russ
I myself have no idea how I would assess the need for the papacy specifically. Certainly, many developments through the centuries greatly influenced the development of a form of authority which differed from that of an earlier time, and which involves not only teaching authority but universal jurisdiction. I'd be extremely interested in a serious, sound exploration of the topics concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
But why should the Bish of Rome be "first among equals"? Why should we listen to one person in Christendom more than another?
An interesting point, which I will attempt to
answer when I am more sober than currently...
PS. Joan the Dwarf says hello.
Like you I am intrigued that many here should think that this question is primarily about what the papacy tries to "enforce" and how awful it is. I repeat my invitation for folk to consider whether the papacy can or should rediscover its role in promoting Christian unity, perhaps on the First Millennium model (Orthodox) or some other ground? Why can't we talk about the office and role of the papacy? Why do we always have to talk about iiiisssssuuuueeeessssssss?! 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
But why should the Bish of Rome be "first among equals"? Why should we listen to one person in Christendom more than another?
Hurrah for strong black coffee and plenty of sleep.... I can recommend this little bar/ restauranty thing just on the left by Finchley Road tube station.
Hmm, well I think that, in reality, the Church is going to have 'spokespersons', and that the B of R has historically had such a role, and is well placed to have it in a future reunited Church. This really is quite a minimalist understanding of papacy, I see the Pope as a 'megaphone' for articulating the consensus of the People of God. He is not 'more important' than anyone else. Nor is the development of doctrine the exclusive preserve of men in purple socks. In fact, no small amount of the Church's development of doctrine goes on on these bulletin boards.
I think it's very important for the church to be hierarchical only for reasons of convenience rather than principle: for eg I view CofE bishs as human resources managers (not v. good ones in most cases, but hey ). The problem I see with the Papacy at the moment is that it is not presented in a convenience way - it's presented as the head and source of Roman Catholicism. As such, any move to make the Pope head of a united Church would (rightly) come under fire from those of us who are unwilling to submit to this person. In an ideal world, yes, the position would not be one of submission, but I can't see how it could be otherwise given the historical way the Pope has acted, and people have reacted to him.
Hmm, I'm rambling somewhat. I need teeeea...
"The Bishop of Rome hath no juristiction in this realm of England." 
Newman's Own, my example was about anyone who has power to tell people what to believe or how to behave causes difficulty for individuals. It is something that I feel strongly about and as such, colours my views.
As to the political influence of the papacy, even up to recent times, with all the controversy about the "Nazi-loving" WW2 bloke, it's not always been 'godly'.
Is it a political post rather than a spiritual one?
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I think the problem I see is that the Pope has traditionally been more of a megalomaniac than a megaphone, and that in this non-ideal world the idea of "first amongst equals" almost always gets elided to "first, do as I say". This is what happened, AFAIK, historically: the Bish of Rome started getting too big for his boots, taking more and more authority, and finally overstepped the mark big time with the filioque - leading to the great schism.**A slight oversimplification, methinks, of the filioque controversy. If you want a chat about this, Joan, feel free... In any case, if we're talking about people getting 'too big for their' boots, is this really the unique preserve of the B of R, or a more general fact about sinful humanity in positions of power? Humility is not a virtue in much evidence amongst many Anglican bishops. Nor indeed, in acertain 16th century King.
I think it's very important for the church to be hierarchical only for reasons of convenience rather than principle: for eg I view CofE bishs as human resources managers (not v. good ones in most cases, but hey
** I have not been talking about submission. In fact I am very keen to push a decentralised model of the Church (hence, my comments on the development of doctrine). The view of bishops as "human resources managers", far from being non-hierechical, baptises the (very oppressive) hierarchy of capitalist modernity, and is, to put it mildly, a rather strange view for someone who defines herself as "Catholic" to hold. Liberal elitist managerialism is the bane of the modern C of E.
Hmm, I'm rambling somewhat. I need teeeea...
"The Bishop of Rome hath no juristiction in this realm of England."
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
But, Divine Outlaw, maybe the idea of a Church with formal pronouncements to the world is a twisting of what the church should be; we are an undercover revolutionary body who turn the world upside down, and when we get into any sort of power-place, we often mess it up.
Yes, that is a danger, and one we need to be aware of, continually praying for humility. But, don't think that the absence of formal structures will bring about an egalitarian Church. Rather, it will merely lead to the Church reproducing the structures of society more generally. Those with most money, the articulate, the powerful - all of these will have most influence. Now, I accept this happens at the moment in episcopal Churches. I am looking forward to a future Church, characterised by more of an "ideal speech situation" (in the terms of the philosopher Habermas), in which the bishop as chair and spokesperson acts as a kind of anti-hierarchy hierarchy.
Yes, Christianity is a revolutionary theory. But revolutionary theory requires a revolutionary organisation.
I have wanted to respond to Fr. Gregory’s own ideas about how the Pope could become Orthodox again, and I just couldn’t, I don’t think it isn’t important, it just isn’t of interest to me and I perceive not to most of my fellow Catholics.
I have sympathy with Daisymay’s extreme annoyance of claimed authority but again, I think this is an issue that has been settled between Daisymay and her conscience. It is important to Daisymay and those of similar conviction but it just isn’t an issue for me and I perceive not to most of my fellow Catholics.
I could have a self-selecting audience (almost certainly do) but the authority of the Papacy over me and my friends is also a non-issue. Encounters with Catholic groups and individuals who do place high importance to structure and authority have left me wondering whether we are part of the same church. I suppose a broad church is a strength?
The papacy has a place as PART of the world scene in its infancy. It is an easily identifiable symbol for all and to understand the power of this we must step outside the bounds of Christianity. The recent hyper-awareness of Islam, the outside perceptions of Islam as a monolith and the lack of an obvious and discreet leadership have not been helpful. In my opinion the Papacy does NOT have the authority that it claims but it does have the authority of being globally identifiable. For some nominal Christians and non-Christians the Papacy is good T.V only.
It is easier though not easy for me to say that we shouldn’t focus too much on the role of the Papacy, it authority and leadership within Christianity but on its global (whole world and local) pragmatic use.
quote:
I have wanted to respond to Fr. Gregory’s own ideas about how the Pope could become Orthodox again, and I just couldn’t, I don’t think it isn’t important, it just isn’t of interest to me and I perceive not to most of my fellow Catholics.
FrG: It may not be of any interest to you but if the Roman Catholic Church is at all genuinely interested in helping to heal the Great Schism then an Orthodox understanding of both the papacy and the Church is not immaterial to that quest.
As a personal position, I just don't think the healing of the Great Schism is of Cosmic significance although it is of particular interest to our two traditions.
(1) Christian disunity is a scandal to our message of reconciliation.
(2) It is a gross waste of resources, gifts and expertise.
(3) It's a violation of charity.
(4) It's a denial of Christ's call to unity for His Church.
All of these have significant ramifications for our mission.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
There is a very direct connection with the wider world:-(1) Christian disunity is a scandal to our message of reconciliation.
(2) It is a gross waste of resources, gifts and expertise.
(3) It's a violation of charity.
(4) It's a denial of Christ's call to unity for His Church.All of these have significant ramifications for our mission.
I fully agree on points 1 & 2. I don't fully understand 3. Point 4 is interesting, I think you understand my understanding Church as representing all humanity. We seem to be talking about different things on point 4.
Do you think the Papacy and the incumbent Pope is the most visible parts of Christianity? Is this significant?
quote:
I fully agree on points 1 & 2. I don't fully understand 3. Point 4 is interesting, I think you understand my understanding Church as representing all humanity. We seem to be talking about different things on point 4.
FrG: Point 3 ... "It's a violation of charity." Love isn't the absence of conflict it's a proactive and self sacrificial toil for oneness in diversity. Not to work for unity (organic not just "invisible") is a sin.
Point 4: (4) "It's a denial of Christ's call to unity for His Church."
In John 17 Christ prayed for the unity of His Church. It's as simple as that ... connects into point 3.
quote:
Do you think the Papacy and the incumbent Pope is the most visible parts of Christianity? Is this significant?
The visibility of something is, by itself, hardly significant at all. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within you. A juggernaut truck out of control and bearing down on me from 10 metres is highly visible .... and not particularly desirable.
I do believe that the papacy could reassume (for all Christians I mean) its role as a service to the servants of God and as an enabler of Christian unity. It will never do that though on a "top-down" model. The function of the hierarchy is to support, direct, guide, rebuke and encourage ... not in a monarchical fashion, still less in a democratic fashion. The taking up again of an Orthodox practice of the primacy of the Roman see, (something we have never abandoned), would require major upheavals in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church. I just don't think that you're ready for that just yet. Maybe we aren't either! Maybe one day God will force the issue. Maybe the catalyst will be Islam.
So the POPE'S a juggernaut
I think we all hope that relations with Islam don't deteriorate drastically and precipitate anything. The Orthodox churches (apart from Catholicism in Spain) might not be the best experiences to dwell upon.
Anyway, a toast to unity (not holding hands).
1) I think Daisymay and I are simply at an impasse. I think that "private life," at least in the strong sense of something inviolable to any authority, is a terible idea. And what convicned me of this was not the papacy but the "radical feminist" legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon.
2) I am open to some of what Fr. Gregory suggests regarding the papacy becoming more "Orthodox," and I think Ut Unum Sit possibly points in the same direction. My question is, would the Orthodox be willing to give ground on anything? I don't mean to be rude or anything, but lately it seems to me that Rome has taken the initiative a number of times with the Orthodox, only to be rebuffed, rather harshly. Frankly, these days it seems that it is the Orthodox who are taking the "my way or no way at all" approach and not Rome.
3) I think the real issue is that most Christians, at least in the developed world, don't give a damn about Christian unity beyond wanting to have joint services on occasion and finding it rude when a tradition doesn't practice open communion. I think denominationalism has sunk deep into out psyches and we think it's actually good to have different churches for different kinds of people. It's like having Coke and Pepsi. But I agree with Fr. G that it is an important issue -- perhaps the most important one. The visible, institutional unity of the body of Christ is part of the sacramental presence of Christ in the world. It's importance cannot be underestimnated.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
I think the problem I see is that the Pope has traditionally been more of a megalomaniac than a megaphone
Nice turn of phrase.
Rdr Alexis
quote:
2) I am open to some of what Fr. Gregory suggests regarding the papacy becoming more "Orthodox," and I think Ut Unum Sit possibly points in the same direction. My question is, would the Orthodox be willing to give ground on anything? I don't mean to be rude or anything, but lately it seems to me that Rome has taken the initiative a number of times with the Orthodox, only to be rebuffed, rather harshly. Frankly, these days it seems that it is the Orthodox who are taking the "my way or no way at all" approach and not Rome.
This is what the Orthodox NEED to give ground on, (never mind "want") ...
(1) Phyletism .... by our own definition a heresy. Each city must have one bishop ... no overlapping jurisdictions, diasporal mentalities and the like.
(2) A connected issue .... turf wars. Russia is ours, Italy is yours and all of that. Don't the Russian Orthodox realise that if you make things difficult for a Catholic presence / hierarchy in Russia you have precious little justification for Orthodox structures in the west? What are us western Orthodox supposed to do ... emigrate to Moscow?
(3) Abandon the fetish Consatantinople and Moscow (particularly) have with being the centre of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a life, not a geography. Mind you if the Roman Catholic Church only had 5000 souls left and Italy was solidly Muslim I wouldn't be waxing lyrical about the primacy of Rome either. (This inverts the actual situation in Istanbul for those who don't recognise my irony). This city mysticism is really quite ridiculous. We Antiochian Orthodox vacated the real Antioch centuries ago and moved to Damascus. We are none the worse for that. (Mind you the papacy did move to Avignon I recall).
That's just getting rid of the negatives. There are a lot of other positives we need to do.
But what did Jesus want? After all, we are supposed to Christians. What did Jesus intend by establishing a hierarchy with Peter as clear leader? How much and what kind of authority did Jesus give Pope Peter I, and the apostles - are there any hints in scripture?
Some early Christians rebelled against fixed authority by taking turns being bishop and deacon, changing the person who offered the sacrifice of mass every week (according to Elaine Pagels). Could we have a different Pope every year to avoid swelled heads?
It's certainly not authority as such that is the problem with the papacy for the Orthodox, (in case I was included in that last comment ). We have a very strong of authority in our hierarchy.
For example, (and this will shock some here ... but what the heck!), if I want to travel outside my diocese (for any reason) I have to get my bishop's blessing. It's 99% always given but the reasoning is that I am not just travelling as a Christian but as a priest, a man under authority ... I seem to remember that Jesus commended that in a certain centurion.
Anyway, it's not authority that's the issue but the excerise of that authority without collegiate responsibility to the whole, (such as assumed by the papacy).
My bishop is likewise a man under authority, (but not another bishop ... our processes are synodal ... even the Patriarch has only one vote on the Synod).
It's the lack of the horizontal as a component with the vertical that worries us about Rome. My impression with Rome is that the bishops are rathered hemmed in by the Curia. The European Conference of Bishops seems to me to be a rather toothless beastie.
It's no use claiming how united the Roman Catholic Church is. Remember that it was itself responsible for spawning the Reformation and that rebellious spirit that further fractured the Christian world into thousands of denominations. Perhaps if Rome had been a little more Orthodox in this regard the Protestant Reformation might never have happened. Our disunity is that of squabbling family members but at the end of the day we are still all one family.
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
But what did Jesus want? After all, we are supposed to Christians. What did Jesus intend by establishing a hierarchy with Peter as clear leader? How much and what kind of authority did Jesus give Pope Peter I, and the apostles - are there any hints in scripture?
I don't think Jesus did establish a heirarchy or make Peter "Pope". (He did after all say, "Call no one on earth 'father'")
I do think he gave the apostles 'authority to forgive sins etc.', which I understand as being the power to tell people the gospel so that they could accept the good news of the atoming death of Jesus and so be forgiven.
The Celtic Church had John as 'their' apostle, not Peter.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
My impression with Rome is that the bishops are rathered hemmed in by the Curia. The European Conference of Bishops seems to me to be a rather toothless beastie.
Yep, Individual Bishops do have some clout, for example Basil Hume's (he was a Cardinal too) privilege of having some married Catholic priests in England and Wales.
Bishop conferences do have sway especially if what they say rocks the boat (not SOF!), Latin American Bishops Conference, held in Medellin was seminal in promoting a theolgy of liberation.
The more centralised the authority the more creative the rest becomes. Don't wait for permission to do something good. We have good role model(s) here.
quote:
The more centralised the authority the more creative the rest becomes. Don't wait for permission to do something good. We have good role model(s) here.
FrG: I'm not convinced. Creativity tends to be stifled in top down organisations, not stimulated ... unless it leads to schism .... which the western Church is rather good at.
It's sort of like people keep trying to tell me how repressed I am by the papacy, but I must say that I just don't feel repressed.
FCB
quote:
It's sort of like people keep trying to tell me how repressed I am by the papacy, but I must say that I just don't feel repressed.
I'm sure you don't but then again you probably have not had to deal with it first hand. I think that's how many Catholics accommodate the papacy ... a powerful unity thing but sufficiently distant to be safely ignored. From contaceptives to New Age / syncretist priests Rome is only nominally under control. That's why new "Reformations" and schisms are bound to happen when the spiritual temperature goes up.
quote:
Our disunity is that of squabbling family members but at the end of the day we are still all one family.
I like that.
quote:
"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
Good point.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear FCBI'm sure you don't but then again you probably have not had to deal with it first hand. I think that's how many Catholics accommodate the papacy ... a powerful unity thing but sufficiently distant to be safely ignored. From contaceptives to New Age / syncretist priests Rome is only nominally under control.
It is true that in some sense I don't deal with the Papacy "first-hand", but then I can't imagine why I would need to. Rome has bigger things to worry about than me. At the same time, I pray for the Pope at every mass I attend, I try to read his encyclicals and letter, at least the ones that pertain most to me. I would hardly say that I "ignore" the Pope. Certainly some Catholics do, but I think that Rome has (wisely) decided that it would do more harm than good (even if it were possible) to try and strictly enforce every canon for every Catholic.
Rome tends to step in only in highly public situation where there is a danger of scandal (in the sense of a stumbling block to the weak, not in the sense of articles in the tabs). And even then, it often leaves these matters up to more local authorities. For example, it was the Dominicans who expelled Matthew Fox for violating his vow of obedience. I am sure Rome let it be known that they were not happy with him, but it was in a sense an intra-Dominican matter.
FCB
As you have described it that precisely describes the relationship I have with my bishop. Your description of course does not exhaust the role of the papacy. We would not be on common ground if you expanded your description.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear FCBAs you have described it that precisely describes the relationship I have with my bishop. Your description of course does not exhaust the role of the papacy. We would not be on common ground if you expanded your description.
I suppose I should also add that he does (more or less) appoint my bishop, who (more or less) appoints my pastor, who (more or less) I have to listen to the homilies of. And I suppose he might solemnly declare a new dogma, but there are no serious candidates for new dogmas on the horizon (they usually appear a few centuries before their solemn declaration).
And certainly if I were a priest I would have to expand my description even further.
FCB
Ah! Now we're talking ...
quote:
I suppose I should also add that he does (more or less) appoint my bishop, who (more or less) appoints my pastor, who (more or less) I have to listen to the homilies of. And I suppose he might solemnly declare a new dogma, but there are no serious candidates for new dogmas on the horizon (they usually appear a few centuries before their solemn declaration).And certainly if I were a priest I would have to expand my description even further.
(1) Papal appointment of bishops --- not apostolic.
(2) Declaration of new dogmas by the papacy --- not apostolic.
That's quite apart from the content of the "new" dogmas. As to "new" ... initially the Roman Catholic Church resisted Newman's notion that doctrine developed, then, in the 19th century, it embraced the idea gladly. So, as to doctrine "developing" ... not apostolic as well.
[Now just in case folk here say that the words "Trinity" "homoousios" "enhypostatic" are not in the New Testament either; their use by the Church is not a doctrinal development but an outworking and elucidation of the faith once revealed to the saints. In other words, the Bible requires that we use non-biblical words to expound Scripture in different cultures and labguages. Tradition should not, then, go off at a tangent inventing new ideas. This became possible in the Roman Catholic Church because Tradition was thought of as a parallel source of revelation, not one that was suffused and delimited by and with Scripture, the creeds etc., themselves].
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear FCBAh! Now we're talking ...
(1) Papal appointment of bishops --- not apostolic.
(2) Declaration of new dogmas by the papacy --- not apostolic.
Agreed on both points. Though as to the first, I think that this is something that RC's would be quite willing to change. It is really very recent (19th century) and has a lot to do with the Church's attempts to free itself from various governmental contols. Indeed, I can't imagine that JPII thinks that, were full communion with the Orthodox ever reestablished, that they (you) would ever agree to his appointing bishops for the East.
As to the second, defining new dogmas, I think there are some real differences here regarding whether you think of the on-going doctrinal reflection of the Church as a "making explicit" of what is already implicit or as a "developing" or as something else. But I also think that there might be possible ways beyond the impasse.
I sometimes wonder if the 19th century definition of Papal infallibility might someday be looked back on as a kind of "emergency measure" of the church in the West needed to cope with certain challenges of modernity. Perhaps in a church in which East and West were reunited, it would simply not need to be invoked.
FCB
Within the Catholic Church the Pope appoints bishops and cardinals.
Who then, within the Orthodox Church appoints bishops (or their equivalents), and in what way is it more apostolic?
Father Gregory:
(2) Declaration of new dogmas by the papacy --- not apostolic.
Firstly there are no ‘new dogmas’ but ‘clarifications’ of what has been understood by the Church for a very long time.
The need for the Nicene Creed exemplifies just that. The first few centuries of Christianity produced many heresies. There was a need to define or clarify basic doctrine on such matters as the true nature of Christ (or the true natures of Christ if you prefer) and the nature of the Trinity.
The Nicene Creed did not introduce ‘new dogmas’ it simply defined what was understood by the Christian body.
After all, we are not likely to understand the Trinity this side of the grave. Nor are we likely, truly to understand the two natures of Christ.
I do not think that either of us subscribes to the belief that all divine revelation exists in the Bible, nor that divine revelation ceased as soon as the ink dried on the last page of the book of revelations!
Yours in Christ
quote:
Father Gregory:
1) Papal appointment of bishops --- not apostolic
Within the Catholic Church the Pope appoints bishops and cardinals.
Who then, within the Orthodox Church appoints bishops (or their equivalents), and in what way is it more apostolic?
In the Patriarchate of Antioch (and this more or less goes for the other Orthodox churches) the Holy Synod draws up a list of candidates from nominations from the diocese or another diocese(s). Elections take place in the diocese and the Synod then considers a short list from which it decides. Matthias replaced Judas by a cruder method but nowhere did the Bishop of Rome have sole perogative, (or indeed any perogative).
quote:
Father Gregory:
(2) Declaration of new dogmas by the papacy --- not apostolic.Firstly there are no ‘new dogmas’ but ‘clarifications’ of what has been understood by the Church for a very long time.
The need for the Nicene Creed exemplifies just that. The first few centuries of Christianity produced many heresies. There was a need to define or clarify basic doctrine on such matters as the true nature of Christ (or the true natures of Christ if you prefer) and the nature of the Trinity.
The Nicene Creed did not introduce ‘new dogmas’ it simply defined what was understood by the Christian body.
After all, we are not likely to understand the Trinity this side of the grave. Nor are we likely, truly to understand the two natures of Christ.
I do not think that either of us subscribes to the belief that all divine revelation exists in the Bible, nor that divine revelation ceased as soon as the ink dried on the last page of the book of revelations!
Charles, I said BY THE PAPACY. The Nicene Creed is a creed of an Ecumenical Council. You speak as if you are not aware that these are the touchstone for the Orthodox. You imply that we are a "Sola Scriptura" Church; which we are not. I was talking about the Dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception .... which are developments not elucidations.
On that matter FCB I think your suggestions are eminently sensible. Bishop Kallistos Ware said that IF St. Augustine's line on original sin was biblical then the Immaculate Conception would follow. As it is we don't believe that it is and therefore the IC is not necessary. The root of the problem though is St. Augustine's understanding of original sin.
Father Gregory:
Elections take place in the diocese and the Synod then considers a short list from which it decides.
So within the Orthodox tradition, the authority lies with the Holy Synod and not with any individual.
Yes, I am much happier with the consensus of opinion, of a Synod or council, such as the Councils of Trent and Vatican 1 & 2. (I know that you do not accept these, but they are relevant to the Catholic Church.)
The doctrine of Papal infallibility was the product of Vatican 1 (1870)
I think the timing of this is significant.
Garibaldi had brought about the unification of Italy.
The Papacy had lost its temporal power and much of its land.
The Pope was a virtual prisoner within the Vatican.
To console himself, the Pope concentrates on his spiritual power, and has the Council declare him infallible in matters regarding the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Was the doctrine of Papal infallibility the first infallible pronouncement? (I hear you ask! Good question!)
But again I think that the issue of infallibility is a question of tradition and not something dreamt up in the 19th century. It was generally accepted, and for a very long time, that in matters of doctrine (within the Catholic Church) the pope was the arbiter. It all comes of being in the shoes of the fisherman.
I did not mean to imply that the Orthodox Church is a “Sola Scriptura” Church, quite the opposite! I quote:
Charles:
I do not think that either of us subscribes to the belief that all divine revelation exists in the Bible, nor that divine revelation ceased as soon as the ink dried on the last page of the book of revelations!
Yours in Christ
Charles
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I wonder if I'm the only one who thought Father Gregory's initial question to be intriguing, and who is totally disappointed in this thread. I had hoped for a sound exploration of the entire issue, with historical perspective and theological explorations. Instead, we're back to wicked Rome spying on "consenting adults," wanting women to be raped and destroyed, not caring about world wide misery.
Dear Newman's Own,
Somewhat tentatively, I have to suggest that we can have a serious discussion without it being explicitly historical or theological.
The question seems to me to be about how far the papacy would have to change in order to be acceptable at the head of a reunited Christendom. Would it be changed out of all recognition ? Or is there a clear worthwhile core function recognised and appreciated by all Christians, such that only some aspects of the current interpretation of the role would have to change ?
To the historically minded, it may be interesting to date that interpretation - the last one and a half centuries or so ? But that may be a little beside the point; the majority is not necessarily right, whether that majority is taken over Christian centuries or anything else.
The idea that one particular organisational structure is optimal for all time seems to me an interesting and unproven hypothesis. Is our ideal today of what the Church should be a more pluralistic idea, more accepting of diversity, than Christians of previous centuries (who had less contact with other cultures) would have advocated ?
Some posts may have side-tracked a little into debating contraception, but identifying as a starting point the sort of thing that needs to change seems a valid contribution.
It can be very surprising for people on the inside of a large organisation, with some appreciation of how it works and the currents of thought within it, to realise how threateningly monolithic and unresponsive such an organisation can appear from without.
"Not caring about world-wide misery" is interesting, as is the shades of meaning between "development" of doctrine and "outworking and elucidation".
I wonder if one of the things that is perceived as being wrong with the papacy is that the merit of an idea is seen as less important than the ease with which it can be presented as an extension of previous thinking. In our soundbite society, politicians frequently attempt to conceal the extent to which what they are now saying differs from what they previously said. This has, I suggest, rather more to do with hubris than with honesty. And the similarity is disturbing for those who want the leadership of the church to be men and women that all Christians can genuinely look up to.
Having had some very clear issues from the Orthodox side presented by Father Gregory, I'd be interested to hear from shipmates who identify themselves with evangelical Protestantism, as well as more Catholics giving an idea of how attached to the current concept of the papacy they are - what would they consider negotiable and what isn't ?
I think Hull Hound is right to suggest that many Roman Catholics don't care much for Christian unity (perhaps because for them the Church is the Roman Catholic church, and the rest is an irrelevance ?). And there is presumably a protestant equivalent (the church is those who accept Jesus as their personal lord and Saviour, and anyone else is an irrelevance?)
It's almost as if those who don't attend any church are more interested in the issue of unity (because it in some sense "disproves" or discredits Christianity, in the same way as immoral conduct by clergy does).
Sorry, this is a rather disjointed ramble today.
Russ
