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!
Wish we had a like button
“And Jesus’ plan is not to write a book and then just hope that everyone follows it and interprets it in the same way.”
Let’s get this straight. You grab your doctrine of succession from a book, then run off and build a system around it (with other bits you grabbed from the book) and then turn around and pooh-pooh the book when it rebukes you to your face?
No way to treat a book Jesus had ANYTHING to do with, Charles.
To give everyone a heads up on just Who it is they’re messing with when they in any way denigrate the authority and power of Scripture, consider this:
“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.””—Galatians 3:8
and again
“But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”—Galatians 3:22
Scripture issues forth from God. Dismiss it, crib from it, manipulate others with it, obscure it, exaggerate it at your peril.
**If No One is Pope, Everyone is Pope.**
If this this Socialist is an example of a Pope, well, no thank you.
I think your post goes to the point of who decides. On a macro level, is it the head of the denomination, congregation, convention, etc.? On the micro level, is it a pastor, preacher, priest, or the individual? The Bible gives at least two examples, such as Peter and Paul acting alone and the Apostles acting as a group.
I believe there is overlap. The Catholic model is the Church proposes a set of beliefs. A person must decide whether they accept the proposed beliefs. Thence forward, they are to trust the priests and bishops, as having been properly formed and instructed. Simultaneously, a person must develop their intellect in such they can know if a particular priest, bishop, etc is way off the mark.
Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide what is right for their soul. They must choose what they believe is the truth, out of several competing versions. Without a well-formed conscious and intellect, a person may accept false doctrines.
To me that’s simple: they’re sinners. The number of people for whom sunday services or even daily prayers are a kind of hypnotic or analgesic is ... huge.
My mother considered herself a devout Anglican. Read religious books, prayed, worked hard for her parish. And she was very firm that she expected worship to be soothing. Also, she was very much a Pelagian anclear that she thought Paul was wrong!
So I am not surprised by peolle who don’t even try to follow their denominations teaching, morals, or practices.
How do you construe the “diversity of gifts / one spirit” part of I Cor?
“To me that’s simple: they’re sinners. The number of people for whom sunday services or even daily prayers are a kind of hypnotic or analgesic is ... huge.”
Huge indeed! There are some “catholic” countries where half the members or more never darken the door of a church all year.
Are you saying “There IS no unity of teaching,” “There CAN’T BE unity of teaching,” or “There shouldn’t be unity of teaching?”
I don’t understand what your post means.
Well, the disunity is a problem for me. They’re not preaching the same thing and there’s no one to go to to say whether the Witnesses are right or the Wesleyans. And they certainly disagree with one another.
There wouldn't be if original Christianity had not had apostate "grievous wolves" to arise from among themselves "speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," Acts 20:29,30.
There wouldn't be if the original good seed first sown, had not had tares to arise among the wheat (parable of the wheat and tares, Matt. 13).
There wouldn't be if Christianity had not apostatized, becoming more and more eclectic, more and more paganized, more and more Romanized, until the rise of the Roman Papacy, a tyrannical totalitarian institution.
From the days of Wycliffe, Huss, and Luther, Christianity has been characterized by its effort to overthrow the paganism introduced into it, trying to get back to the original good seed first sown before the eclectics had corrupted the field. The Protestants represent that gallant effort.
So don't trash the gallant effort of Protestants, there wouldn't be Protestants if the RCC had not become the chief representative of eclectic paganized Christianity. The Papacy is tares, not wheat.
Actually, I’d tweak your model. The, so to speak, skeletal kerygma is proposed, yes. But then things bubble up, like Paul’s teaching and eating with the nations. Then, when there’s a controversy a council or a pope decides which of the teachings or practices is okay and which not.
E.g.: Paul gives us a son of man + son of God terminology.But finally we need an Ephesus and Chalcedon to nail down a framework for understanding what Paul said.
Is that tweak okay?
Sounds good to me.
It’s interesting. 30+ years ago in Mississippi the culture certainly supported parking one’s padded portion in a pew on Sundays, but my impression was that not many had made any soul-searching commitment about being there.
My attitude is, it’s our job to blow on the ember. If it’s meant to light up, God will hande that part.
If no one is pope, everyone must appeal directly to Jesus Christ for their salvation, for “... there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Act 4:12)
I’m not, I wouldn’t trash all the efforts of all the Protestants by any means! Of course I won’t agree that we have a monopoly on tares, though we sho’ ‘nuff have plenty. But ... well, the hymns alone are testimony to the Holy Ghost moving among Xtians not in communion with the Holy See. And most of my theological learning, such as it is, happened at a (Calvinist leaning) Episcopal seminary in the lost days when they believed in God and studied Scripture.
But unity of teaching would be nice. There has been fermentation with some pretty wild grapes from the beginning, hasn’t there?
Yes, it would be nice, but the wheat and tares parable I mentioned says otherwise. Christianity will continue in its present state of wheat coexisting with the tares, until the harvest at the end of the age (aion), when the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, "...there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
So, I offer this to, like, expand your minds.
:-
As a Catholic lay-d00d, albeit a Dominican, certainly I have experienced the tares in, ah, sheep's (or shepherd's) clothing, if you follow me. I sat agape as the deacon teaching RCIA gave a chunk o' instruction that had been specifically repudiated by J2P2 a few years prior. It was a safe bet that the deacon had not read Veritatis Splendor and probably wouldn't have cared if he had.
What he said was all tarted up in offishul sounding lingo, but the discerning (or half-awake) listener knew it came down to, "It doesn't matter what you do as long as you're sincere." But hark! I hear sweet nausea calling ....
No offense to Catholics intended, but if we have Jesus why do we then need a Pope?
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.