Help for an inquiring friend

[mbryanbooks]

My friend Bob is a devout Protestant, a strongly evangelical Lutheran. We have theological/apologetical discussions from time to time. He’s a careful lay student of the Scriptures and theology. There are a few weighty issues that keep him from being completely won over, and it mostly has to do with the papacy and the nature of the Catholic sacramental priesthood.

The following is in his own words [my notes are in brackets]:

1. Concerning dogma statements of the Pope or infallible encyclical dogma statements of the Pope.

Are there any contradictions, disparities, or non-universals in them? They must be cross-cultural, infallible, and universal, and without room for any progressive revelation which would allow change. The ultimate reference points will be Scripture and the tradition of the RCC.

1. If this passes the test, then examine the papacy, the priesthood “in light” of Hebrews ch. 3-9. I need a Catholic exegetical study by an approved exegete (Papal seal) of those chapters.

[This is a key issue. The sacramental priesthood, as distinguished from the universal priesthood of the baptised, is a stumbling block for Bob. How is the sacramental priesthood connected to the High Priesthood of Christ? And how does Melchizedek figure into it? A sound Catholic exegesis of Hebrews, chapters 3-9, of which Bob can be assured is approved Catholic teaching, would probably help him a great deal.]

1. Then, if I should be convinced, there are 3 alternatives: (1) become a Catholic; (2) become Orthodox Catholic; (3) show how the Lutheran Church is the [true] Church.
2. I need a Catholic priest who is a theologian to supply me with the dogma statements and can affix a seal of the papacy on them as being infallible, inerrant, and non-changeable by progressive revelation, the Jesuits, or non-sanctioned statements by bishops and/or the house of Cardinals.

[Bob is suspicious of the Jesuits. I think he associates them with sophistry and sly double-dealing theology. He’s also doubtful of statements that may be issued by, say, a national conference of bishops, but which do not bear any official “seal of papal approval.” He actually has very high regard for the papacy in a theoretical sense, if he can be convinced that the office of Peter is as the Catholic Churches teach it is.]

1. Then me – Yes or No

**

 

[DenRat]

What if you had Bob call the Catholic Answers apologists line (not the show). I don’t recall the number but they give it frequently on Catholic Answers Live. It’s probably on their website.

Good Luck,
Denise

 

[metal1633]

For starters, your friend is not going to find many infallible Papal teachings dealing with the exegisis of a set of verses. He is asking for something that hasnt been done. The is no such thing. As a Theologian, the Popes opinion on a verse is the same as any other Theologian. Your friend WILL find the Churches Dogmatic Doctrinal stance on the Priesthood under the New Covenant in the Cathechism. If he needss a fuller explaination than that there is LOTS of Apologetic Material on the Subject. Try here…cin.org/users/james/files/ntpriest.htm

 

[Todd_Easton]

The idea that ‘there should be no ordained priesthood because all belong to a universal priesthood’ first reared its head in the Old Testament in Korah’s rebellion (see Numbers 16:1-50). Korah’s (universal priesthood only) agrument against Moses and Aaron was: “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (v. 3) Korah and his followers lost the argument and their lives.

In Jude 3-22, Christians are warned against those who would likewise “reject authority and revile the glorious ones,” saying, “Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.” (vv. 3, 11)

In his First Letter to the Corinthians, written about A.D. 80, especially chapters 40-44, Clement of Rome references Korah’s rebellion in relation to those who would usurp the ministry of those commissioned as bishops by the Apostles to offer the Eucharist. He encourages Christians, “Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.” (ch. 41)
Here’s an online link to Clement’s letter: ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841

Another early Christian witness to the ministerial priesthood is Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smynaeans, written about A.D. 107, chapter 8, Ignatius says: "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution [or, command] of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper [or, firm] Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid [or, firm].
Here’s an online link to this and the other letters of Ignatius of Antioch: ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

 

[martino]

I think you should zero in a one or two precise questions and ask it in the “ask an apologist” forum.

 

[Sherlock]

I would recommend a book that goes into the papacy from the perspective of the Church Fathers (as well as Biblical sources) by convert Stephen Ray, “Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church”. It’s available from Ignatius Press.