Was the church Jesus said he would build the Roman Catholic Church?What about the other churches?

[Okie]

A dated but good reference to this question: "The Triumph of the Church" by Rev John P. Markoe, S.J. copyright 1960 and 1962. The original work was written in 1926. The small book comes w/ a fold-out, printed by the 'Catholic Information Society' 1966, that visually displays all the Christian religions. heresies, etc. from 33 AD until the 1960s. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter. The term 'Roman' Catholic began during the reformation period and was commonly used interchangeably with the 'Papists' term. Both were derogatory terms toward the Catholic Church, but since the English [Anglicans] were often the history writers, they 'tainted' the history writings and were not offended. This information is also available in the EPIC Church History program by Steve Wiedenkpf.

[mardukm]

Dear brother 1AugustSon7,

Just a few more things for you to ponder, which we don't have to discuss:

My only reservation is that I believe, owing to simple nature/reality (or perhaps better realism), that there is necessarily a charism granted to the person who holds the office; I think it rather more personal than what you seem (from my humble perspective and understanding from what you have written) to be implying.

It should be noted that the Pope has no authority to delegate/transfer his primatial prerogatives. Doesn't that demonstrate that the specialness of the primatial office is not "personal" in the way you percieve it to be? I suppose you could say that it is "personal" in the same way that my identity as Marduk is "personal" and thus cannot be transferred. But we know that it cannot be taken in that sense because the person who is Pope did not have his special charism/prergoatvies to fulfill his office until he came into that office. The only way that the fact (that he cannot delgate/transfer his primatial prerogatives) can be interpreted is that the prerogatives are intimately attached to the office -- an office which belongs to the Church as a whole, not to him personally.

The reason is, for me, that the Gospels relate the most intimate (or personal) relationship between Our Lord and Saint Peter. Consequently, I don't get the feeling of a relationship between Our Lord and a perennial office; it seems rather more personal - nay, even intimate to me: it is a personal relationship - friendship, even - between two men (one of the two also happening to be Divine, of course ).

If it is "personal" in the way I think you perceive it, wouldn't that mean that EVERY act of the Pope should be protected with the charism of infallibility? This was in fact the neo-ultramontanist position that was rejected by Vatican 1.

I think when the Pope means to speak as a private theologian/person, he is usually very clear, as Pope Paul VI was when Vatican II was happening- His Holiness made it clear that he was condescending to speak simply as a bishop among bishops at points, which is most natural; likewise, the Popes will give their private opinions in interviews and the like, which clearly (and they may also state so if/when necessary or if a controversy arises) was not meant to be in any way binding on the Church or even per se an exercise of their simple ordinary teaching office as bishops, but it was rather their merely publishing their minds or thoughts/thinking on a subject in the general economy of thought/opinion.

ISTM the reason the Popes make this obvious is to forestall/prevent the opinion that "personal infallibility" is "personal" in a way that the term is normally understood.

Blessings,
Marduk

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by mardukm

Dear brother 1AugustSon7,
It should be noted that the Pope has no authority to delegate/transfer his primatial prerogatives. Doesn't that demonstrate that the specialness of the primatial office is not "personal" in the way you percieve it to be? I suppose you could say that it is "personal" in the same way that my identity as Marduk is "personal" and thus cannot be transferred. But we know that it cannot be taken in that sense because the person who is Pope did not have his special charism/prergoatvies to fulfill his office until he came into that office. The only way that the fact (that he cannot delgate/transfer his primatial prerogatives) can be interpreted is that the prerogatives are intimately attached to the office -- an office which belongs to the Church as a whole, not to him personally.

Hmm. I would rather say that the charism(s?) associated with the Papacy are delegated by Christ to the Pope (personally) upon his accession or rather his personal acceptance of the office. This seems to be the general opinion at least. Consequently, it seems -and I believe actually is- necessary that the would-be Pontiff should personally or voluntary accept the office: he as it were personally enters into (possession of) it.

The Church, then, would not strictly speaking actually be able to "make" a Pope: it remains Christ's act or initiative in bestowing the charism(s) necessary and peculiar to the Papacy or a Pope, and not the Church : for if it were the Church that could bestow these things, then it would seem a person's consent would not even be necessary.

A further difficulty also arises: all agree that an inferior cannot create a superior: i.e., one cannot bestow what one does not possess. Democracies, for instance, do not claim to make a man superior to other men in the order of nature, such that by their election of him as Head of State/Government, he suddenly acquires attributes that make him peculiarly or naturally superior to his subjects, and so inherently worthy of the office; rather, the people claim to bestow the office or authority that is already theirs by nature (or right or whatever their belief is) upon a certain person, who then exercises the people's own authority on their behalf. Consequently, the electorate can also withdraw it or bestow it on anyone else they ultimately please whensoever they please.

Now if this were not the case, then the Church could, for instance, select an emperor or otherwise make an emperor (or any secular ruler) her peculiar head or authority on earth, including even his descendants in perpetuity; however, all agree that such authority over the Church must come from Christ Himself and the Church hasn't the authority or power to do this, and further that not even a Pope can ultimately determine who the next Pope will be and that, moreover, there are certain (divine) criteria that must be met to become a Pope (unlike in our democracy example, where technically the people could elect anyone they like and grant or give them their authority: it is, as it were, theirs to give away).

Finally, the person must accept the Papacy voluntary, even if the minimum criteria are met or satisfied already in/by the individual: these criteria being that he be a baptised man (vir) who is a member of the Church, and who has obtained the age or use of reason; and also at least personally disposed or willing to be made, further, a bishop (if he is not one already).

Therefore a great deal hinges necessarily on the individual's own will, which the Church cannot supply. So everyone who accepts the office of the Papacy is indeed making a (personal) act of Faith, and ultimately it is this act that begets, in my opinion, the charism(s), and without it cannot be had. So the individual, in accepting the office, is as it were cooperating with God's grace. So the charism is, at least ultimately, a personal one, and necessarily (I think) so, as we will see next.

Originally Posted by mardukm

If it is "personal" in the way I think you perceive it, wouldn't that mean that EVERY act of the Pope should be protected with the charism of infallibility? This was in fact the neo-ultramontanist position that was rejected by Vatican 1.

That is not the sense I mean; it (the charism(s)) seems to require the Pope's personal assent to be exercised: i.e., he must 'do it' voluntary, freely and it would seem to a certain extent deliberately, which in every instance would require on his part an at least implicit act of Faith, regardless of how certain he or others might be about the doctrine he is defining or promulgating as dogma. Therefore his faith must be protected by the charism when he condescends to exercise it, otherwise it would be liable to fault: at some point, the man himself must make a choice or decision, though the charism notwithstanding only applies to public acts regarding the Church. How can this not be something personal?

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

Hmm. I would rather say that the charism(s?) associated with the Papacy are delegated by Christ to the Pope (personally) upon his accession or rather his personal acceptance of the office. This seems to be the general opinion at least. Consequently, it seems -and I believe actually is- necessary that the would-be Pontiff should personally or voluntary accept the office: he as it were personally enters into (possession of) it.

I sometimes sense that we are trying to say the same thing. The only objection I have to this portion of your reply is the statement that the Pope has personal possession of his charisms. I distinguish that the charisms are actually the Church's charisms because the Pope does not possesses it personally apart from the Church. This is evident in the fact that he cannot delegate his unique primatial prerogatives. He possesses it only in his function as a member of the Church, never apart from her.

The Church, then, would not strictly speaking actually be able to "make" a Pope: it remains Christ's act or initiative in bestowing the charism(s) necessary and peculiar to the Papacy or a Pope, and not the Church : for if it were the Church that could bestow these things, then it would seem a person's consent would not even be necessary.

I can agree that it is "personal" in the sense that his personal will is involved in the exercise of the office, but I disagree that it is "personal" in the sense that it is his and his alone. Rather, it is the charism of the Church first and foremost and can never be separated from the Church in any way. The papal charisms exist only to serve the Church and can never have any meaning or reality outside of the Church or separated from her.

A further difficulty also arises: all agree that an inferior cannot create a superior: i.e., one cannot bestow what one does not possess. Democracies, for instance, do not claim to make a man superior to other men in the order of nature, such that by their election of him as Head of State/Government, he suddenly acquires attributes that make him peculiarly or naturally superior to his subjects, and so inherently worthy of the office; rather, the people claim to bestow the office or authority that is already theirs by nature (or right or whatever their belief is) upon a certain person, who then exercises the people's own authority on their behalf. Consequently, the electorate can also withdraw it or bestow it on anyone else they ultimately please whensoever they please.

This is no difficulty because it is not the Church that provides the charisms, but rather Christ directly. But Christ does not give the charisms to the Pope indiependently of the Church. For example, the charism of "papal infallibility" cannot exist apart from the Church because it is the selfsame infallibility that God grants to his Church as a whole (as the dogma specifically states). "Papal infallibility" is not the infallibility of the Pope, but the infallibility of the Church personally (not unilaterally) exercised by her head in very particular (and rare) circumstances only in the service to the Church and only as a member of the Church. Similarly, our canons state that the Pope exercises his primatial prerogatives only in communion with his brother bishops. "Personal" can never be interpreted to mean "unilateral."

Now if this were not the case, then the Church could, for instance, select an emperor or otherwise make an emperor (or any secular ruler) her peculiar head or authority on earth

Yet you admit immediately afterwards that this cannot be the case, so it's strange you would even bring this up.

Finally, the person must accept the Papacy voluntary...

That is not the sense I mean; it (the charism(s)) seems to require the Pope's personal assent to be exercised: i.e., he must 'do it' voluntary

That is really beside the point (which demonstrates that we might be in agreement). The concern of the V1 Fathers is that "personal" could be MISinterpreted to mean that the Pope's charism is so unique to himself that he exercises it apart from the Church. In contradistinction to that error, V1 affirmed dogmatically that "papal infallibility" is the selfsame infallibility that God grants to His Church. It is "personal" only in the sense that he exercises it as an indivudal, but it is not "personal" in the sense tha he can exercise it unilaterally independent of the Church, since that infallibility is the selfsame infallibility shared by the Church as a whole, and the same infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Blessings,
Marduk