Friday, September 17, 2010

Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome, Archbishop reminds Pope

As Pope Benedict XVI declaimed (twice) to the congregation in Westminster Abbey that he is the successor of St Peter, the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded His Holiness that not all Christians see it quite like that. The Pope asserted that he uniquely is 'charged with a particular care for the unity of Christ’s flock'. And the Church of England is a perpetual reminder to him that unity in faith may be diverse in expression. One should thank God for Archbishop Rowan: he is gracious but firm, and never, ever permits pious platitudes to obscure the religio-political reality.


Blogger Jared Gaites said...

And we can live with that and all our differences in this very civilised and mature way.


17 September 2010 at 19:50  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12

17 September 2010 at 20:04  
Anonymous Stefan said...

I was against the visit of the Bishop of Rome, but as it was such a wonderful chance to see ++Cantuar, The Dean, the Choir, and everyone at Wabbey on TV, let's do it every year!

17 September 2010 at 20:27  
Anonymous Adam said...

I'm sure Damian will be flattered.

17 September 2010 at 20:30  
Anonymous len said...

The Pope asserted that he uniquely is 'charged with a particular care for the unity of Christ’s flock'

This is a major contention based on 'misinformation'.

There is supposedly an unbroken line of Popes going right back to St Peter from whom the Popes derive their authority.
That’s absurd. The first person who was actually Pope was in the sixth century. And then they had to go back and pick out people who could fill in the gaps back to Peter.

But there were periods of time when there was no bishop in Rome at all...304 to 308, 638 to 640, 1085 and 86, 1241 to 43, 1269 to 71, 1292 to 1294, 1314 to 1316, 1415 to 1417 there weren’t any. And the point I am making is there’s no succession here, certainly there’s no divine succession. The papacy was bought and sold and bartered. It was invented. It was reinvented. At some points there were as many as three who all called themselves Popes at the same time, fighting for power. Alexander VI bought the papacy as an illustration. And so on.
( See John MacArthur Popes and the Papacy.)

17 September 2010 at 20:57  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I thought His holiness was more profound in his use of language to define the church in somthing that serves God , quite different from earlier papal expressions , almost acknowledgeing the Anglican contribution . To hear him share the lords prayer in English was as wonderful as seeing him have the services of a warm state visit. I didnt catch most of his westminster hall speech as his voice was a not easy on the ear , however there seemed to be a great deal in his speech including the slight barb to the adoption legislation which as pointed out was cruel on the purposes of such catholic agencies purpose. His remarks on faith and reason were important . As in my previous post there may be much to realise from this visit , which comes at a very dark time and persecuted church in some ways .
Despite our traditional differnces which cannot be forgotten , even if such visitis are managed , there was still somthing genuinely beautiful in seeing both take service and make a path for more to seek God through christ.
I never thought I would see such a thing , and fascinating to think two great theolgians should be in gods timing at this juncture .
The exchange of gifts was interesting , his holinesses book seemed to delight the Archbishop , wonder what it was .

17 September 2010 at 21:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aw naw! Help ma boab! I have been deceived by the peskie papists. Eight 3(?) year spells, around 24 years found in 2000 without the Papacy.

Also, its just dawned on me - the weeks between the death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI. Another gap! You're right. There is no succession!

I'm off to become a happy clapper somewhere.

17 September 2010 at 21:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Can someone explain to this ignorant follower of Christ why I should give a damn about there being a line of succession from the apostle Peter please? [This is not a rhetorical question btw!]

17 September 2010 at 23:18  
Anonymous not a machine said...

rebel saint :imagine what speeches you would have to proclaim in 4th century rome ? perhaps the poster is a little illinformed on those times

17 September 2010 at 23:31  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@not a machine. Thank you for your response. However, it leaves me none the wiser!! What is the importance of being able to prove a line of succession to the apostle Peter?

18 September 2010 at 00:32  
Anonymous len said...

Rebel Saint,
Not sure if your question is a rhetorical one but,

The whole foundation of the popes'authority is Matthew c16 v13-19 ( A revelation of the deity of Christ.)

Roman Catholic Church affirms that Peter was the first Pope, the head over the whole Church and the author of Papal Succession. Where do they get it? They get it from three passages completely misrepresented. Matthew 16, and this one you know, Jesus said, “I say to you, you’re Peter and on this rock I’ll build My church.” You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church. It’s a play on words. He’s not saying you are Peter and upon you I’ll build My church. You are Peter, Petros...Petros, small stone, and upon this Petra, rock bed, I will build My church. What rock bed? The rock bed of the reality of Christ. Simon Peter in verse 16, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. And Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood didn’t reveal this to you, My Father who is in heaven. I say you are a small stone, but it’s on the rock bed of who I am that I will build My church.” How could that be perverted, the language is crystal clear?


18 September 2010 at 00:37  
Blogger Kenneth said...

Good heavens. His Grace has provided us with such superb and rich food for thought in these first few posts since his mysterious 3-month absence, that I can only wonder to myself: If this is how His Grace writes while he is still feeling "diminished" by recent troubles, then I simply cannot begin to imagine the quality of the articles he will be writing once he is feeling "back to full health" again.

18 September 2010 at 00:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebel Saint,

The idea behind apolostolic succession is one of authority: to which church did the apostles bestow the fullness of the true faith?

In the very beginning, the Church was managed by regional bishops in Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Each received his authority--the affirmation of the truth of his theology--in an unbroken line of succession from the original apostles.

The Eastern Orthodox church, which, like Rome, is also part of the original Christian church, has always considered the Bishop of Rome--the Pope--to be one of a brotherhood of bishops, no higher in authority than any of the others. (The church is really supposed to be more a horizontal than a vertical organization.)

East and West were sundered in the 11th century because of this disagreement. The Orthodox believe that Christ, not the Pope, is the head of the Christian church.

The West is more familiar with Roman Catholicism than Orthodoxy, and so accepts the Pope's relative importance as the protector of the faith, but it's misleading. Reading up on Eastern Orthodoxy is a richly rewarding experience and reveal dimensions of Christianity that are completely unknown in the West.

18 September 2010 at 05:16  
Anonymous Jim said...

The Pope is a man like any other, and to elevate him to some status above all others is (IMO) both wrong, and very dangerous. The Pope is no more God's representative on earth than I am. After all we are both made in God's image.

I don't recall in my Sunday School lesson that it says in the Bible 'And on the 6th day God created Man, and in the afternoon he created the Pope to tell us all what to do'

18 September 2010 at 10:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Are you trying to convince us that Jesus changed someones name from Simon to "small stone". ? :-)

18 September 2010 at 18:45  
Anonymous len said...

Catholic Teuchtar,
It`s a a play on words, perhaps this will help;

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

18 September 2010 at 20:47  
Blogger berenike said...

Firm? All I heard were pious platitudes.


18 September 2010 at 20:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus spoke in Aramaic. Not in the language of the orignal NT writers.

19 September 2010 at 13:04  
Anonymous len said...

C T , Despite being technologically backward in Jesus`s Earthly days, we must never underestimate the intelligence of those people( and especially the Son of God), and therefore we know that many people in those days were multilingual. It is therefore certain that Jesus spoke Hebrew too (as the scriptures were written in Hebrew and Jesus was well versed in these), and probably quite a bit of koine Greek, as this latter language was regarded as the universal language, especially of the educated classes of the Roman Empire, much like English is counted as an international language today.

19 September 2010 at 13:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len - quite correct! There can be very little doubt that Jesus spoke Greek. It was after all the lingua franca of the region.

29 September 2010 at 00:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older