Replies

Re this part of what she wrote: "I have great appreciation for the Roman Catholic Church, although I am not moved by most of the Vatican II liturgical reforms. I admire the depth of Catholic scholarship, but am troubled by theological arguments designed to reinforce innovative papal claims. It seems to me that the Roman Church has backed itself into a corner and now feels it necessary to pontificate more boisterously than ever. I sense some arrogance there."

This is really the nut of the problem, isn't it?

I very much want to face this issue, address it frankly, and use history - specifically the history of WHAT HAPPENED to the Eastern Church and the Western Church BECAUSE of the different views of authority. WHY that authority ultimately matters when it comes right down to literal, physical war with the Devil. God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit weren't operating in the dark as to the future when they inspired what they inspired.
Men are quarrelsome and divisive. We read it in spades in the Epistles of Paul. They can mean very well, but they will divide and fight if there isn't clear authority.

Does that matter?

Yes, it matters.
It matters when it comes to literal, physical war with the Devil. I do not speak of merely intellectual war. I speak of the necessity to buckle on literal armor, pick up a literal sword, get on a literal horse, and go literally off to war to literally fight other armored men riding horses who literally are striving to annhilate Christianity and replace it with some demon-inspired religion. I am specifically thinking of the Islamic invasion of the Christian East. But I am ALSO thinking of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Alars, Avars, Langobards, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Scoti, Picts, Hibernians, Mauretanians, Vikings, Wends, Huns, Mongols, Magyars...all of the OTHER 18 or 20 barbarian invasions that exploded upon the WEST, in particular. The West faced physical invasion after physical invasion after physical invasion from pagan horde after pagan horde. The entirety of civil government in the West foundered, but there was the Church, the One Church, with its center in the See of the Bishop of Rome. And it was the Church that provided the ONLY possible centering, ballast and leadership for Western Civilization during hundreds and hundreds of years of relentless darkness and invasion, as pagan (and Muslim) horde after horde after horde made literal physical war. The little broken bits of Western Kingdoms didn't even have literate warlords, and but for the clergy, there was no learning and no light.
The Catholic Church was the leader in literal, physical war, the spiritual center and administrative guide for the eventual defeat of every single invasion, West, East, North and South of all of the various legions inspired by various forms of demonism, shamanism, or the particular organized aggression of Islam.

And what was key about that is what is vital in war: leadership, a center, A man who stands above all others because of his office, who has a power of spiritual command without peer, who is NOT equalled, and who CANNOT be rivalled or striven with. In literal, physical war, there has got to be an ultimate leader, particularly in the morale-based war of mobs that was the dark ages and High Middle Ages.

And it was the one Church, with that one leader, and that one center, that ended up causing 17 of those 21 invasions -- all except the Huns, Mongols and Avars, who disappeared from European history - and the Muslims - who were driven completely out of Catholic Europe - to settle down and adopt Catholicism.

The Papacy mattered.
How much?

Consider the alternative.
Eastern Orthodoxy refutes the claim of the See of Peter. They still recognize the Pope as "First Among Equals", but they accord no command-and-control function to the Pope. When it comes right down to it, the Eastern Patriarchal claim is that the See of Peter has the power to advise, but not to command and compel.

What difference?
The ENTIRETY of Orthodoxy fell to Islam, except for Russia, which fell to the Mongols, and then to the Communists.
The lack of a center, a literal power to literally command, in literal physical war, resulted in the loss to Islam of the entire Orthodox East. All of it. All of the ancient lands of the Bible were lost. Yes, a Christian remnant remained. 10% in some places. 2% in others.

So, when God and the Holy Spirit spoke through Jesus and named Peter the head of the Church, they foresaw this result.

Did They intend Peter and his heirs to have the command that the Papacy has claimed since the days of Pope Victor in the 200s AD (as recounted by Eusebius). Or did They intend the diffuse, multipolar supreme authority, with no ultimate center, claimed by Orthodoxy.
Put another way, did God the Father and the Holy Spirit, and Jesus, with the full foreknowledge of all that was to be, INTEND for the entirety of Catholic Christendom to be preserved from pagan and Muslim invasion, and to be preserved in its geographical integrity under an overreaching, "arrogant", final commander in the Pope...or did They INTEND for Orthodox Christianity, with its positive refusal to acknowledge a final authority in the Pope to fall IN ITS ENTIRETY to Islam, and the Mongols?

Was God's intention to cause physical Christendom to be lost and ruled by pagans, with but a remnant of Christians in most of those original Orthodox Christian lands, so that the long-suffering Christians in their diffuse Church could be purified?

Or was God's intention really to make Peter the literal head of the Church, the Rock, the Center...the POPE, with all of the final and ultimate spiritual authority that Popes claim...because God foresaw the trials and tribulations of Christendom, and INTENDED for Christendom to have a battle commander, a spiritual monarch capable of commanding the diverse parts of Christendom through spiritual authority, and thereby maintaining the territorial integrity of the whole?

The final authority claimed by the Pope is the source of the unity that is the REASON that the entirety of Catholic Christendom, the whole West, was preserved for Christianity against 21 pagan or demonic invasions. The LACK of any final authority asserted by the four Eastern Patriarchs is the REASON that the entirety of Eastern Orthodoxy was unable to coordinate itself to repel, in war, the Muslim invasion.

Which was God's intent?
Is the final authority claimed by the Pope, which saved the West, an arrogant sin?
Was Catholic Christendom INTENDED to fall to the Muslims or barbarians, just as all of Eastern Orthodoxy did?
If the Pope's claim is an arrogant sin, then the West, too, should have suffered the fate of the East, with Christianity as a minor sect in a Muslim sea.

If the Patriarch's claims are correct, God INTENDED for Mohammed to smash Christendom down to a remnant, when he DIDN'T give Peter and his heirs the authority that Catholics sinfully claim for him.

That's really what is at issue.
It is a matter of authority.
What did God intend?
It cannot be shied away from.
God knew the future history when he inspired the Church.
Did He intend for the Pope to claim the authority he claimed, and used, to coordinate the survival of the West?
Or are the Patriarchs right when they claim that no ultimate authority reposes in the Pope...with the inevitable lack of final leadership in warfare...spiritual and physical...that such division inevitably entails.

History bears the fruit of the two choices.
I believe that the history compellingly shows that the Papal claims are correct. I do not believe that God intended for half of Christendom to be smashed to pieces. The loss of the East, I believe, is the true fruits of the sin of arrogance. By contrast, the claim of the Papacy to final authority is not, I believe, arrogance, but Truth. God knew what Christianity was going to face, in literal battle. Jesus at the last supper said that now his followers, too, would have to buy swords and buckle them on.

In short, I believe that the historical record of the preservation of the West but the destruction of the East demonstrates that God fully intended to vest the Papacy with the powers that it claimed, for only a Pope with that very final, and unassailable authority could hold together a poor and benighted Christendom against 21 invasions. The East, who rejected that authority, fell to the first one.

That, too, is part of the story.
I believe that it is the most telling part of the story.
And I think it should be put onto the scales whenever one weighs the relative claims of Pope and Patriarch.

God foresaw the challenges of the Church in a thousand years of war. I believe that is why he gave Christendom a literal commander, for when it came to that. No human organization has ever won a war without an ultimate commander. Western Christendom defeated 21 pagan invasions.
Eastern Christendom fell to one. God knew that was going to happen. That's why he made the Pope, and why the Pope really does have the full power to loose and to bind given to Peter, he really is the final, supreme head of the Church.
If he wasn't, England would be a Muslim country, just like Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople and Edessa are. It's not an accident. Ignore the will of God, and the Church dies.

That's what I think.

This was an inappropriate place to post it, but it did follow directly from what that woman said.

I think that the same problem with authority in war, this time spiritual war, is seen today. What is the MORAL complaint against Pope Benedict, or John Paul II, or the Johns and Pius' who preceded them? There cannot be one. These are good men who preach a powerful and true Christian message. So, what is the complaint? That they claim an authority they do not have. Because they have that authority, Catholic Christianity remains a bulwark against relativism and Communism and immorality, and all of this IN SPITE of the irruptions of the Devil within the Church itself. Because the Pope is supreme, and the Devil hasn't claimed him, and everybody knows that the acts of a bad bishop or priest is not the Church.
But in the other Churches of the West?
In the terrible crisis of Episcopalianism, who has the ultimate authority? God? So, does God intend for the Church to celebrate the diversity of homosexuality, and to fall apart in schism because NOBODY has command? Does God intend for what happened to Orthodoxy at the hands of the Muslims - that it should fall to be but a remnant - is to be the fate of Episcopalianism too, because the strong center claimed for the See of Peter is the sin of arrogance?
Is the claim of the Papacy REALLY the sin of arrogance?
Or is it the refusal of men to submit to the authority of a particular office Jesus made because God KNEW, beforehand, that men in crisis without a commander CANNOT PREVAIL?

Isn't that REALLY the lesson of Orthodoxy versus Catholicism? And isn't that the lesson being taught again by the lack of final authority in Episcopalianism?

Think about it.