How important is Papal succession?

[geebob]

I saw a debate between a reformed apologist Matt Slick and catholic apologist Robert Sungenis.

In this, sungenis links his belief about the identity of the “true” church to Papal succession:

Matt: What makes you think the Roman Catholic Church is the true church?

Robert: Because we have the pedigree. If you go back, all the way to the beginning. We have popes in every century, the succession is passed on, and there’s no break in it. Your church started, I don’t know when, maybe in the 16 hundreds, 17 hundreds. You have no pedigree.

I’ve been looking into the matter of apostolic succession, and I can understand if catholics insist on linking it through the Bishops, but if they require an unbroken chain through the Popes, it appears to me that there is a serious historical and biblical problem with this.

It turns out that Pope Benedict IX sold the Papacy to Gregory VI.

Gregory VI was said to have commited Simony and was forced to give up his office. And Simony is named for Simon the sorcerer who attempted to purchase the power of God from Peter and was told this:

Acts 8:20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

So one Pope thought the Papacy could be sold and the other thought it could be bought, and thus, Acts 8 would conflict with this office being viewed as a gift of God or a ministry if such can be done.

Since it was then, Was there no legitimate Pope at the time? Following wikipedia, I notice there were several popes at the time of Benedict IX, but there is only one successor from Gregory VI, making me wonder if there was no legitimate pope during his reign.

And if that is true, does it matter that the chain was temporarily broken?

 

[valentino]

Papal succession is tantamount.That’s the one issue that divides christian denominations from Catholics.When Luther refused to obey Rome he opened up the floodgates.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I saw a debate between a reformed apologist Matt Slick and catholic apologist Robert Sungenis.

In this, sungenis links his belief about the identity of the “true” church to Papal succession:

I’ve been looking into the matter of apostolic succession, and I can understand if catholics insist on linking it through the Bishops, but if they require an unbroken chain through the Popes, it appears to me that there is a serious historical and biblical problem with this.

It turns out that Pope Benedict IX sold the Papacy to Gregory VI.

Gregory VI was said to have commited Simony and was forced to give up his office. And Simony is named for Simon the sorcerer who attempted to purchase the power of God from Peter and was told this:

So one Pope thought the Papacy could be sold and the other thought it could be bought, and thus, Acts 8 would conflict with this office being viewed as a gift of God or a ministry if such can be done.

Since it was then, Was there no legitimate Pope at the time? Following wikipedia, I notice there were several popes at the time of Benedict IX, but there is only one successor from Gregory VI, making me wonder if there was no legitimate pope during his reign.

And if that is true, does it matter that the chain was temporarily broken?

Think of the Papacy as an office, similar to President. Regardless of how they get elected (rigged election boxes, etc.), they still exercise the power of the office. That power is not dependent upon the power of the individual, but the authority given the office by Jesus. When Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” in Matt. 16:19, He was following a Jewish tradition of the kingdom, whereby the king always had a second-in-command (royal steward, if you will), who ran the kingdom whenever the king was unavailable (at war, sick, off visiting another nation, etc.). This individual was easily identified because he walked around with a big key (or two) on his shoulder that was 2-3 feet long! Those were the “keys to the kingdom.” Whatever this second-in-command ruled while the king was out, the king backed up upon his return. Jesus, Whom we refer to as our King (we call Him, “Lord”), knew He would be leaving earth for heaven and needed someone on earth to run things for Him until He returned. This office, first occupied by Peter, is what we call Pope (comes from the Latin for “Papa”). Any individual (including Peter) who occupies this position has the gift of infallibility when declaring doctrine on faith and morals for the universal Church when he intends it to be binding. It is NOT a guarantee, in any way, of personal impeccability. Popes can sin like anyone else, and end up in hell, just like anyone else. When I lived in Louisiana in the 80’s, there was a governor there, Edwin Edwards, who was incredibly corrupt. He was tried by the feds several times, the last sending him to the federal pen. Regardless, though, while he was the governor of the state, he had powers the rest of us innocent citizens did not. He could, even though he was corrupt, grant pardons to people in Angola (state prison). We could not.

So, no, there is no problem with Papal succession. And, it helps to think of it as an office, not of the person in the office.

The Catholic Church is indefectably holy. Not because of the people in it (including the Pope), but because its head is Jesus Christ and its soul is the Holy Spirit. It is holy despite us mere humans!

 

[ctkrcia]

Geebob, welcome to the forums! You pose an interesting question here. However, I think a major point may be missing from your comments. The papacy, as an office, is a gift from God. The men who occupy that office are ALL sinners to one degree or another. John Paul II is widely considered to have been a deeply spiritual and devout man. However, he still when to confession once a week. Why? Because he realized he was a sinner who sought refuge in the healing power of the sacrament.

In his office, the Pope is “first among equals”. The highest spiritual office one can hold is Bishop. The Pope is the bishop of Rome. Archbishops and Cardinals have more administrative authority, but not any more ecclesiastical authority than was graced them when ordained as a Bishop. The Pope has the special charism of infallibility (in limited circumstances), but no more ecclesiastical authority. Incidentally, whenever the doctrine of infallibility was formally employed, it was done in full harmony with the magisterium.

There have been “bad” popes in the church’s history, for sure. But, the church was protected from harm by the gift of the Holy Spirit. These men didn’t leave unchangeable marks on the church. They didn’t legislate a new morality or infallibly declare anything outside of sacred scripture or sacred tradition. But they were bad popes who did some bad things. At one point in history, there were three men who all claimed to be Pope at the same time. Each of these had their own group of supporters within the church, including priests and bishops.

But in spite of all this, the church has survived. This is primarily due to the protection of the Holy Spirit, who promised He would never abandon the church (Matt 28:20).

From the time of Jesus ascension, there has always been a valid occupant of the Papal office, except when one vacates the office through death, resignation, removal, etc. HERE is a list of all the Popes in history. Most of them have short biographies hyperlinked to their name. It is interesting to note that Gregory VI, whom you mention, was convinced by the bishops to resign due to his act of simony. However, despite Acts 8, the office and its occupant have always reigned under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Concerning a 100% unbroken succession, in a strict sense that has never been the case. When a pope dies, the office is vacant until a successor is installed. The same thing when popes have resigned, been deposed, or otherwise vacated the office.

 

[geebob]

So, no, there is no problem with Papal succession. And, it helps to think of it as an office, not of the person in the office.

This makes sense, I’m just not sure that the distinction is good enough, that “office” of peter is not a ministry.

It is NOT a guarantee, in any way, of personal impeccability. Popes can sin like anyone else, and end up in hell,

In the case of Benedict, it isn’t just a matter of where he ended up. He lead a consistently evil life if other catholics are to be believed. And here’s where the problem gets intense. According to Peter one “[has] no part or share in this ministry, because [his] heart is not right before God.”

This idea that you can have such depraved corrupt administrators of the church who have no share in the ministry, that’s a stretch.

I’d say that Simon Magnus wasn’t just one who’s heart wasn’t right before god. he had no part in the church, so if some Popes were not truly in the church for the same reasons, where does that leave us?

Truly, that a pope can go to hell is to admit that a pope is not a real member of the church. No authentic member in the church is going to hell. That’s just a category error.

 

[ProVobis]

And if that is true, does it matter that the chain was temporarily broken?

Technically the chain is broken with the death of every Pope. The Pope doesn’t choose his successor. Apostolic Succession, comprised of valid Cardinals and bishops, is the real issue and that’s what distinguishes Catholics from Protestants inter alia.

 

[geebob]

I think a major point may be missing from your comments. The papacy, as an office, is a gift from God. The men who occupy that office are ALL sinners to one degree or another. John Paul II is widely considered to have been a deeply spiritual and devout man. However, he still when to confession once a week.[/qutoe]

clearly, I’m not talking about mere backsliding and neither was Peter.

There have been “bad” popes in the church’s history, for sure. But, the church was protected from harm by the gift of the Holy Spirit. These men didn’t leave unchangeable marks on the church.

That’s all well and good as long as you don’t need a unbroken chain of succession. Do you? I don’t know. I’m asking. Is it alright that there were times when there spiritually was no Pope? Can the chain be broken according to catholic thought, or is it part and parcel with apostolic succesion?

This is primarily due to the protection of the Holy Spirit, who promised He would never abandon the church

We protestants think so. That’s why most of us don’t identify the markings of the church with an administrative body.

Concerning a 100% unbroken succession, in a strict sense that has never been the case. When a pope dies, the office is vacant until a successor is installed. The same thing when popes have resigned, been deposed, or otherwise vacated the office.

And that may answer my question. Still, for the chain to be interrupted not by the death or deposition of a pope, but by an ongoing reign of a spiritually dead Pope, is that a problem? I don’t know enough about catholic ecclesiology to insist that it would be, but for now, I suppose you may have the answer.

Still, I note then that the idea that the chain should be continuous appears to be out there amongst catholics given the Sungenis quote.

 

[geebob]

BTW, while it’s hard not to view Benedict IX as a spiritually dead Pope (and did not authentically fill an office from God), I’m not committed to the idea that to the same about Gregory VI even though he bought the Papacy like the rebuked Simon Magnus tried to buy other gifts of God. That’s because (and I believe) that the Papacy is not authentically a gift of God and not intrinsically a ministry, but rather it is a man made institution wrongly based on a passage that doesn’t imply, gaurantee, or even restrict succession to an earthly adminstration.

 

[geebob]

After thinking about this, I do want to acknowledge that I feel my question has been answered as far as I can judge it. Since the catholic church (according to those who responded here, albeit, again, it appears to me that the other opinion is out there amongst catholics) doesn’t require an unbroken succession of Popes (since it’s periodically broken by the death of Popes) my original challenge has bee answered (at least tentatively).

I wanted to make this explicit so no one accuses me of moving the goal posts. the goal has been scored, but the game goes on.

So this leads me to my next question. Does the catholic church insist that Benedict IX and Gregory VI were really successors to Peter, that they held the keys to the kingdom?

I can’t think that they were given the words of Peter, that gifts of God and ministry cannot be bought or sold. So whatever they sold and bought, it wasn’t from God. And of course, Benedict IX having such a scandalous life during the Papacy was not even spiritually right with God. Here one might suggest that what he had was comparible to the wicked Kings of Israel or Judah, having a kingship that came from God. But our kindgdom isn’t of this world as the one under the old covenant was. Their kingship somewhat paralleled their covnenant, in part coming through birth. I would think that our leadership out to fall in line with our covenant which is entered through faith.

 

[ProVobis]

So this leads me to my next question. Does the catholic church insist that Benedict IX and Gregory VI were really successors to Peter, that they held the keys to the kingdom?

It’s Tu Es Petrus, not so much his successor.

 

[geebob]

Little help for those who don’t speak latin or catholic?

 

[davidv]

After thinking about this, I do want to acknowledge that I feel my question has been answered as far as I can judge it. Since the catholic church (according to those who responded here, albeit, again, it appears to me that the other opinion is out there amongst catholics) doesn’t require an unbroken succession of Popes (since it’s periodically broken by the death of Popes) my original challenge has bee answered (at least tentatively).

I wanted to make this explicit so no one accuses me of moving the goal posts. the goal has been scored, but the game goes on.

So this leads me to my next question. Does the catholic church insist that Benedict IX and Gregory VI were really successors to Peter, that they held the keys to the kingdom?

Yes. I don’t know their specific history, but if they were properly appointed or elected according to the Church norms at the time, they held the office of Pope, with all its duties and responsibilities and charisms.

I can’t think that they were given the words of Peter, that gifts of God and ministry cannot be bought or sold. So whatever they sold and bought, it wasn’t from God. And of course, Benedict IX having such a scandalous life during the Papacy was not even spiritually right with God. Here one might suggest that what he had was comparible to the wicked Kings of Israel or Judah, having a kingship that came from God. But our kindgdom isn’t of this world as the one under the old covenant was. Their kingship somewhat paralleled their covnenant, in part coming through birth. I would think that our leadership out to fall in line with our covenant which is entered through faith.

I don’t understand your reference to “bought and sold”.

Did any of the Israelite’s king’s wickedness cause them not to be king?

We are all given sufficient grace to live up to the command to love God and neighbor. Yet we often fail. So do Popes.

Your example of these particular Popes is simply evidence of the presence of sin in the world. It is not evidence of failed succession.

 

[ctkrcia]

After thinking about this, I do want to acknowledge that I feel my question has been answered as far as I can judge it. Since the catholic church (according to those who responded here, albeit, again, it appears to me that the other opinion is out there amongst catholics) doesn’t require an unbroken succession of Popes (since it’s periodically broken by the death of Popes) my original challenge has bee answered (at least tentatively).

I wanted to make this explicit so no one accuses me of moving the goal posts. the goal has been scored, but the game goes on.

So this leads me to my next question. Does the catholic church insist that Benedict IX and Gregory VI were really successors to Peter, that they held the keys to the kingdom?

I can’t think that they were given the words of Peter, that gifts of God and ministry cannot be bought or sold. So whatever they sold and bought, it wasn’t from God. And of course, Benedict IX having such a scandalous life during the Papacy was not even spiritually right with God. Here one might suggest that what he had was comparible to the wicked Kings of Israel or Judah, having a kingship that came from God. But our kindgdom isn’t of this world as the one under the old covenant was. Their kingship somewhat paralleled their covnenant, in part coming through birth. I would think that our leadership out to fall in line with our covenant which is entered through faith.

All men who were validly elected and installed into the office of the Papacy are legitimate successors to Peter. The fact that they may have entered the office under less than desirable circumstances or performed below the dignity of the office does not invalidate them. The office of leadership (the papacy) began with Peter and has been in place since then. The office was instituted by Jesus himself and remains in place today. It is not a man-made institution. It is not explicitly defined in sacred Scripture. It is implicit, but not explicit. It is, however, 100% found in sacred Tradition and in church history.

There has always been a central controlling authority…until the Reformation. After that, each group established themselves as their own authority to interpret scripture and to know God’s will. This has led to the thousands (up to 40,000 by some accounts) of Protestant denominations. Most of these were created when a group of people disagreed with the leadership, direction, or interpretation of the one’s who lead their church. So they start a new community and the cycle repeats and repeats.

Scripture speaks of “one church, one faith, one baptism”. Scripture also speaks of how to handle a dispute with a brother. 1-Discuss it with your brother. 2-Take two or three witnesses and discuss it with your brother. 3-Take it to the church. This will only be effective if there is a single church with authority over the two in dispute.

The central controlling authority is what binds us together in Christ’s church. Without that, we will all be wandering around aimlessly. Without that, we will all proclaim ourselves Pope, establishing rules according to our own fallible interpretation of Scripture. This is done in complete disregard for sacred Tradition, which sacred Scripture instructs us to follow!

Lastly, if we wanted to truly worship as Jesus taught we need to look at the men who were taught by Jesus (Apostles). In addition, we need to look at those who were taught by them (Apostolic Fathers). Then, we need to examine the beliefs, practices, and doctrines embraced by the next generations (Early Church Fathers). These are the ones who KNEW what Jesus said, taught, and meant. By examining them we can come close to understanding the earliest Christians, some of whom still had the voices of Jesus and the Apostles still ringing in their ears. After examining them, follow their trail all the way to the present day and you will find the Catholic Church.

 

[geebob]

David, me thinks you didn’t read the opening post. And in subsequent responses, objections like your own were answered.

ctkrcia,

you introduce many red herrings without handling the essential problem I highlighted particularly in my last post where the discussion shifts to a related topic. The gifts of God cannot be bought and sold and those who attempt this have no place in the ministry. Review the first topic and my last one to see why this is so.

maybe you are right, that the church wanders aimlessly without a central human authority, that the problem of splintering is due to a lack of a pope and Christians need to look to the apostles and those they taught, etc. But all of these issues can have responses and yet it doesn’t matter. The topic is what it is. Either you can deal with the topic with integrity or you have to throw out distractions because you can’t. And even if those distractions are in the form of important topics, they are still, in this thread, on this topic started by me, in this context, distractions.

These discussion so often don’t go anywhere because people don’t focus. This one certainly did go somewhere. I made a concession because I know where my topic was going and I know what a good response is as some have been provided. Let’s give this our best.