Posted on 09/23/2015 6:35:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Today we welcome Pope Francis to the United States. In so doing, we welcome more than just a popular public figure. We welcome someone whom the Lord prays for in a very special manner. Simon Peter and his successors enjoy a special charism to unite us, by the Lord’s prayer and grace. Let’s look at the scriptural foundation of this prayer and charism and see how essential the office of the pope is for us.
One day, near the final ascent to Jerusalem, the Lord warned of a fundamental problem that the Church would face: disunity. He turned to Simon Peter and said of the Twelve,
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you all that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32).
To “sift like wheat” is to divide, and Satan would work hard at it in order to divide the apostles, and the Church with them. The debate about who was the greatest only served to show what a mess we human beings, when left to our own devices, will make of something.
Yes, Jesus plainly says that the devil is going to work hard to divide you. And Jesus’ plan is not to write a book and then just hope that everyone follows it and interprets it in the same way. His plan is not to pray that they all work out their differences.
Jesus’ plan is to pray for one man, Simon Peter. Now Peter is not invisible, nor do his words require interpretation. For if anyone wants to ask, “What do you mean by this?” he can just go right up to Peter and say, “Peter, what do you mean by this?” And the real Peter can answer.
So, the Lord’s plan for unity is to have one visible man; one living, breathing source of unity. The Lord will pray for him; thus we can be assured of right outcomes in matters of faith and morals if we follow Peter (and his successors, the popes) in matters that might divide us.
Peter fulfilled this task of unity well and consistently, as recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the early Church. He rose to settle the question of Judas’ successor (Acts 1:15ff). He preached the first public sermon (Acts 2). He was inspired in a dream and then baptized the first Gentile converts (Acts 10). He arose at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the dispute between the “Party of James” and Paul, Barnabas, and others about Gentile converts (Acts 15).
Yes, Peter strengthened and unified the brethren. This does not mean that he did so without sin. On one occasion St. Paul even had to rebuke Peter (cf Gal 2). For though Peter had taught correctly (that Gentiles were in without lots of customary Jewish observances), he did not fully live the teaching, drawing back from close association with the Gentiles in order to avoid offending Jewish Christians. We do not argue that Peter and his successors are sinless, only that in solemnly teaching on faith and morals they enjoy the prayer of the Lord and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, never to teach error and thus unite us in the truth.
Peter’s successors must unite us. Though they are not sinless men, we trust in God’s protection for their solemn teachings and thus preserve union through the prayers of the Lord for Peter.
And boy do we need it! We Catholics are a difficult lot. Shepherding Catholics is harder than herding cats. But thanks be to God for the Lord’s Prayer and for the Holy Spirit. If it were not for these, the Church wouldn’t have lasted twenty minutes! But here we are more than two thousand years later, not without our troubles and tensions, but here and fundamentally united (with legitimate diversity). There is just no other way to describe the fundamental unity of the Catholic Church for all these years than as a miracle.
Compare this to the Protestant denominations, which severed their ties to Simon Peter and have now divided and subdivided some thirty thousand times—sifted like wheat to say the least. And the divisions are not just about minor things like vestments or the type of music. The differences are about fundamental and essential doctrines such as how one is saved, if once saved means always saved, if Baptism is necessary, if adultery is grounds for divorce, whether homosexual acts are sinful, if abortion is wrong, whether there is a priesthood, and how critical texts of the Bible are to be understood. The moral and doctrinal divisions are deep and concern foundational matters related to salvation. So divided is Protestantism that many Evangelicals have more in common with Catholics (on the moral issues) than with the old, mainline Protestants.
The tragic disunity of Christendom is not entirely the fault of the Protestants. We Catholics contributed to breaks that happened in the 12th century (with the Orthodox) and the 16th century (with the Protestants).
But the disunity among Protestants does put to the lie that people can be united by a book or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (apart from the authentic discernment of the Church’s magisterium).
The simple fact is that we have to have a pope. And if no one is pope, everyone is pope. Some may be dismissive of the need for “some pope” to tell them what to think. But truth be told, by not acknowledging some visible authority outside their own mind, they are merely appointing themselves as pope of their own little “denomination of one.”
The pope is not possessed of unlimited power. He is the Servant of Divine Revelation, not its source. He cannot overrule dogmatically defined faith that comes from Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Neither does he micromanage every aspect of Church life. But in service of the Lord’s prayer and vision, Simon Peter and his successors strengthen and unite us by working with the bishops to resolve significant matters that arise in the Church in terms of discipline and the understanding of doctrine.
But without him, we are trouble, serious trouble—trouble times thirty thousand!
In welcoming Pope Francis, we welcome the visible source of our unity. It is not merely that Jorge Bergoglio is a good negotiator. Whatever personal skills he may have, our faith lies not in those skills but in the prayer of the Lord Jesus for him to strengthen and unify us. Unity is not always easy. To accept the leadership of another is, frankly, hard. But the unity the Lord intends us to have with Simon Peter is a lot easier than the endless divisions we create on our own, apart from the Lord’s Prayer for Peter.
Welcome Pope Francis today and pray for unity among all Catholics and Christians. We may have minor differences and even a few hurtful ones, but thank God we don’t have thirty thousand differences!
SORRY TO SAY THE COMMENTS SERVER IS DOWN – WE’RE WORKING ON IT!
That everyone is pope if there’s no pope.
What about the times the Catholic church has been without a pope in its history?
Did that by default mean that every single Catholic then became his own pope?
What about the Catholics who don’t even recognize the papacy as the EO don’t? Are they their own popes?
What about the sedevacanists? Their own pope?
A denomination is a group of individuals.
It’s no different. Not every person who is in a church necessarily agrees 100% with every other individual in the church and they may not all agree 100% with that church’s doctrine either.
Preach it, brother!!!!
So there's more to the definition than that.
But the inability of the EOs to agree on a patriarch is possible meaningful. During the "babylonian captivity" and the Avignon papacy the FEAR that the notion of a final authority was very real. And yes. Ecclesiologically speaking, the sedevacantists are Protestants.
That’s not what I said.
They think they are enough righter than us that they separated. Ecclesiology is poart of that. And the Methodists thought they were enough righter than the Angolicans that they separated, and so with the others.
Don’t try to make me defend what I did not say.
I agree. An unavoidable aspect of the commitment to come into full communion is to trust that whatever bozo gets elected Pope, God will not abandon us.
These guys who diss PapaFran are essentially dissing their own Catholicism.
The problem with the artillery barrage of scripture passages is that it’s more suited to an exchange of essays than to posts on FR.
There are MANY instances of one brother being superior to others. Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and David spring to mind.
And, just as feminists cannot distinguish between “equal” and “same”, Paul’s careful (IMHO) distinction between a variety of charisms yet the same spirit gets lost in these conversations.
It’s fun to read what Catherine of Siena wrote to the then pope. She shows every courtesy WHILE she tells him to man up.
In “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” there is a fine scene where King Caspian’s subjects remind him of his duties.
Paul indisputably says, in two letters, that SOME (not all) are teachers. That doesn’t relieve anyone or obstruct anyone from an intimate relationship with the Lord. Francis, after all, was not a priest. Catherine of Siena was a laywoman. And we acknowledge her for being hugely gifted and deeply intimate with Jesus.
SO, citations about the call, gift, and opportunity of intimacy with IHS do not touch on Catholic thought. We make much of our popes, but not as much as some Protestants think we make.
I can only answer what I think you said. If I think wrongly, I will need you to help me think rightly.
You do know that Dante eagerly places a great many popes in hell and that no one complained on a theological basis.
Here’s a metaphor: the reliability of the water that comes out of your faucet is more a function of the reliability of the source than it is of the pipes. The pipes maybe rusting from the outside in, and one day they may be lost. But until then, if the source is good, the water will be good.
A Catholic’s reliance on the pope as teacher is NOT a reliance on the individuality of the pope as much as it is a confidence in the source.
Sure, copper pipes have a certain effect, and plastic pipes have another. But what endures is the effect of the water.
I wasn’t asking about Roman Catholics in general, but FRoman Catholics, who I consider more devout than the average adherent.
Amen to that. Kind of wish everyone would just take care of their own business and leave ours to us.
I kinda like Franklin Graham.
Personally, I agree with you that the Bible (and reason) do not contemplate same sex marriage.
But here’s the exercise: Go to a gathering of Episcopalians. Listen intently and with charity. Understand as best you can, WHY they think what they think and HOW they view scripture so that it supports (in their view) their conclusions.
When is it okay for us to walk by on the other side? I personally am happy to be an outcast Catholic if that frees me from the worries and concerns of the righteous so that I may pour win and oil on the wounds and pay for the maintenance of such sorry victims of so great a robber.
As to having no hierarchy, that is not supported in the Pauline corpus. He instructs Timothy to set up leaders. He rebukes churches on the basis of his divinely established hierachy. We can debate the details. But he talks about gifts and responsibilities and appeals, in touhing modesty, to his authority.
I don’t see how one can read Corinthians, Ephesians, and the Timothy letters without seeing an establishment of a hierarchy.
And, yes, even if the Catholics eradicated every document with which they disagreed, certainly before 150 AD there was a sense of a hierarchy. If one reads everything bfrothe canonical NT through, say 200 AD, I think one will find a nascent ecclesiology, sacramental theology, and a hierarchy. I’m not saying that PROVES anything. Proofs are thin on the ground when your God requires a leap of faith (which he also enables). But this conversation is not properyl or reasonably entered “de novo” when we have people closer to the impact zone to report to us what they thought happened and what it meant.
Ah.
I love my brethren, including my frbrethrn.
This pope is a challenge to us. People under stress say things they may later wish they hadn’t said.
That’s the best I can do for now. Let’s see what tomorrow brings.
Bless you.
God’s Truth is all that SHOULD matter.
Your examples of brothers is not applicable in this dispensation. There is only one HEAD of the Body - Jesus. God has no grandkids, nephews, or stepchildren, only children who are joint-heirs with Christ. There is no religious monarchy in the Body of Christ, no matter how much men have attempted to create one.
You are in a heap of trouble when you elect/appoint a man in place of Jesus. Satan has a field day with religious leaders and organizations, leading them astray and taking their followers down with them. There is also the cult of personality that develops around religious leaders, that takes the focus off of Jesus where it exclusively belongs.
Yes there are teachers and apostles and evangelists called, anointed, and placed BY GOD in the Body, not by men. But they are servants, simply brothers and sisters in Christ. No matter how much education, degrees, accolades, and titles they might have, they are still humans and likely to make mistakes. Jesus will never let you down. He is Truth.
Thanks for the post!
God has no grandkids, nephews, or stepchildren, only children who are joint-heirs with Christ.I only spoke of brothers -- among who there is often an elder or eldest.
You are in a heap of trouble when you elect/appoint a man in place of Jesus.
Well then it's a good thing neither I nor the church has done so.
Satan has a field day with religious leaders and organizations, leading them astray and taking their followers down with them.So, among dispensationalists we have the Jehovah's Witnesses. But to whom or to what do you appeal to say they are right or wrong?
There may be the RISK opf the cult of personality. But if you look at what Catholcis are saying about PapaFran, that's not really an issue. It's the NON-Catholicss who love the guy based not on what he has said but on the cult of personality the secular media has whipped up.
No matter how much education, degrees, accolades, and titles they might have, they are still humans and likely to make mistakes. Jesus will never let you down. He is Truth.
He is THE truth (John 14:6). (And one title of the Pope is the servant of the servants of God.)
We can argue the details of Acts 15. But one thing is clear: when the council had reached their conclusionj they said, more or less, "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us," that gentile converts did not have to become Jews. Now, how do you know they did not err, if councils can err? And if you and your friends called a council which said that they HAD erred, how would you know which council to believe?
So, of course,
God’s Truth is all that SHOULD matter.
The problem is that the disagreement among those who claim to reject "tradition" and to rely on Scripture alone suggests that knowing exactly WHAT God's truth is is the problem.
Some turn to Darby and Scofield. Others support Olive Tree thinking and favor Messianic Jews. Still others followed Russell and Rutherford, etc and became Jehovah's Witnesses.
So which of these is wrong and how can we tell?
That can be done without reliance upon papal traditions, and the alleged teachings of the so-called 'magisterium' etc.
It makes it easier, without all that extraneous 'stuff'. A guy can read, and take it or leave it.
I find its easier to allow the Word of God work more directly upon one's own spirit. He did become the Word, you know?
And He is Risen, lives, and can council with each. In that way and by that way there is much more agreement found within and among scattered, so-called 'protestants' than significant disagreement, or else either or both whom disagree are Christian, in name only.
One needs not accept all 'doctrinal development' which has occurred within the Latin Church in order to trust that God will not abandon us.
In fact, it can make an honest man out of those who are far from the confines of the Latin church and it's religious traditions, by forcing one to come into closer communion with Christ Himself , more directly. It appears to me that some are able to effect that, even while within or associated with Latin church Catholicism, too. Perhaps in both instances, the exceptions prove the rule. Ha. Howya' like them apples?
Or go ahead, most anyone, heal the sick, raise the dead, make the blind to see, and show us just how much whatever words of wisdom you may have should be listened and adhered to more than anyone else. Wanna' be an Apostle? Want to be regarded as one? Do the work of an Apostle. 
Just because some, or even many (if but upon occasion) run off into a ditch, does not mean that all the rest cannot a bit more humbly, keep rollin' on, between the ditches...
He did not become the Word, he was (John 1:1-2) the Word in the beginning.
What do you make of the variety of gifts discussed in I Cor and Ephesians and of the distinction of functions. I Cor 12:29 seems to me to say that not all are teachers, and James says not all should even aspire to be teachers.
In any case I wasn’t saying trusting that God would protect the pope from teaching error was the only expression of trust in God’s fidelity. I was saying that trusting the pope as teacher is not trusting in personal attributes of the pope but trusting in God.
And likewise with denominations as individuals.
There are a variety of gifts and just because one is an ear instead of an eye, doesn’t mean they’re not part of the body.
The seven churches to which John wrote in the book of Revelation all had different strengths and weaknesses.
Different denominations often have different ministry focuses such as the Navigators (evangelism and teaching), the Salvation Army reaching the down and out on the street, Wycliff Bible translators, the Christian and Missionary Alliance, whose main focus is missions.
The only central authority we need to be under is Jesus and He is MORE THAN capable of keeping churches from going astray and keeping individuals from going astray.
Catholics in general seem to have the mentality that God is not capable of keeping people on the straight and narrow Himself.
What’s with that? He’s going to save us just to abandon us later?
Not my God. He promises to be faithful, even if I am (at times) faithless and keep me secure in Christ.
The centralized authority of the Catholic church has not prevented schism within it, nor guaranteed consistency of beliefs over the years, or guaranteed a laity which is unified in its beliefs and its adherence to church teaching and doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.