Can the Catholic Church Survive Without a Pope and a Vatican?

[CodeToad]

Seems to call into question if the Catholic Church is one of Jesus or organized religion.

[bert]

thanks for the history lesson but now is now.

the body of ruling clerics are the present Catholic Church and collectively they are the vatican

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sure, God "could" lead the Church without man-made institutions.

Just like

• He "could" have saved Jacob and all his children and grandchildren from famine at the time of Joseph, without Joseph and all his appointed Egyptian officers
• He "could" led the Hebrews out of Egypt without Moses and Aaron and the elders from the 12 tribes they appointed to assist them
• He "could" have defeated Amalek without Joshua and his warriors
• He "could" have extirpated the Midianites without Gideon and his 300 chosen men
• He "could" have administered justice without human judges
• He "could" have instituted worship in the days of Solomon without priests and Levites and a Temple and the whole elaborate administration thereof
• He "could" have spread the Good News of the Kingdom without 72 preaching disciples (in the Gospels), and 12 Apostles and their successors (such as Matthias and Timothy and Titus) who received their ordination by being appointed and by the laying on of hands
• He "could" have run the early Church without all the folderol of deacons (Acts 6) and Councils (Acts 15)....

But as it actually happens, He chose, and still chooses, to lead His Church through its appointed leader. And they had, and still have, the actual authority to govern: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).

2 Timothy 1:11
I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.

Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee

1 Corinthians 12:28
God has appointed in the church

• first of all apostles
• second prophets
• third teachers
• then those who perform miracles
• those who have gifts of healing
• assistants
• administrators
• and those who speak various kinds of languages.

He could have done without anybody at all; but He chose to work through the human administration He appointed, which has continued through the centuries from then until now, with many different forms, many different roles, many different ways of being organized (like the Vatican), but one Spirit, until He comes again.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But you said "The Catholic church is the Vatican" and that's not quite complete and adequate. The Church is the People of God gathered around their bishops, or, as the phrase is, the People of God "hierarchically assembled."

There are billions of us, and we exist on Earth (Church Militant), in Purgatory (Church Suffering) and in Heaven Church Triumphant.)

It's not just "the Vatican."

[Popman]

So is the Pope leader over the Protestant sects?

I find Elders, Deacons, Preachers, Ministers, Teachers, Bishops in Scripture...

I don't find a Vicar of Christ...the earthly representative of Christ...

Arent all believers representatives of Christ...?

Seems the RC Church has bestowed special powers to the Pope without any scriptural authority...

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I find Elders, Deacons, Preachers, Ministers, Teachers, Bishops in Scripture..."

Right. They make up what you can call the "institutional" Church, and this is is not optional. This is Scriptural.

"I don't find a Vicar of Christ...the earthly representative of Christ.."

The words "Vicar of Christ" are not in the NT, but the concept is there as plain as daylight. Just like the words "Incarnation" and "Trinity"are not in the NT, but the concepts are.

But you've piqued my curiosity, Popman. I wonder if you would also say Peter/Simon Bar-Jonah was "nobody special."

In Isaiah 22 (particularly 22:22) there is a culturally relevant description of what it means to be the King's viceroy or vicar. Shebna is told by Isaiah that he is going to be deposed, and his authority -- overseeing all of Judah --- is going to be awarded to another. Eliakim (whose name, BTW, means "God sets up"):

"On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah,
and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him.
I will commit your authority to his hand,
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and to the house of Judah.
I will place on his shoulder
the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut;
he shall shut, and no one shall open."

>

It is this legal relationship to the King --- this very Scriptural passage --- which Jesus is alluding to an Matthew 16:19 when He instructs Peter:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in heaven."

The functions of Eliakim's office as King Hezekiah's seneschal (vicar, "grand vizier" or governor) are seen from the oracle of Isaiah (Isaiah 22:15). Eliakim is the "treasurer" (the Revised Version, "steward"), and is "over the house" --- and not just the "house" in the sense of a royal palace, but over all of Judah.

At his installation he is clothed with a robe and girdle, the insignia of his office, and, having the government committed into his hand, is the "father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah" (Isaiah 22:21).

The key of the house of David is laid on his shoulder, and he alone has power to open and shut, this being symbolic of his absolute authority as the king's representative (Isaiah 22:22).

Do you think this makes Eliakim somebody in authority, somebody special? Is Jesus, following this Scriptural trope, making Peter somebody special?

And if not, then what --- in your estimation --- is the proper meaning of the power of the keys?

This isn't a trick question. I'd be interested to see what you think Jesus was trying to signify, and how you would illustrate or give evidence of this from Scripture.

[Rockingham]

Three influences at work in the clerical abuse scandal deserve mention: directives from the Vatican for secrecy in order to avoid or limit public scandal and disrepute; advice from a generation of Kinsey-besotted psychologists to the effect that clerical sexual relations with children would usually not do lasting damage and that pedophilia was curable; and the sinister influence of entrenched networks of homosexual clergy who gained effective control of large swaths of the Catholic Church in America.

[Resettozero]

But you've piqued my curiosity, Popman. I wonder if you would also say Peter/Simon Bar-Jonah was "nobody special."

He was a fisherman who liked to fish naked on occasion. He was saved from Satan/s wiles only because Lord Jesus Christ prayed for him (Simon Peter) for when he was brought back (converted). For a while, Simon Peter was just barely above Judas Iscariot in fidelity to Jesus and couldn't even admit that he loved Jesus.

Although we all can identify with the fisherman Simon Peter's actions, he was one of the poorest of Christians. It is truly gracious that Lord Jesus Christ saved the Little Pebble from perishing in his sins.

Later on, Peter was chosen to be the Apostle of Christ to the Jews whereas Paul went to the gentiles...including the city of Rome where the religious/secular leaders eventually had Paul executed.

But you know these things already. Good to see you are well enough to post again.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yup, Peter was all that.

He was impulsive, wavering, hot-headed, thrashing (the sword scene), earthly-minded, a "Satan' who even tempted the Lord, a thrice-over panicking denier of Christ who cowered before a serving maid, and who ran and hid when the going got tough, a snob and a moral coward as regards eating in public with Gentiles, etc etc..

He was also, by Divine appointment, the shepherd of the shepherds (John 21:15ff) whose role was to "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:32) and who was given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19) which makes him and/or those who succeed him in office, the master of the household until the Lord comes again as Isaiah makes very clear (Isaiah 22:22ff).

So he was all that, too.

Thank you for your kind words to me, personally. God and my husband (God's agent) have been watching over my health, and I am doing very well. It being a sweet peach of a day, I may spend a couple of hours gardening!

Always nice to volley back and forth with you, Resettozero.

[Resettozero]

He was also, by Divine appointment, the shepherd of the shepherds (John 21:15ff) whose role was to "confirm the brethren" (Luke 22:32) and who was given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19) which makes him and/or those who succeed him in office, the master of the household until the Lord comes again as Isaiah makes very clear (Isaiah 22:22ff).

Now that's not an irrefutable interpretation of Scripture, much less what the Spirit has revealed to other followers of Christ, such as yours truly, from reading these very same passages. Depends on one's indoctrination, I suppose.

But, enjoy getting your hands into the soil. Or as is the case in much of SC and GA, the abiding red dirt.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hey Blessed Reset:

We have yellow clay and orange-ish clay, bits of plastic dishes, chunky-style concrete and broken bricks.

"Builder's loam".

As for the interpretation of Scripture: what one has been taught seems, eventually, slam-dunk self-evident, now that's the truth! Which goes to show that Scripture is not self-interpreting.

Peter says (2 Peter 3:15-16) "That Paul! Hard to understand!" (MDT: Mrs. Don-o Translation).

However, though the exact scope and extent of Peter's successors' role has been subject to continuous push-pulling over the centuries, nobody west of Albania has denied that there *is* such a thing as a distinctive, Christ-appointed Petrine ministry until fairly recently: only in the last 500 years or so.

Could you share what you think Isaiah 22:22 tells us about the significance of "keys" and the man who receives them?

Not a trick question, of course. I'm curious.

Meanwhile I will transplant some basil. :o)