Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Papal Primacy a different perspective; or A Latin on Rome

This is a conversation I have had many times with my Latin friend, and it is amazing the view he takes on it. So with his permission I post his musings here; these are not direct quotes but his idea in my words, I had him look over it to make sure these were his ideas and not mine. With that I begin

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Infallibility-
Infallibility is to be understood as a negative and not a positive. The assertion that a Pope can reveal new Doctrine and Dogma is Heresy that cannot be tolerated. One such example is the common heretical statement heard today among many proponents of the unfortunate council Vatican II(Note: He does hold this council as holding infallible teaching but he considers it to be more a General Latin council because it does not really address any Doctrinal or Dogmatic issues but rather matters of policy. He also considers the timing of the council rather unfortunate.), the statement goes as follows "John XXIII was inspired to call the Second Vatican Council". Depending on how this is meant it is not heretical, however the way in which it is often meant is.
Meaning 1(the common meaning): John XXIII was Inspired the same way the apostles were inspired to write scripture.
Meaning 2: John XXIII was moved by the Holy Spirit in the same way any other Christian might be moved to preform an act, however he was not Inspired (as opposed to [i]nspried)the same way the Apostles and writers of Sacred Writ were Inspired.
The way it works: the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from making statements in error in matters of faith an morals. This however does not apply to personal opinion, therefore a Pope can personally be a Heretic and yet never lead the Universal Church astray.

First among equals.
Is a fitting term. Though it is true that Popes have personally deposed other Patriarchs and he possesses a universal jurisdiction this is not to be yielded like a tyrant. His universal jurisdiction comes from his infallibility in matters of Faith and morals, therefore if he were to start removing Bishops and Patriarchs on his own whim then this would be a violation of his own jurisdictional authority and he should be deposed. He is the first among equals which means that he has a certain primacy and this primacy is one of more than just honor. However this primacy does not lend to him the ability to do whatever he wills.

Latin Supremacy
The Latin Rite Church is NOT the only Catholic Church. One does not need to be a member of the Latin Rite in order to have salvation, however (baring invincible ignorance which would include you anyway) one MUST be a member of the ONE Church of Christ no matter which form it takes. The superiority complex of some Latins is something which is disgusting and intolerable, Papal Supremacy does not mean as some have interrupted it to mean Latin Supremacy. The Pope is the Visible Head of the Universal Church of God, and there for belongs to NO Rite. The problem lay in that people confuse his actions as bishop of Rome as if they were his actions of Patriarch of the Latin Rite, and they confuse his actions of Patriarch of the Latin Rite as if they were his actions as Head of the Universal Church. It would be true to say that "the Pope is the Pope but not always", or in other words The Pope is always the head of the Universal Church yes, but he does not do everything as head of the Universal Church. Or another example is to say it is as if he were both Prince and Governor, the confusion is that people do not know when he is acting as prince and when he is acting as governor.

1 comment:

Canon Tallis said...

All of this is claptrap because all of the claims of the Roman see to anything more than a primacy of honour based upon their former position as the church of the Roman imperial capital are inventions with no basis in Scripture. Indeed there is nothing in the Bible which would expect us to believe that one bishop would be anything which Rome claims and so many of Rome's teachings are in direct contradition to the teaching of Holy Scripture.

Some of the bishops of Rome have been heretics and many have been very wicked men. Indeed, Rome has probably had more wicked men as bishops than any other see in Christendom. It is not, in truth, an apostolic see. It was not founded by Peter who was in all probablity never in Rome. And it was certainly in existence before St Paul was brought there to be executed.

Anglicans need to get over the Roman temptation and ground themselves in the fathers of the first five centuries. That should cure us.