From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:30:19 GMT
Organization: none

I want to thank David Wagner for the charitbale tone of his response.
Too often discussions of this sort tend to degenerate.

In article <Aug.23.19.57.13.1992.21292@athos.rutgers.edu> wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:

   If in fact the Fathers all regarded Peter and his successors as the
   earthly head of the church, then why did the Council of Nicea
   [Canon 6] make a decision that the bishop of Alexandria should
   administer the churches in the East, and the bishop of Rome should
   administer the `suburban' churches, namely those in the ten
   provinces of Italy?

The canon decides regarding Alexandria; there is no decision regarding
Rome.  Here is the beginning of canon 6 from Nicaea:

"Let the ancient custom which is followed in Egypt and Libya and the
Pentapolis remain in force, by which the Bishop of Alexandria has the
supervision of all those places, since this also is the custom of the
Bishop of Rome."  Etc.

Here is Fr. William Jurgens' (a Catholic patrologist) footnote:

"The point of the first canon is that the Bishop of Alexandria's
jursidiction over certain other bishops is confirmed.  The concept of
a patriarchate is, in fact, in process of forming.  The Bishop of
Alexandria has jurisdiction not only of a civil province, as have the
metropolitans mentioned in canon 4 of this same council; but his
jurisdiction extends over all the Churches of all the provinces of the
civil diocese of Egypt, along with the various provinces of Libya and
the Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica.  This much is clear.  The problem is the
line referring to the Bishop of Rome.  The Bishop of Alexandria is to
retain his prerogatives; 'since this is also the custom of the Bishop
of Rome.'  It is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome to have
jurisdiction over the bishops of adjacent territories, providing a
justification for others to do likewise?  Or is it the custom of the
Bishop of Rome to recognize the prerogatives of the Bishop of
Alexandria, giving the council precedent for doing likewise?"

   of Italy?  Shouldn't all of the Eastern bishops have been ordained
   by the Roman bishop, if he were the spiritual head of the church on
   earth?

The Apostolic succession traces back to the Apostles, who were
ordained by Jesus Christ.  Peter had jurisdiction over the other
Apostles, but he did not ordain them.  Jurisdiction does not flow from
the lines of who ordained who.  It flows from the chain of command
established by Christ.

   On the same theme, did Paul ever acknowledge the superiority of
   Peter?  Was he ordained by him?  In Galatians 2 Paul wrote that
   those who `seemed to be important' added nothing to his message.
   In Galatians 1 he wrote that he went to Jerusalem `to get
   acquainted with Peter'--not to be publicly ordained.  And in
   Galatians 2:11-21 Paul wrote how he gave Peter correction in
   public.  Could today's Pope accept such correction?

I think I answered the point about ordinations above.  Peter's
authority over Paul stemmed from Christ's ordinances to that effect,
not from who ordained who.  I will not address the point about Paul's
acknowledgement of Peter's authority for now.  I want to address
something else.

If a Pope is in the wrong in a major way, it is quite proper and
Catholic to oppose him.  It can even be a solemn *duty* before God to
resist him.  This is the teaching of all orthodox Catholic
theologians.

It is important in understanding the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy
to understand the Catholic ideas of authority and obedience.

All legitimate authority -- of whatever sort -- exercised by a human
being comes from God.  It is for this reason that human authorities
must be obeyed.  The authority of a father in a family, of a policeman
on the street, of the President of this country: all hold their
authority from God.

God alone possesses absolute authority, and requires absolute
obedience.  NO human authority can make this claim.  ALL human
authority has its limits.  ALL human authority has but a share of the
Divine Authority.

Human authority exists to further the ends for which it exists.  The
authority and office of President exists for one thing.  That of
policeman for another.  Etc.

Since human authority exists to further the ends for which it exists:

- Human authorities command only in a certain limited sphere: only
insofar as they deal with those things that they exist to serve.
Policemen cannot vote on bills in Congress, for example; it lies
outside their proper sphere of authority.

- Human authorities cannot command anything contrary to the end for
which God granted such authority.  The Supreme Court cannot legalize
abortion, for example, because it is contrary to one of the primary
ends for which the Court exists: justice.

All the above applies to the Papacy.  The Papacy exists for certain
reasons, to attain certain ends.  Papal authority only extends to
those things that are part of the ends for which the Papacy exists.
Papal commands that are 1) outside these ends or 2) contrary to those
ends can be freely ignored by EVERYONE.

The Pope's authority is strictly limited, in this sense.

- The Pope cannot command in things outside his sphere.  His job is to
be the Pope, not President of the US, or policeman, or my family's
father.

- He cannot command things contrary to the purpose for which his
authority exists.  The Pope is a servant, as all human authorities
are.  He a steward, holding his office from God, exercising it for
God, responsible for it to God, as all human authority is.

In the case of Paul correcting Peter in the New Testament, there was
really no command on Peter's part.  Peter did not order anyone to do
as he did.  It was merely a case of bad example.  Peter, being so
important, was a source of scandal to others.  He was to be blamed in
what he did.  Paul saw this.  Being a good Catholic, he endeavored to
be charitable, and correct Peter's error, before any more damage was
done.

Scripture covers *everything* one needs to know about the Papacy.  The
Peter/Paul episode is there to remind all Catholics that there are
times when a Pope will do imprudent things.  When such things happen,
the example of St. Paul is there for the proper people (Cardinals,
etc.) to follow.

There are some classic cases of Papal commands that were quite rightly
-- and even meritoriously -- resisted.  One involved the medieval
English bishop Robert Grosseteste.  The Pope at the time wanted to
install his nephew, or some such, in an English see.  What this would
have meant in practice was that the nephew would have received all the
income from the lands, etc., of the see, and the people of the see
would have been spiritually neglected.  For the nephew would have
surely rarely set foot in merry old England.

Bishop Grosseteste, being a good Catholic bishop, said to the Pope,
essentially, "Over my dead body will you appoint your nephew to that
see."

He did quite rightly in this.  It is true that the Pope has supreme
jurisdiction in the Church.  It is true that he can appoint bishops to
sees.  But: his power to command, his power to appoint bishops, is
subject to a higher law.  His authority exists to further the glory of
God and the salvation of souls.  In Bishop Grosseteste's case, the
Pope was clearly abusing his authority.  Such commands have NO force.
They need not be obeyed.

There is a tendency among some Catholics to think that the Pope is an
absolute monarch.  That he can order whatever he wants, and all must
obey.  This is NOT the case.  This is NOT Catholic doctrine.  The Pope
must be obeyed only insofar as he commands things in accordance with
the Catholic Faith, serving the ends for which the Catholic Church
exists.