How to overcome the "GAP" difficulty of Doctrinal Development

[God_Seeker_1]

Hello everyone (This first part is an introduction),

I was born and raised “Catholic” in a nominal Catholic family (we did not really believe and practice even as normal Catholics), went through the sacraments, partook of the Eucharist, attending weekly Mass, went to Catholic school,etc. When I turned 18 I went to the university and my anonymous roommate was a Conservative, Fundamentalist, Reformed, and Evangelical Baptist. By this time, I had already devolved into an agnostic who didn’t even believe in God. Of course, he slowly introduced to me the apologetics for Christianity, and I became intellectually convinced of Christianity, more so then in my younger years. This particular baptist brother attending a church where the gospel was not “ask Jesus into your heart” or “pray this little prayer” or “just admit confess and believe (ABC)”, but rather each Sunday consisted of loud and fiery preaching on “SELF-DENIAL” and “ABSOLUTE SURRENDER” and “TOTAL COMMITMENT” and “OBEDIENCE” as CONDITIONS for entering into eternal life. Therefore, from the very first time I attending, I was around a morally rigorous and strongly committed group of people. Most of the theology came from the gospel of Matthew, Mark, James, Hebrews, and Revelation. We rarely spoke about Romans, Galatians, etc,etc. Although, in the doctrine, we were reformed. I joined the church and had a radical conversion experience from all of my sin to living in obedience to the Scriptures. I eventually ended up attending bible college, wanted to join the ministry of the Chuch, and become a bible teacher. The Church was very committed to the powers of the binding and loosing, the authority of the keys of the kingdom, and the practice of excommunication. I remember this happening on many occasions.

Because of a number of events in this church (after 7 years) I have now come to the place where I have highly questioned the issue of “Spiritual Authority”. Through reading many books by Catholic Apologists (Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, etc,etc) and reading through the Early Church Fathers, Church History, and the Councils I have realized this baptist church is very late coming in all of it’s teachings and demands. I have now come to the point where I attend an Anglican Church that is in the Traditional Anglican Communion, which has separated communion from the Canterbury Bishop, and is part of the Anglican Province of America. I believe in Transubstantiation, Baptismal Regeneration, Confirmation, but I have not come into full intellectual confidence in Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, the Papacy, the Marian Dogmas etc,etc.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Now to the “GAP” difficulty, I will not describe.

I have noticed, not just by hearing one or a few Catholic apologists, that many Catholic Apologists explain the seeming change through the history of the Church in terms of a logical, corroborative, and necessary development of doctrine. The difficulty I have with this issue of the development of doctrine is the “GAP” that exists (at least in my fallible understanding) between the heirarchial organization of the Church from approximately 90AD to 400AD.

For instance, Clement, with absolutely no doubts, speaks definitively about the office of Bishop which the apostles willed to take on the role of teaching after the apostles. Presumably, Clement himself is a Bishop, as well as those who were deposed from office at Corinth. But Clement does not individualize any one bishop or region as supreme over the whole world of bishops. Of course, he does not deny this either. But further on from here, Ireneaus seems to attribute pre-eminence to Rome on the basis of the dual-effort of Peter and Paul; this does not support (in my own mistakable mind) the single Petrine schematic of our modern day Vaticanal understanding. Tertullian also speaks of Rome as being doubly apostolic, due to the dual effort of Paul and Peter. Moreover, interestingly, Tertullian speaks of many valid and apostolic churches who are founded by someone who is neither an apostle or a successor to an apostle (which would presume a valid Eucharist); and so it seems Tertullian did not believe in apostolic succession in the “trapped” sense of the physical laying on of hands from a previous bishop who eventually goes back to an apostle of our Lord. Furthermore, the Councils seems to view the episcopate as one universal office which all bishops have equal shareholding authority. The bishops (in my own reading) seems to view the Ecumenical Council as the highest of authority, unto which all bishops (no exceptions) are bound to adhere to. Also there seems to be a pre-eminence given to more than one See, but Rome in particular because of it’s imperial height in the Empire.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

And so there seems to me to be a gap of time between what the Church understood in terms of Authority from the early centuries and the modern Vaticanal teaching which says the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, is the supreme bishops holding authority over every christian in the world.

In my own understanding, the doctrine of the Papacy has an irreducible complex which renders impossible previous development. In other words, that the successors of St. Peter would be the unique singular and vicarious Pastors of the universal church, and that this construct is a fixed and inflexible standard which would be perpetual until the coming of Christ. These two elements in the previous sentence are, in my mind, the irreducible principle of the Papacy that must be connected to the audible teaching of the apostles, in order for the doctrine itself to maintain apostolicity. More simply, that the successors of Peter would be Christ’s authority and that this method would be immovable until the coming of Christ. There cannot be a prior development which leads up to this, for this is the irreducible principle that cannot have prior development, without sacrificing the apostolicity of the papacy (again in my own understanding).

If the apostles did not receive this irreducible maxim (that St. Peter’s successors would be the vicars of Christ and that this mode is the standard until Christ’s coming), then we cannot justify the teaching as apostolic (in my fallible understanding). I could be mistaken.

So the GAP would be the teaching that was universal upon the death of the apostles and the later dogmas of the Pope being the Vicar of Christ until Christ returns.

 

[trk1]

Hi God Seeker! (I dig the name)

Here is my preferred overview of Marian Dogmas:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
It’s pretty compact so it may give you more ideas of what to look for at the least even if it’s not all quite clear. A lot of the Old Testament prophecies can be more thoroughly explained by this six lesson free course: salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/holy_queen_the_mother_of_god_in_the_word_of_god

In regards to the “gap” I like how you’re going back to historical documents. Quite intellectual. I downloaded this, faithdatabase.com/ , and was quite happy with it. It also really comes in useful for bible study too. Of course it costs $30 which is a bummer so the same documents can probably be found on vatican.va if you’re willing to dig.

When you say “gap” are you referring to a gap in time of theological development or a gap in belief? I couldn’t quite tell.

God Bless

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Hey thanks for the links!

What I meant by “Gap” was the time gap between the full content of the apostle’s teaching and then the full blown publication by the bishop of Rome that he is the vicar of Christ’s authority (and his successors) until Christ returns.

APOSTLES DOCTRINE <--------------GAP------------------> PAPACY

What I hear from most is the idea of development. But what I have proposed is that the papacy has an irreducible maxim which cannot have development prior to the apostles in order to retain it’s apostolicity. The 2 elements, namely, that the singular successors of Peter would be the vicars of christ’s authority over the whole Church and that this is a fixed inflexible standard until the 2nd coming. These 2 elements are the irreducible maxim which must have been taught by the apostles in order for it to be apostolic.

The problem I see is that Clement, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, the council of Nicea, etc,etc seem to dictate a universal episcopate with bishops having equal shareholing in authority (something like Clement).

So how can we construct a development which maintains these 2 elements in the apostles?

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, Seeker!

You offer some really good substantive questions. Can I begin responding to you by offering an analogical approach?

When I was born, God had ordained that my Mom was, well… my mom! At the time, I didn’t understand it, and I certainly couldn’t articulate the concept of ‘motherhood’. Later, I came to understand it as a child, and still later, as an adult, I have a richer understanding both of the concept of ‘motherhood’ and of the way that my Mom lives out that role that God has given her in her life.

Now… we wouldn’t say that my Mom became my mother only at the time I could form an intellectual argument for ‘motherhood’, would we? We wouldn’t even say that she became my Mom at that moment when I first opened my mouth and said “Ma-ma!”. No… my Mom was my mother from the very beginning… even if my future “development” of the concept happened much later. Motherhood was ordained by God in His plan of creation, and at a particular point in time, this one particular woman became mother to me. (Heck, we could point out that some women, at the point that they become mothers, themselves don’t have a rich understanding of what it means to be ‘mother’. That doesn’t mean that they’re not mothers, though!)

I would argue that this is akin to the ‘development’ of the papacy.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Hey, I appreciate your analogy.

Here is the dilemma that I still maintain, even within this analogy.

I understand that Steve Ray is not a Catholic “Scholar”, but a lay apologist; so let’s keep that in mind. But he spends a great deal of time in his book “Upon This Rock” (Steve Ray) arguing that when Jesus spoke to Peter with the words “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18) that ANY modern day Jew would have understood the terms “Keys” and “Bind and Loose” to not only denote authority to admit and confiscate but also that these phrases are rooted historically in the Davidic dynasty Isaiah 22, with Eliakim. According to Steve Ray, Peter, being a Jew, should have understood that He was ordained as the foundation “rock” of the Church, that he would have the powers of the keys which are excercised in binding and loosing, and that these keys would specifically and uniquely be handed on to his successors. Steve Ray doesn’t argue that the apostles had an infant perspective of these elements which make up the papacy, rather he argues that the apostles should have understood this clearly.

Moreover, the Papacy is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christ (this is assuming it is true). The doctrine of Christ’s dying in the place of sinners, his resurrection, his full humanity, his full deity, his being born of a virgin, etc,etc are all fundamental doctrines within the Council of Nicea’s Creed. I would argue that the Papacy is an even more fundamental and essential doctrine for it grounds the authority of every doctrine taught by the Church. If the apostles did not have a firm grasp on at least the 2 elements of Peter’s successors being the vicar’s of christ’s authority on earth and that this would perpetuate inflexibly throughout the rest of human history, then the papacy ceases altogether to be a doctrine taught by the apostles. To say that the earliest church only had an infant understanding of the Papacy and that the Church now has an adult understanding of the Papacy is to insert a GAP in the teaching of the apostles and the modern day teaching that merits the Papal doctrine as a novelty; For the earliest Bishops (Clement) and the earliest apologists (Tertullian) both proclaim that Christ delivered to the apostles the full disclosure of apostolic doctrine and in turn the apostles delivered to the churches the full disclosure of apostolic doctrine. This is the root and source of all our doctrine. To differentiate between what they taught and what we taught in terms of they didn’t understand it as well as we do, is for sure to introduce a new teaching, despite the rationalizing of an analogy in terms of infant to adult understanding.

In other words, these 2 elements cannot have prior development. These 2 elements must have been standardized in the mind of the apostles as well as their disciples, just as any other doctrine which is essential to the Christian faith. If we want to demonstrate the development of the trinity or the Canon, this fails to form a parallel of any sort, for we cannot fathom the apostles partially knowing Christ’s humanity or Christ’s deity, or that they knew only in part. Let that never be! Rather Paul speaks quite truly of both His deity and humanity. The relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not somehow partially known (unless I’m mistaken). Let us maintain with Clement and Tertullian that Christ gave to the apostles the full disclosure of apostolic teaching.

With regard to the Canon of Scripture, I would say this is more organizational than doctrinal; though we are not ridding the whole idea of doctrine from the Canon. But we can say with great clarity that from very early on most of the NT documents were circulated, whereas later there needed to be a full authoratative confirmation. But the end result was not VASTLY different from what had already been since the beginning.

With regard to the Papacy, however, we have not just a farther gap in time in comparison to the trinity or the Canon, but we have a different “sort” of GAP, one that does not seem to have even a “hint” early on.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

How should we understand this quote from Cyprian in the Council of Carthage? It makes me wonder whether the Papacy, being as important as the atonement, Christ’s humanity, Christ’s deity, the doctrine of baptism, etc,etc was ever taught to Cyprian?

*For no one [of us ] has set himself up [to be] bishop [of bishops], or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions [in that position].

 

[trk1]

Not quite a philosophy major over here, so what does “irreducible maxim” mean? I’m sure you’ve read the bible quotes supporting papal authority (they’re not too hard to find), so I’ll provide a few quotes from early Church Bishops instead.

Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Romans
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Irenaeus of Lyons [120-180 AD] Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 44
“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome, St [347-420 AD] To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Constantinople II (553) [ECUMENICAL]
“*f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4).

Sorry to drown you in quotes haha. Seems like a more smooth transition in development through the lens of these quotes. I’m sure that there were dissenting opinions too, but like you said the doctrine of the Trinity etc. all had it’s opponents. Were you uncomfortable about apostolic succession in general or just papal authority?*

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Yes these quotes show some royalty attributed to the Roman Church. By Jerome, you have the singular primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

But more particularly, before this period, I am searching for how to justify the gap in time between the apostles doctrine and the universal teaching of the Papacy among Christendom.

For instance, Ignatius, Ireneuas, Tertullian, and Clement do not attribute authority to the Roman Church out of reverence for the Successors of St. Peter, but because of it’s being founded by St. Paul and St. Peter.

The irreducible maxim simply means that there can not be a development prior to the teaching of the papacy. In other words, it has to be something the apostles know of.

Well, Tertullian troubles me a bit when it comes to apostolic succession, for he validates churches who do not have a bishop who is a successor of an apostle, even when he was in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[prayerandstudy]

Hello GodSeeker,

I am not an authority, but please let me share with you what I find to be a sure norm for knowing what the Church teaches. I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church whenever I need clairification. I found this today from paragraphs 880-882:

“When Christ instituted the Twelve, ‘he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.’ Just as ‘by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single aspostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.’”

“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which ws given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”

“The Pope,Bihsop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’”

Notice especially paragraph 883: “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s uccessor, as its head.'As such, this college has ‘supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.’”

Just as we trust the Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, for the proper interpretation of the Bible we also trust the Church’s teaching over any other contradictory teachings even if they be from ancient eclessiastical writers or Chruch Fathers. In doing a search on one person that you mentioned, Tertullian, I discovered that although he was an early writer in the Church, he later left the Church and became a montonist. The Church does not regard him as a saint and he doesn’t have approval.

I hope some of this is helpful to you.

 

[trk1]

I wouldn’t say that one Dogma or one Doctrine is more important than another. For example one must be baptized (by water, blood, OR desire) to go to heaven, but one need not venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary (though one should IMO). Something being a dogma just simply means it’s true. Let’s not get into ranking dogmas since we can’t order “truthiness” haha.

St. Cyprian certainly recognized the supremacy of the See of Rome if you read under “Church Unity” in his bio on NewAdvent: newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm

From the looks of the quote you used, I wish I knew the historical context, but it seems that he was simply trying to prevent disunity in the Church by bishops fighting. That’s the feeling that I get from the quotes that I’ve looked at from him. Every quote seems concerned with upholding ONE Church including the ones of him supporting the Primacy of Peter. (Yay One Holy Apostolic Church)

 

[trk1]

You do seem right about Iraenaeus attributing credit for the formation of the See of Rome to Paul also. As far as the other guys go, here are some more quotes. Peter was definitely the Bishop. I think Paul deserves credit too like Iraenaeus gives. Since Peter is the Bishop though. True authority and power flow from him in Rome.

Origen [185-254 AD] De Principiis (Book IV)
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]-of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Clement of Alexandria [150-215 AD] Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian [160-240 AD] Scorpiace
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
Tertullian [160-240 AD] On Modesty
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

 

[trk1]

Actually ya know what? It seems like the rest of the gang may be on board, but Tertullian does puzzle me too. I can’t tell who he is writing to, but in one epistle he says the Church holds the keys, in another, he says it is special to Peter. I’ll have to ask a priest to explain that one. Good questions though! Really got me thinking

 

[sharpag]

I think the GAP issue that you bring up is one worth some consideration. In my very fallible opinion, the Catholic idea of the Papacy is indeed that it developed. However, from the Catholic point of view this is not to say that the Papacy is an invention but merely that is a more complete fulfillment of what was yet to be completely revealed. It seems that the Early Church had some notion of Petrine primacy or supremacy but whether or not it was rooted in the Roman See of Peter (as opposed to Antioch and Jerusalem), in all the Petrine Sees, or in the Church at large is not altogether clear and depends largely on whether one ascribes to primacy or supremacy. I think you can find ample evidence supporting any of those positions with regard to supremacy but I am sure there are many people on this forum who tend to think the evidence supports one opinion in particular . Personally, I lean towards a more Orthodox view of the Pope so my thoughts do have a certain bias to them.

With respect to the irreducible maxim, I believe Catholics would argue that Peter’s authority was conferred by Christ and is one of the most essential elements of the faith as it is from Christ. I assume they would also argue that while Ecumenical Councils existed without Popes being present they became Ecumenical only by consent of the Pope. Which of course means their very source of authority is from the Pope and no teachings outside of those directly given from Christ can exist without the Pope. Thus Christ commissioned Peter who passed on his apostolic authority to confirm the teachings of the Church. But I am not Catholic so I would, rather ironically, wait to have an actual Catholic grant my words any sense of authority.

On a more practical note, the dogmatic coalescing of doctrine and dogma was relatively tough to do until 313 and the Roman Empire itself was still half-ruled by the pagan Licinius until 324 (who I believe gave cause for a civil war when he began re-persecuting Christians).

As for Tertullian, seeing as how he became a Montanist and believed that the Holy Spirit could essentially change the teachings of the faith with each generation, I would guess the idea of apostolic succession would likely have little appeal. After all, if the Holy Spirit is directly guiding each generation with new (and possibly contradictory) teachings the teachings of the Early Church are a great deal less relevant.

 

[Gorgias]

I understand that Steve Ray is not a Catholic “Scholar”, but a lay apologist; so let’s keep that in mind.

And even more to the point, he doesn’t speak with the authority of the magisterium. Not to disparage the man, but unless the Church says it’s so, then we can’t claim it as “Church teaching”, per se. It might be good for edification, but it doesn’t make it doctrinal.

ANY modern day Jew would have understood the terms “Keys” and “Bind and Loose” to not only denote authority to admit and confiscate but also that these phrases are rooted historically in the Davidic dynasty Isaiah 22, with Eliakim.

Do you mean “modern day Jew” as in 21st-century Jew, or as in any Jewish contemporary of Peter? The former doesn’t help us much, so I’m thinking that you mean the latter.

According to Steve Ray, Peter, being a Jew, should have understood… that these keys would specifically and uniquely be handed on to his successors.

Whether or not this was his understanding, it was the practice of the Church. If the Church (through the apostles and its bishops) made this determination, then given the fact that Jesus gave them the authority to make such decisions, then it’s reasonable to say that these decisions are not only valid but supported by Jesus. That’s what a proxy is.

Steve Ray doesn’t argue that the apostles had an infant perspective of these elements which make up the papacy, rather he argues that the apostles should have understood this clearly.

Perhaps he doesn’t make that argument; however, it seems to me that his take on it is an unnecessary assertion upon which to hinge the argument.

Moreover, the Papacy is one of the most fundamental doctrines of Christ… I would argue that the Papacy is an even more fundamental and essential doctrine for it grounds the authority of every doctrine taught by the Church.

This I would disagree with: the fundamental doctrine is the teaching authority of the Church and the protection of the Church by the Holy Spirit. The papacy is only the means by which this protection has been effected.

If the apostles did not have a firm grasp on at least the 2 elements of Peter’s successors being the vicar’s of christ’s authority on earth and that this would perpetuate inflexibly throughout the rest of human history, then the papacy ceases altogether to be a doctrine taught by the apostles.

I’m willing to entertain this train of thought for the purposes of the discussion. However, this assertion does not do damage to the authority of the Church. If that authority is expressed through a pope, great. If it’s expressed through a prophet and a shekinah, great. However, given Christ’s proxy to Peter and the apostles, it was their call to decide whether and how to perpetuate that authority. Whether they personally expressed the notion of the papacy, or the successors whom they named expressed the notion, it all boils down to the same thing: the authority Christ granted has been passed down through the ages. So, I’m not seeing the problem you’re seeing.

Christ delivered to the apostles the full disclosure of apostolic doctrine and in turn the apostles delivered to the churches the full disclosure of apostolic doctrine. This is the root and source of all our doctrine. To differentiate between what they taught and what we taught in terms of they didn’t understand it as well as we do, is for sure to introduce a new teaching, despite the rationalizing of an analogy in terms of infant to adult understanding.

Hmm… I don’t think so. Doctrine has been passed down, without a doubt. After all, divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. However, that assertion doesn’t mean that the revelation was fully understood at that time – the notion of the development of doctrine (cf John Henry Newman’s discussion of this notion) means that we would expect that we would come to fuller understandings of revelation over time. Revelation doesn’t change; our understanding does.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

With regard to Tertullian, it is from him that we get a detailed argument against the need for the apostolic succession of churches. However, he does not teach it is necessary. This is when he was orthodox.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

In order for the doctrine of the Papacy to be apostolic, it must have been taught by the apostles from Christ and then given from the apostles to their successors. The bare minimum principle upon which the Papacy is built is centered on the successors of St. Peter and the inflexible perpetuity of this standard until the end of time. If this was NOT made clear to Peter from Jesus, then the Papacy does not derive from the Christ nor the apostles.

It is because there cannot be a development unto this minimum principle. To not have this minimum principle taught is to suggest that it was not taught but that small compartments of it were taught. But how do you reduce this minimum principle anymore than it is already reduced?

1. You might say St. Peter had primacy, but this does not cover and facts about his successors.
2. You might say that the Early Church recognized the primacy of the chair of Peter. But this can be deduced historically from both the apostolic efforts of St. Paul AND St. Peter; not to mention the Imperial enjoyment of the region of Rome.
3. You might say that the successors of St. Peter still exist today, but this alone, without any apostolic precedence, does not justify it’s demand for universal submission.
4. You might say that the Church was an infant and did not understand all things which Christ taught her, and so development was needed; but now we go against Tertullian, Clement, Ireneaus, and the early church who testify that Christ, have full understanding of apostolic doctrine, disclosed the full doctrine to the apostles; furthermore the apostles delivered unto the churches the full disclosure of what they received from Christ; AND THAT This alone is the “rule of faith”.

Therefore, the irreducible minimum teaching which had to have been coming from the mouth of Jesus to the apostles is that St. Peter’s successors would continue the vicarious authority of Christ on earth and that such a standard cannot be destroyed or cancelled until the end of time. To insert development from what Christ taught until the time this was a universal teaching, is to put a GAP in the deliverance of Jesus and the time it was realized that merits an unapostolic character.

 

[Gorgias]

In order for the doctrine of the Papacy to be apostolic, it must have been taught by the apostles from Christ and then given from the apostles to their successors.

Well… yes–and no! On one hand, I understand what you’re saying: one way to use the term ‘apostolic’ is to mean “taught by the apostles themselves”. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Christ is an apostolic teaching.

However, another way to use ‘apostolic’ is to mean that it’s taught from the apostolic teaching authority (i.e., the ‘magisterium’); this authority has been passed down from the apostles to their successors. If there were no such thing as this type of apostolic authority… well, then, we might as well vote on doctrinal matters, since we wouldn’t have teaching authority, just governance authority.

So, I would assert that the apostolicity of the teaching on the papacy is valid if comes from either of these notions of ‘apostolic’ – whether that’s “from the apostles’ lips” or “from the apostles’ successors”. Your argument asserts that it must be the former, not the latter; I don’t think that this argument would necessarily be held by Catholics as a justification for doctrine.

(I mean, it’s nice that Steven Ray makes an argument from the former perspective… but it’s not necessary.)

The bare minimum principle upon which the Papacy is built is centered on the successors of St. Peter and the inflexible perpetuity of this standard until the end of time.

You’ve moved the goal-posts, haven’t you? You’ve gone from asserting continuity of stated doctrine, to continuity of papal succession. Making a claim for one does not (necessarily) imply the other…

Perhaps it makes sense to step back and be certain that we’re talking about the same thing, here. On one hand, we might be debating the unbroken line of popes since Peter – that is, the papacy, itself. On the other hand, we may be talking about the doctrinal issue of authority – that is, the doctrinal understanding of the papacy. Just to make sure that we’re all on the same page – since we’ve both used the terms ‘papacy’ and ‘doctrine’ pretty liberally throughout this thread, which is it that you’re debating?

If this was NOT made clear to Peter from Jesus, then the Papacy does not derive from the Christ nor the apostles.

This is where we disagree. No, I cannot assent to this assertion.

It is because there cannot be a development unto this minimum principle.

To my personal way of thinking, this is not so. If Christ gave his proxy to Peter, then however Peter set up his successors (and however they set up their successors) is fair game.

To insert development from what Christ taught until the time this was a universal teaching, is to put a GAP in the deliverance of Jesus and the time it was realized that merits an unapostolic character.

This line of thought, then, would necessarily have to say that any development in doctrine fails for the same reasoning. That, itself, does not stand in line with Catholic tradition.