NationStates Jolt Archive

A post on the thread about the Pope saying that America is becoming souless made me think of some I've been meaning to ask for a while now.

Should the church have Conciliarism or Papal Supremacy?

I would go for Conciliarism, for reasons I'll say later, but first I would be interested what other people (esp. Catholics) think.

If I was Pope I would make the Church even more centralised than it is now. I would make sure that there are far more checks on Priests and that certain rules are obeyed (such as celibacy).

However, I would also favour 'council-type' meetings between the Pope and all the Cardinals. Nothing more than that though.

Just out of interest. Why do you believe that the Church should be more centralised and bureaucratic?

Just out of interest. Why do you believe that the Church should be more centralised and bureaucratic?

Not bureaucratic at all.

And I think it needs to be more centralised in order to make sure that the Priests are doing what they are meant to be doing and not stuff that they shouldn't be doing.

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to fuck with it

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to f--- with it

Yes, amazingly, I agree. :D :shock: :D

Just out of interest. Why do you believe that the Church should be more centralised and bureaucratic?

Not bureaucratic at all.

And I think it needs to be more centralised in order to make sure that the Priests are doing what they are meant to be doing and not stuff that they shouldn't be doing.

But surely if you make something more centralised and enforce the rules in a tougher manner you will need a larger bureucracy?

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to f--- with it

Yes, amazingly, I agree. :D :shock: :D

Except that it hasn't. Traditionally Ecumenical councils were superior to the Pope and could replace him (digging into the depths of my memory Felix IV was made Pope this way)

But surely if you make something more centralised and enforce the rules in a tougher manner you will need a larger bureucracy?

Well, I suppose. I'm not sure really.

But one thing I do know is that I want more control over Priests and what they do.

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to f--- with it

Yes, amazingly, I agree. :D :shock: :D
Hey CE,

we agree on shit when it comes to the church, but thats about it

BUMP

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to f--- with it

Yes, amazingly, I agree. :D :shock: :D

Considering it survived the fall of Roman Empire, barbarian invasions, schisms, civil wars, reformations ...

It has worked for 2000 years the way it is now, so there is no reason to f--- with it

Yes, amazingly, I agree. :D :shock: :D

Considering it survived the fall of Roman Empire, barbarian invasions, schisms, civil wars, reformations ...

Except that the modern Papacy isn't like the traditional one.

I am generally a fan of grassroots control and this case is no different. You do realize though that this was one of the reasons why the Protestants split off, right?

I am generally a fan of grassroots control and this case is no different. You do realize though that this was one of the reasons why the Protestants split off, right?

Yeah, iirc Luther (and other reformers) appealed to a council rather than to a pope to legitamize their views. Which I suppose answers the question that no non-catholics have said that the Church should be run by papalism (NB: This does not mean that there is no pope btw).


Also I have a correction to make to a previous post. It was Martin V (not Felix IV) who was made pope via council, at the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council at Constance (1414-1418).

I think the Church should be run through general councils, if only because that was the way it was originally run. There were those with more influence, but there was no one person with supreme influence until the East/West split and then they started having popes - many of whom were corrupt and actually harmed, rather than helped the church. Democracy may be difficult, but a dictatorship is often more harmful.

if you want a counciliarist church join the orthodox church. even the pope has conceded that orthodox believers can go to heaven

Just keep church and state separated, then, do whatever you want in your little church.

As a Catholic, I'd prefer a pope. If the church is run through concils, it'd go the way of many pure democracies: dysfunctional. After all, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Then again, the pope may be a weakling, too. But that's why the College of Cardinals exists. It's a system that's worked beautifully for millenia, and will continue to work.

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...
The tradition of the papacy started with Peter. The Bible says that Jesus chose Peter as "the rock" to build His church upon. Peter then chose another guy to succeed him before he died, and so on and so forth. Over time, the process got too politicized for the church, and that is why we have the College of Cardinals, so as to keep outside influences away from choosing a pope.

As a Catholic, I'd prefer a pope. If the church is run through concils, it'd go the way of many pure democracies: dysfunctional. After all, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Then again, the pope may be a weakling, too. But that's why the College of Cardinals exists. It's a system that's worked beautifully for millenia, and will continue to work.

Why will conciliarism mean that the church will become dysfunctional? Especially considering that it will not turn the Church into a democratic institution let alone a pure democracy.

I would also hesitate to say that papalism has worked beautifully fo millenia [sic].

To Ashmoria: Getting to heaven isn't to much a concern of mine. Also it would be hard for me to give it up (unless I emigrate), because in many ways being a Catholic is part of who I am.

Also I don't tthink I could stand the Mass length.

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...
The tradition of the papacy started with Peter. The Bible says that Jesus chose Peter as "the rock" to build His church upon. Peter then chose another guy to succeed him before he died, and so on and so forth. Over time, the process got too politicized for the church, and that is why we have the College of Cardinals, so as to keep outside influences away from choosing a pope.

For a full list of Popes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)
Starts at Peter and continues to the present.

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...

i name you peter and upon this rock i create my church

ring a bell?

For a full list of Popes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm)
Starts at Peter and continues to the present.

Of course, the fact that the Catholics have a list of all the bishops of the Roman church and like to pretend that they were always the leaders of the entire church and always called pope, doesn't actually make it so. I'd have to get out my old theology notes to be sure, but I think it wasn't until around #45 - Leo the 1st, that the Roman church started trying to enforce what it saw as its own supremacy upon the rest of the churches and began referring to their leader as "pope".

Im a non-catholic (though I am related to many Irish-Catholics)...but I voted for the Pope.
Why?
Because it's a fundamental belief in Catholocism that the Pope is God's representative on Earth and that he is the head of the Universal Church as a result. Its almost as fundamental as concepts such as the Five Pillars of Islam. Changing this would change the nature of the Universal Church...which is something that wouldnt happen...shouldnt happen.

that they dint use the word POPE doesnt make them any less the head of the church
and in any case it seems to me that the only ones who should really be grinding this ax are the orthodox churches who are the ones who broke off from the roman church due to its insistance on the bishop of rome being supreme leader of the church

The Catholic Church can have as authoritative and centralized a hierarchy as it pleases, so long as it does not see itself as free to meddle in affairs of state.

this has very little to do with what we want and alot more to do with what God wants

and as far as Jesus told us, he wanted a central firgure in control

that they dint use the word POPE doesnt make them any less the head of the church
and in any case it seems to me that the only ones who should really be grinding this ax are the orthodox churches who are the ones who broke off from the roman church due to its insistance on the bishop of rome being supreme leader of the church

Actually....yes, it does. Pope is a higher term than bishop and always has been. Up until the Roman Catholic Church started using pope, all bishops were considered to be on equal terms. There were five major cities that made up the main parts of the Church - Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were three of them. Decisions were made at councils with representatives (including the bishop) of each church. The first leader of the Roman church that they tried to call pope denied the term, pointing out that he was no higher in authority than any of the other bishops. Thus, the bishop of the Roman church *was not* the supreme leader of the church until the split.

The split between the orthodox and roman catholic churches was only partially because of the Roman bishop's insistence on superiority, by the way. There were theological differences of note as well.

And as for whether or not I have any say in this, I do because, as a Christian, I tire of the Catholic church trying to claim superiority because "they are the true church that has always and always will be" when the only reason your average Cathollic believes that is the fact that their church flat-out lies to them about it.

this has very little to do with what we want and alot more to do with what God wants

and as far as Jesus told us, he wanted a central firgure in control

Exactly....it is out of the hands of Catholics to decide whether or not there is a Pope...as it is a central aspect of the Catholic faith.
Whether you take the word of Jesus as literally meaning a central figure such as the pope with supreme God-given power...or more figuratively is all a matter of Faith...and this particular Faith rests on the premise that His words were literal. Otherwise it would be a very differant religion altogether (see Church of England).

And as for whether or not I have any say in this, I do because, as a Christian, I tire of the Catholic church trying to claim superiority because "they are the true church that has always and always will be" when the only reason your average Cathollic believes that is the fact that their church flat-out lies to them about it.

we do have papal decendancy stright form St. Peter

this has very little to do with what we want and alot more to do with what God wants

and as far as Jesus told us, he wanted a central firgure in control

Exactly....it is out of the hands of Catholics to decide whether or not there is a Pope...as it is a central aspect of the Catholic faith.
Whether you take the word of Jesus as literally meaning a central figure such as the pope with supreme God-given power...or more figuratively is all a matter of Faith...and this particular Faith rests on the premise that His words were literal. Otherwise it would be a very differant religion altogether (see Church of England).

he left intructions, we just follow them

this has very little to do with what we want and alot more to do with what God wants

and as far as Jesus told us, he wanted a central firgure in control

Exactly....it is out of the hands of Catholics to decide whether or not there is a Pope...as it is a central aspect of the Catholic faith.
Whether you take the word of Jesus as literally meaning a central figure such as the pope with supreme God-given power...or more figuratively is all a matter of Faith...and this particular Faith rests on the premise that His words were literal. Otherwise it would be a very differant religion altogether (see Church of England).

Except that Conciliarism does not mean there is no Pope. It just means he effectively plays second fiddle to Church Councils (Similar to how the British Political system works, with the Monarch as the head but with parliament sovereign).

Again I am not saying that the Catholic Church should be a democratic institution. Conciliarism =/= Democracy.

we do have papal decendancy stright form St. Peter

No, you don't. You have a list of bishops that happens to be the guys who were bishop of the church in Rome. All of the early churches had a similar list leading back to an apostle. In fact, any priest who couldn't trace himself back to an apostle was not actually considered an ordained priest by any of the other churches.

The papal decendency (pope meaning one who considers himself the head of the entire church) began sometime between 400 and 600 AD - long after Peter had died. The fact that the church had a scripture that seemed to put Peter at the head was one of the "proofs" later leaders used to try and get others to accept the papacy. Up until then, your so-called "popes" generally denied anyone calling the pope, as they saw themselves no more the head of the church than any of the other major bishops.

As a Catholic, I also prefer a pope. I don't wish to offend the other Christian religions, but I don't like how their councils work and would not wish to see the same with Catholicism.

As a Catholic, I also prefer a pope. I don't wish to offend the other Christian religions, but I don't like how their councils work and would not wish to see the same with Catholicism.

And as for whether or not I have any say in this, I do because, as a Christian, I tire of the Catholic church trying to claim superiority because "they are the true church that has always and always will be" when the only reason your average Cathollic believes that is the fact that their church flat-out lies to them about it.

oh you poor thing, do you really not know that all denominations lie to themselves about themselves and about other denominations?

people choose a particular sect for 2 reasons, 1, because it seems to them to be most theologically correct and 2, because it reflects their feelings about how god SHOULD be worshipped.

if you dont feel that the catholic church represents your vision of christianity then just leave it to those who do.

all sects feel they are superior to the others, if not, why do they even exist?

oh you poor thing, do you really not know that all denominations lie to themselves about themselves and about other denominations?

Of course I do, this is why I am not a member of a particular denomination. Of course, not all denominations claim to have always been the proper way to do things and to have never ever changed.

people choose a particular sect for 2 reasons, 1, because it seems to them to be most theologically correct and 2, because it reflects their feelings about how god SHOULD be worshipped.

The operative words here are "most theologically correct" rather than completely correct.

Not to mention that these are not the reasons that many people choose Catholocism. Many people choose the Catholic church because there is a false belief that the Catholic church is closest to the original church and thus, being more "traditional," is more correct. There is also the false belief that Peter was the first "pope" so every pope after that must be directly representative of Christ. The Catholic church is a little like the government in 1984 thinking they can change something and then state "Oh, but it was always that way!" and there are many out there who take them at their word.

I have no problem with people choosing a sect of any faith because they feel it is closest to their beliefs, but much like with Islamic Fundamentalist countries, I do have a problem with faiths that recruit converts and hold on to members based on falsehoods.

if you dont feel that the catholic church represents your vision of christianity then just leave it to those who do.

I have no problem with someone being Catholic - I am just pointing out the blatant falsehoods that have been posted here. If this was a thread about Mormonism and someone said "Mormons have never practiced polygamy," I would point out evidence to the contrary.

all sects feel they are superior to the others, if not, why do they even exist?

I don't feel that my beliefs are superior to anyone else's. My beliefs are a product of my own spiritual journey and I am willing to admit that I may be wrong on matters of faith. Of course, we are not discussing a matter of faith - we are discussing a matter of historical fact.

but your point about the pope being called the pope is so meaningless
there are only 2 denominations who can trace their origins back to peter without going through another denomination to get there
the catholic church and the orthodox church(es)

there are a few sects that have existed as long but dont trace back to peter, im thinking of the coptic church, i think there are others but they dont spring to mind

for example the lutherans can trace their origins back to martin luther, a man highly justified in breaking away from the catholic church, but to get back to peter you have to acknowlege that luther started out a catholic and go back from there.

what difference does it make? none that i can see. protestants and catholics differ in their approach to christianity.

most people who are catholic are so because they were raised in the church and they find it most comforting to them.

the catholic church has a long distinguished tradition. its got it problems too. i believe deeply that its insistance on an unmarried all male permantent priesthood has led them into greivous sin.

in any case, as jesus said, why worry about the mote in your brothers eye when there is a beam in your own? this concern about the righteousness of the catholic church is distracting you from your own duty to live a christian life. take everything you have, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, THEN worry about the catholic church

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...

The Bible will not cover everything issue in this world. The Pope, therefore, being a holy man and the chosen successor of St. Peter will be able to direct us morally and spiritually on things which the Bible does not cover.

Jesus does not say that this is a bad thing. Why would he give the keys of heaven to St. Peter?

Why do Catholics want a Pope? Isn't he supposed to be God's representative on Earth or something? That's ridiculuous, there's no bibilical backing for that...

The Bible will not cover everything issue in this world. The Pope, therefore, being a holy man and the chosen successor of St. Peter will be able to direct us morally and spiritually on things which the Bible does not cover.

Jesus does not say that this is a bad thing. Why would he give the keys of heaven to St. Peter?

But why rely on the biases and weaknesses of one man when you could call together the intellegensia of the Catholic Church and debate it?

but your point about the pope being called the pope is so meaningless

This discussion is about whether or not there has always been a pope. History shows that there has not been. The title *is* important to this discussion because it represents when the bishop of the Roman church became the leader of the entire Catholic Church.

there are only 2 denominations who can trace their origins back to peter without going through another denomination to get there the catholic church and the orthodox church(es)

Technically, the Orthodox Church would go through the Catholic Church too, as they were once one church. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I never claimed that the Catholic church wasn't the first major organized denomination of Christianity.

there are a few sects that have existed as long but dont trace back to peter, im thinking of the coptic church, i think there are others but they dont spring to mind

Coptic also doesn't trace back to Peter without going through Catholocism, but again, that doesn't really matter to this discussion.

for example the lutherans can trace their origins back to martin luther, a man highly justified in breaking away from the catholic church, but to get back to peter you have to acknowlege that luther started out a catholic and go back from there.

Luther still considered himself a Catholic, right up until they tried to condemn him to hell and he had no choice but to start his own faith, so I have no problem with this statement. It still has nothing to do with whether or not there has always been a pope.

most people who are catholic are so because they were raised in the church and they find it most comforting to them.

Yup, same reason most people are any denomination.

the catholic church has a long distinguished tradition. its got it problems too.

All I am pointing out is that that tradition has changed much more than your average Catholic knows. I didn't say the faith is wrong because it has changed, I simply point out that the church leadership can't claim moral high ground on the basis of "this is the way it has always been and thus it is right."

i believe deeply that its insistance on an unmarried all male permantent priesthood has led them into greivous sin.

And based on the way they were pressuring my ex, a serious lack of anyone wanting to enter the priesthood.

in any case, as jesus said, why worry about the mote in your brothers eye when there is a beam in your own? this concern about the righteousness of the catholic church is distracting you from your own duty to live a christian life.

No, it isn't. Is my duty to live a Christian life somehow harmed by studying the history of the church? I think not. Again, the debate here has been whether or not there has always been a pope that was considered the leader of the entire Catholic church - and there has not. I do find it upsetting that the church lies about such things, despite all the records they have, but I don't bother myself over it too much.

I find nothing wrong with pointing out a historical falsehood - as long as I am willing to point out my own falsehoods as well - and I am.

take everything you have, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor, THEN worry about the catholic church

Everything I have wouldn't feed even one poor person. Of course, this too is completely besides the point - I never said anything about the church going out and giving to the poor (not that that would be a horrible idea, mind you, but I didn't bring this up.)