Apostolic Succession

[Equites_Christi]

Hello all!

My girlfriend is a cradle Catholic, and I have been working with her to try to bring her closer to the faith. We have begun to have more in-depth discussions, and this is a question that she brought up:

I showed her the verse in Matthew 16 where Christ founds His Church on Peter, and gives him the power “to bind and loose”. She understands that this makes Peter an authority on the faith and thereby gives him the power to declare what is good and what is sin. However, she struggles with accepting that this authority could then be conferred onto other generations. I afterwards discovered that in Matthew 18 Christ gives the same authority to all the apostles, but the same question persists. I already brought up the point that if they could not pass on their power then the authority would have died with them, but I am hoping to give her something with some more meat to it.

She also had another question which I myself wonder, which is who declares Church teaching? Obviously the Pope for one, but he’s not alone. Is it Cardinals? Bishops? Archbishops? I understand that teachings usually come from councils, but how do they proceed? Majority vote??

For example, the Catechism. I understand that its teachings have roots in Sacred Scripture, if not outright taken from it. But there had to be a group which decided what went into it. Who constituted that group? How did they go about their deliberations?

Thank you very much for all your help!

 

[thistle]

THE TEACHING OFFICE OF THE CHURCH

Can. 747 §1 It is the obligation and inherent right of the Church, independent of any human authority, to preach the Gospel to all peoples, using for this purpose even its own means of social communication, for it is to the Church that Christ the Lord entrusted the deposit of faith, so that by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, it might conscientiously guard revealed truth, more intimately penetrate it, and faithfully proclaim and expound it. §2 The Church has the right always and everywhere to proclaim moral principles, even in respect of the social order, and to make judgements about any human matter in so far as this is required by fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

Can. 754 All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

Can. 755 §1 It pertains especially to the entire College of Bishops and to the Apostolic See to foster and direct among catholics the ecumenical movement, the purpose of which is the restoration of unity between all christians which, by the will of Christ, the Church is bound to promote.

§2 It is a matter likewise for Bishops and, in accordance with the law, for Episcopal Conferences, to promote this same unity and, in line with the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances, to issue practical norms which accord with the provisions laid down by the supreme authority of the Church.

 

[DJK100]

Hello all!

My girlfriend is a cradle Catholic, and I have been working with her to try to bring her closer to the faith. We have begun to have more in-depth discussions, and this is a question that she brought up:

I showed her the verse in Matthew 16 where Christ founds His Church on Peter, and gives him the power “to bind and loose”. She understands that this makes Peter an authority on the faith and thereby gives him the power to declare what is good and what is sin. However, she struggles with accepting that this authority could then be conferred onto other generations. I afterwards discovered that in Matthew 18 Christ gives the same authority to all the apostles, but the same question persists. I already brought up the point that if they could not pass on their power then the authority would have died with them, but I am hoping to give her something with some more meat to it.

She also had another question which I myself wonder, which is who declares Church teaching? Obviously the Pope for one, but he’s not alone. Is it Cardinals? Bishops? Archbishops? I understand that teachings usually come from councils, but how do they proceed? Majority vote??

For example, the Catechism. I understand that its teachings have roots in Sacred Scripture, if not outright taken from it. But there had to be a group which decided what went into it. Who constituted that group? How did they go about their deliberations?

Thank you very much for all your help!

Please read this:

Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Clearly Paul is appointing a new teacher of the faith passed down from him – a succession if you will-- and passed onto other generations.

And these tracts to get you started:
catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors

 

[bmullins]

Take her to the book of Acts, the story of the early church. Apostolic succession is clearly shown in Acts Chapter 1, around verse 26. The Apostles decided to replace Judas who was once among them. They do so by casting lots and it falls to a man named Matthias. He was ‘added’ to the Apostles. In the original text it implies an office.

And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Today the cardinals do the same for the pope. They cast lots (votes) and whoever it falls upon becomes the new pope. The Holy Spirit guides them in this process.

 

[JRKH]

I’m sure you will receive many excellent replies and links…But here is my totally simple response…

If Peter (and the Church) could bind and loose - Whatever - (that is make teaching) then they could “bind” a teaching that authority is passed on from Bishop to Bishop in succession. The could further “bind” that the bishop who succeeded Peter (in the Roman Diocese) inherited Peter’s primacy…
This need not be formally recorded in Scripture…It is covered by the Authority of the Apostles and their successors.

To me this cuts through all of the undergrowth and gets to the heart of the matter.

Peace
James

 

[DJK100]

She understands that this makes Peter an authority on the faith and thereby gives him the power to declare what is good and what is sin. However, she struggles with accepting that this authority could then be conferred onto other generations.

Also, some one wrote this in a different thread which I thought was a very good and relevant point to you discussion.

“Secondly, from Tradition it is clear that the authority of the first Apostles were passed down. St. Paul is a very good example of that. He was not an original Apostles. But he was acknowledged by the Apostles as being called to be an Apostle and given the authority to do so.”

Seems pretty clear cut. Not to mention after Judas’ betrayal the Apostles picked another to take Judas’ place.

Hope this helps.

 

[pablope]

Also, some one wrote this in a different thread which I thought was a very good and relevant point to you discussion.

“Secondly, from Tradition it is clear that the authority of the first Apostles were passed down. St. Paul is a very good example of that. He was not an original Apostles. But he was acknowledged by the Apostles as being called to be an Apostle and given the authority to do so.”

Seems pretty clear cut. Not to mention after Judas’ betrayal the Apostles picked another to take Judas’ place.

Hope this helps.

Yes…and this how St. Paul became an apostle…not when he was called to convert on the road to Damascus.

Acts 13…1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

It is only after this passage that Paul begins his first missionary journey.

 

[JRKH]

Also, some one wrote this in a different thread which I thought was a very good and relevant point to you discussion.

“Secondly, from Tradition it is clear that the authority of the first Apostles were passed down. St. Paul is a very good example of that. He was not an original Apostles. But he was acknowledged by the Apostles as being called to be an Apostle and given the authority to do so.”

Seems pretty clear cut. Not to mention after Judas’ betrayal the Apostles picked another to take Judas’ place.

Hope this helps.

This is very true but I would just mention that Paul was called directly and rather spectacularly by God. Timothy on the other hand was chosen by Paul and was a bishop. Barnabas, was chosen by the Apostles to replace Judas.
So there are various references that point to Apostolic succession in Tradition.

Peace
James

 

[bmullins]

Barnabas, was chosen by the Apostles to replace Judas.

I just have to nitpick here. Barnabas was one of two people voted on to replace Judas, but it wasn’t Barnabas who was chosen. It was Matthias.

 

[pablope]

This is very true but I would just mention that Paul was called directly and rather spectacularly by God. Timothy on the other hand was chosen by Paul and was a bishop. Barnabas, was chosen by the Apostles to replace Judas.
So there are various references that point to Apostolic succession in Tradition.

Peace
James

James, I think you meant Matthias, not Barnabas.

Just to add…Apostolic succession is also a sign of humility…is a submission to the authority of the Church, via the first apostles…and down through their successors, the bishops.

 

[JRKH]

I just have to nitpick here. Barnabas was one of two people voted on to replace Judas, but it wasn’t Barnabas who was chosen. It was Matthias.

Mea culpa…

Thanks for the correction.

Peace
James

 

[PerryJ]

I apolgogize as I have not been on this site for a very long time and my memory is not exact. My apologetics are a bit thin.

There are many items in the Bible and outside the Bible that supports succession. One is a historical fact that (I believe the 3rd Pope) sent a letter to a Church showing authority to that Church. This letter was sent; while, apostles yet lived. Authority was handed over as a historical fact and can be proved as they have a copy of the letter. If I recall correctly is was one of St Paul’s Churches. It is not know if St Paul was still alive; however, several Apostles yet lived.

In the interest of just babbling, it is also interesting why indivduals would believe Christ would not leave an authority behind. The Saducees and Pharisees had two different Bibles with two different views. If Christ came back to Earth to show us the way why would he leave it as it was before; no clear authority over his Church or his word. Does this make sense? Would it make sense to continue a divided Church with no direction as the Jewish Faith was falling into? Of course now this is what our brethen the Protestants continue to do as they now have many many versions of the Bible and their beliefs.

 

[PJM]

=Equites Christi;8797240]Hello all!

My girlfriend is a cradle Catholic, and I have been working with her to try to bring her closer to the faith. We have begun to have more in-depth discussions, and this is a question that she brought up:

I showed her the verse in Matthew 16 where Christ founds His Church on Peter, and gives him the power “to bind and loose”. She understands that this makes Peter an authority on the faith and thereby gives him the power to declare what is good and what is sin. However, she struggles with accepting that this authority could then be conferred onto other generations. I afterwards discovered that in Matthew 18 Christ gives the same authority to all the apostles, but the same question persists. I already brought up the point that if they could not pass on their power then the authority would have died with them, but I am hoping to give her something with some more meat to it.

She also had another question which I myself wonder, which is who declares Church teaching? Obviously the Pope for one, but he’s not alone. Is it Cardinals? Bishops? Archbishops? I understand that teachings usually come from councils, but how do they proceed? Majority vote??

For example, the Catechism. I understand that its teachings have roots in Sacred Scripture, if not outright taken from it. But there had to be a group which decided what went into it. Who constituted that group? How did they go about their deliberations?

Thank you very much for all your help!

***Thanks for you’re efforts.

Let’s try a slightly different approach.***
**Matt.28 : 16 to 20 **“Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; And Jesus came and said to them, “***All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” ***

Jesus could not expect this to be fulfilled within the lifetimes of the Original Apostles.

**Acts.8: 17 **Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

Succession] Acts.6: 1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution**. And the twelve **[NOTE ONE HAD BEEN ADDED]summoned the body of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

**Then in John 20: 19-23 **We find this: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

ALL of these things happened here:
The CC is Founded:thumbsup:
The 1st. Pentecost
Sacrament of Confirmation is instituted
Sacrament of reconciliation /Penance is instituted

There could be NO forgiveness of sin IF SUCCESSION did not continue. [Jn.20:23]

Christ WOULD not institute ANY of the sacraments to have them last ONLY for the duration of the Apostles lives.

If succession did not happen the Church Christ lived and DIED for would also have died with the Apostles. IMPOSSIBLE.

God Bless,
Pat [PJM on the FORUM]

 

[Crumpy]

The OP has a very complicated question. i don’t know who comes up with these questions, and whether the OP itself is historical or contrived…???

YES, that’s a very complicated question about what faculties Peter and the apostles had and what faculties could be passed on to their successors.

The book Tradition and the Church by Msgr George Agius has a very detailed and specific answer to this, which I am not going to attempt to summarize here.

But, yes, Peter and the apostles did have special faculties which were NOT inherited by their successors.

In the OP, I’m a little concerned about the idea that the Popes, etc. can define what is a sin. that’s a big subject, too, and I don’t know if I agree with her that the popes can do that. Maybe this subjec rankles me because it sounds trivial when stated this way. It’s not the whim of the pope to decide what is right and wrong, for sure. On the other hand, he is the supreme teacher of the faith and quite properly does say what is right and wrong.

I think the popes have looked out at society and analyzed and passed judgment on what they see out there. The Pope and the Church surely do have to preach the faith and teach people what is right and wrong, to “obey” all the things Christ has commanded.

 

[fred_conty]

The OP has a very complicated question. i don’t know who comes up with these questions, and whether the OP itself is historical or contrived…???

YES, that’s a very complicated question about what faculties Peter and the apostles had and what faculties could be passed on to their successors.

The book Tradition and the Church by Msgr George Agius has a very detailed and specific answer to this, which I am not going to attempt to summarize here.

But, yes, Peter and the apostles did have special faculties which were NOT inherited by their successors.

In the OP, I’m a little concerned about the idea that the Popes, etc. can define what is a sin. that’s a big subject, too, and I don’t know if I agree with her that the popes can do that. Maybe this subjec rankles me because it sounds trivial when stated this way. It’s not the whim of the pope to decide what is right and wrong, for sure. On the other hand, he is the supreme teacher of the faith and quite properly does say what is right and wrong.

I think the popes have looked out at society and analyzed and passed judgment on what they see out there. The Pope and the Church surely do have to preach the faith and teach people what is right and wrong, to “obey” all the things Christ has commanded.

Here is another thread that may help resolve that.
Re: Which part of Magisterium teachings/pope words do catholics have to belief in?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=609763

 

[Abu]

Equites Christi
she struggles with accepting that this authority could then be conferred onto other generations.
who declares Church teaching?

Christ’s clear mandate was recognised from the very first. The evidence from the historicity of the Gospels, and the early Church confirm the primacy of authority and the infallibility of the Pope as defined by Vatican I, and the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Pope.

The first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So the other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

The second error is in disregarding history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar.