Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[Abu]

jinc1019 #33
the idea that the Bishop of Rome must be the Pope is still completely illogical.

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

Regarding 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).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece as the third successor of St Peter: “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?”

Who says the ONE church must be in communion with the successors of Peter? Where do you find that ANYWHERE in God’s Word?

The mandate of Jesus, the Son of God is crystal clear 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).

Jesus warned re dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6).

#34
I think you are right that the teachings of the Church make clear that the Pope has the authority by himself to make decisions for the whole church

.
Correct, especially regarding teaching on dogma and doctrine.

 

[jonathan_hili]

However, I would say that the “fear” of the pope “lording” over the other bishops is a legitimate one. Popes, as you suggested, have and can do this…And popes have also done many terrible things (as well as many good things). Based on Catholic logic, if a validly ordained Pope does INCREDIBLE immoral things or forces Christians to do things which are in opposition to the true faith, there is nothing anyone can do about it. We must live with the bad Pope and all of his errors for the entirety of his life and even after (if he makes infallible proclamations). Does this system make any sense at all? If a Pope is burning people at the stake, Catholics have to accept it and do nothing to stop it? Doesn’t that create a contradiction? How can Christians live like Christ and serve a pope who commits crimes? I realize many popes do not do this, but some definitely have, and more could in the future! You always say that it doesn’t make sense for Christians to live without a leader who can definitively make decisions about what is true and what isn’t, but it is equally illogical to say that Christians are called to submit to leaders who choose to do horrific things to others they don’t like. This one point alone creates numerous problems.

I agree, and as you say, there have been times when popes have abused their authority, especially when grasping for temporal power. So you’re right: the fear is legitimate, but just because others (such as the Orthodox) might be afraid, it doesn’t undermine the actual authority the pope has, just as fear of a policeman doesn’t undermine the police’s authentic powers in a society.

A pope who acts in grave immorality is, like everyone else, subject to the law (both of the state and of God). A pope can’t get away with murder!

I think your understanding is incorrect on the difference between infallibility (a theological charism) and impeccability (a metaphysical one). The pope sins like everyone else and if he were, hypothetically, burning people at the stake, the state and church in general could do all sorts of things to stop him, for example, lock him up (popes have been imprisoned in the past) or remove him from a position of power. He could even be convinced or forced to abdicate. There is nothing that mandates that Catholics accept the bad behaviour of a pope. Look at St Peter, he wasn’t perfect! Catholics are not called to submit to a pope’s character, nor accept bad disciplinary directives, but rather to hold to the faith and the doctrines professed by the Church.

Again, I think the point you’ve made is a good one, but doesn’t really play out historically. Even some of the notorious popes of the Renaissance period were not bloodthirsty butchers. Yes, some were corrupt and lived quite immorally but none of them enshrined such immorality in doctrine. I mean, if you consider that there have been a good 266 or so popes, how many were thoroughly awful? A handful. Not even 10, I would contend. Compare that to a random selection of 266 monarchs or leaders. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s much, much more. More importantly, how many taught through their papal authority something contrary to the faith? 0. Now, that’s might impressive!

Lastly, I don’t see how one could escape your objection under any church structure. I mean, Christians must be under the authority of somebody. What if it was just a local bishop? Couldn’t a local bishop act immorally and do terrible things? Likewise, what about a patriarch or a council of bishops? They could all be in league together. The only real way to escape your objection is to accept no authority at all, which is very problematic.

 

[Cathoholic]

Here is a frequent Protestant objection.

Objection: I don’t need any Church. For where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, there He is in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

Answer: Let’s look carefully at the context of that objection.

MATTHEW 18:15 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

OK Jesus is giving some sort of paradigm on how a disciple (verse. 1: “At that time the disciples came to Jesus”) is to deal with a “brother” who he is in disagreement with over some issue.

But what about when they cannot reach a conclusion? Now what?

Fortunately we find out what to do in the very next verse.

MATTHEW 18:15-16 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

OK. This is insightful. Reason with this brother. Then go correct this fellow disciple with two or three witnesses. Hmmm. These are juridical commands right from the Old Testament (i.e. Leviticus 19:17 and Deuteronomy 19:15). OK.

• Reasoned with him? Check
• Gone to him with 2 or 3 witnesses? Check

What if I have no solution now?

• Well we will just respect each other’s differences and realize that’s the best you can do right? We will have to agree to disagree and all of that right? Wrong.
• Well just forget about it and not care. We should all be more lukewarm on issues of contention correct? No!

Does God give somebody, ANYBODY, a way to deal with this contentious issue that has so much authority, that the conclusion reached is even BOUND in Heaven?

Well we don’t have to wonder because God tells us the answer in the very next verse.

Let’s read on and find out.

MATTHEW 18:16-17a 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church . . . .

Listen to Jesus! Listen to this authority He is assuming for the Church.

This guy, mindless as he is, refuses to listen to you, and now he refuses to listen to two or three other disciples (how dare he?), I know this is hard to fathom, but now if he refuses to listen . . . . EVEN to the Church (!) . . . . .

Listen to how Jesus presents all of this below!

MATTHEW 18:17-20 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Protestant routine about I don’t need the authority of the Church because wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, there I am in the midst of them is wrong!

These very same verses ASSUME Ecclesiastical (Church) authority, not do away with it.

And they assume Ecclesiastical (Church) authority to the point where if this guy doesn’t listen, he can be excommunicated.

And these very same verses, assume Ecclesiastical authority to the point where the decision of “the Church” (if this guy doesn’t listen “EVEN to the Church” . . .) will be bound not only on earth, but likewise bound in Heaven!

This is the Ecclesiastical (Church) model you need to search for jinc1019.

Protestants don’t even claim this. Likewise Eastern Orthodox. So if you reject the Catholic Church jinc1019, this will not solve your issue.

You still need to go out and find this Church that possesses this degree of God-given authority.

• It cannot be in Protestantism, as they deny they have it.
• It cannot be in Eastern Orthodoxy, as they deny they have it.
• And rejecting the Catholic Church does not solve your dilemma.

It may give a lot of people “conscience salve” because they know deep down inside, they have rejected the Church, but it does NOT conform with what Jesus taught us jinc1019.

You need to go out and find this “Church” with that kind of authority jinc1019.

 

[adf417]

Short of Divine revelation, I am not sure it can ever be absolute…unfortunately.

Very true good brother but there is no need to put limits on the Holy Spirit!

So why is it that with all the reading and studying you described in the first post you fail to boast about the amount of prayer on this subject. You adamantly point out you don’t want to discuss papal infallibility but yet here you are discussing things you have much more knowledge on than the average guy and yet there are many below average that “get it” not necessarily from reason.

So I will ask again a different way - do you hope to gain divine revelation through discussion? Do you not think this divine revelation is actually possible?

Peace!!!

 

[Genesis315]

First of all, thank you for your response. Your points are very well developed. However, to be perfectly honest, I am not sure your understanding of the Orthodox decision making process is accurate. From my studies, the council would be considered enough. I can’t really comment further until an Orthodox expert is able to weigh in on your point.

From my discussion with various Orthodox apologists, they all say it must be “accepted by the whole Church.” If the Council was enough, as you say, they would all be Catholic since their bishops assented to the disputed points at the reunion Council of Florence in the 15th century. Furthermore, they would still teach things like indulgences, the “Latin understanding” of original sin, that there are definitively seven sacraments, that transubstantiation is a legitimate word to describe the mystery of the Eucharist, etc.–all things taught in pan-Orthodox Councils, but which were later repudiated during the rabid anti-Latin movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

jinc1019:

Second, your entire argument hinges on the assumption that every single question MUST BE DEFINITIVELY ANSWERED. How do you know this to be true? Perhaps the Christian community isn’t supposed to agree on everything. Where does it say that good Christians must always agree on every single doctrine? The Early Church Fathers certainly didn’t! They disagreed about all sorts of doctrines.

I didn’t say they must all be definitively answered. Even in the Catholic Church, there are some significant questions that are disputed by various sides that are not definitively answered (such as the precise relationship between grace, free-will, and predestination).

But, history shows that some debates are of a nature that a definitive judgment has been necessary and the Church’s pastors have made such definitive judgments–and never did they wait to see if their judgment was accepted by the rest of the faithful before considering them authoritative.

A fixed point of reference is needed for that system to make sense. If such a reference point does exist, there’s really no other See than Rome that could even make the claim of being that fixed See.

 

[gmanlq]

Thanks for this…However, the problem with all of these arguments is that it assumes the authority of Peter gets passed down to his successors. Why? Why can’t Peter have been the chief apostle without that role passing to his successors?

Jinc,

The assumption is logical and you fail to see it. Perhaps prayer for enlightenment will help you if you really want to see. If you just want to argue and answer point with counterpoint then your focus will keep you from seeing perhaps. Matthew 16:18 mentions Jesus will build his church upon Peter the Rock. When a building is built the foundation is set and then the building rises up and rests on top of that same foundation. Thus, the later popes that fulfill Peter’s role would stay on that foundation and build up the faith as we see over our 2000+ year history. A building is not picked up and moved from its foundation so this implies that the office of Peter is to remain through all time just as Jesus says he would be with us through the age. Since we are talking about an office however, it can physically move from one city to another unlike a building but the concept of the office remaining like a building holds true as well. Further, Jesus says a wise man builds his house on a solid foundation that can withstand storms while a fool builds on sand. History shows that the Catholic Church Jesus founded has and is the only church that continues to this day and has endured through bad, corrupt popes and church officials. It is the one church out there that has ALWAYS taught the truth through it magisterium. Even when we had bad popes they never declared any church doctrine that was false. Thus, this further proves that what Christ intended for his church to do remains in the Catholic Church. It cannot, has not and will not teach false teachings regarding faith and morals.

God bless.

 

[gmanlq]

Great argument…However, it assumes that Peter’s authority gets handed down…Assuming Peter had a unique authority over the other Apostles, why would that mean his successors also had that authority?

It is a logical assumption Jinc. Jesus said he’d be with us and the Holy Sprit would guide us to all truth through all time. No other church has led us truthfully through her teachings regarding morals and faith over 2000 years since Jesus established his Church. Further many popes have come and gone (over 265), we can conclude that the office of Peter was meant to be passed down. The early church had the same understanding. The 12 apostles knew what the “keys to the kingdom” meant as we see it in Isaiah 22. Jesus would not leave us without a visible leader nor would he leave us as orphans. We have always had a pope or apostolic bishops to lead and hold fast to the truth regarding faith and morals. What global organization could exist without leadership. There has never been such a thing nor will there ever be one. This too is logical. Jesus knows what we need and he knows we need leadership. He has given us this through the pope and when there was no pope we still had the leadership of the apostolic bishops to fill that role until a new one could be elected. It is his design and history proves it to be truthful regarding faith and morals free from error as led by the Holy Spirit always.

 

[rfournier103]

I am well aware of the “keys” theory that links the Old Testament passage in Isaiah to Jesus’ promise of authority to Peter. The issue for me isn’t whether PETER had that authority, the issue is whether it was transferable. You say that it is, as does Scott Hahn and many others, because the “keys” signal a dynastic office.

Yes, I do. And yes, they do. NEXT…

This, however, is really a stretch.

Oh? You are certainly entitled to your opinion. What does YOUR church have to say about the keys in Isaiah, Matthew, and Revelation? NEXT…

You mean to tell me that I should believe Peter’s successors (only the ones in Rome) should have absolute authority over the Christian church because Jesus said Peter, not his successors, had the “keys” and that these “keys” MUST represent dynastic authority? I have never found that argument tenable.

You seem to have this odd fixation on Rome. Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. There’s no two-ways about it. In Isaiah, the keys were transferrable. Why would Jesus give Peter the Keys, only to have the office abolished at the time of his death? When Jesus says; “feed and tend My lambs and sheep” in John 21:15-17, does that mean that the lambs and sheep won’t need feeding and tending after Peter dies?

YOU find it untenable? Would you care to elaborate? NEXT…

First of all, Catholics pick and choose the parts of the passage in Isaiah to apply to this situation. If you read the passage carefully, you will see that the previous holder of the keys was REMOVED from office because of his conduct. Catholics, however, would NOT say that the Bishop of Rome should no longer have its place of power DESPITE the many very terrible things the papacy has done throughout history. Further, the office that is referenced in Isaiah 22 did eventually disappear. It didn’t forever! (sic) At the time of Jesus, it no longer existed.

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ gave those Keys to Peter and established the Office; and therefore only Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can abolish the office. I am not an ordained priest, a professional theologian, or professor of history, but I can assure you that Jesus Christ did NOT establish the dynastic office that Isaiah 22 speaks of.

I am sure that there have been a number of abuses of the Office of the Papacy over the centuries, but you fail to present even ONE. As I said before; only Christ can abolish the Office. History has MANY dynasties that once existed, but no longer do. NONE of them were founded by Christ. NEXT…

Third, if tradition clearly teaches that the early church accepted the authority of the pope, why did 11 of the 12 apostolic seats eventually say “NO, we never believed that about the pope”? Shouldn’t at least one agree with your position? Didn’t they too receive the teachings of the apostles and practice apostolic succession? There are 12 lines that go directly back to apostles and all but one, the one with the most to gain, teach that the Bishop of Rome does not have the authority it claims for itself. This alone is really damaging evidence. I know you will say that this occurred because of political differences or whatever, but how do I know the same isn’t true for Rome?

If you are referring to the Great Schism; that happened in 1050-something… I think everybody was in union for the thousand or so years between the Crucifixion and the Schism. I would think that if there were serious objecions to the Office, the Schism would have happened MUCH sooner. NEXT…

Finally, you suggest that Jesus MUST leave behind a single authoritative person to rule over the whole church. But why? Why can’t the bishops, ruling together, make the decisions?

I don’t think democracies were a big thing back then. Seriously, He did what He did. I don’t know why, but I go by what I read and what I’ve been taught. Maybe we can ask Him when we meet Him in the Kingdom?

 

[spina1953]

That’s a fair point, Spina. However, Christianity was active in the Byzantium region in the first century, and it is from this ancient see (founded ostensibly by St Andrew) on which the patriarch of Constantinople bases his episcopacy.

It is agreed that St. Andrew the Apostle was active in the near East as well as in Greece and also in Asia Minor. While it is said that the Patriarch of Constantinople bases his episcopacy on St. Andrew at the time when the emperor and others thought that Constantinople should have equal status with that of Rome or better yet first primacy as the New Rome, there were arguments over this due to the fact that Antioch had jurisdiction of the area in which Constantinople had been built. In order to give credence to the argument that the Patriarch should be given this equal rank that the notion that St. Andrew was the founder of city where Constantinople was built but there was nothing ever said about St. Andrew ever being there before the time it was used to give the Patriarch his status. It was it seems to have more of a political undertaking since the emperor was good at meddling in religious affairs.

 

[spina1953]

There is a long tradition and belief stemming from the first century Rome that before the death of the Apostle Peter that Linus was handpicked by Peter himself to succeed him. From Linus onward was addressed as Papas ( a Greek term of endearment for Father). So the primacy of Peter was indeed considered transferable to and conferrable on his immediate successor and on every future episcopal throne of Rome. Some of the Apostles were still alive when this primacy was extended to Linus and they raised no objection to the idea.

This apostolic endorsement of Petrine succession led early theologians to embrace it also. From the very beginning then believers of all ranks and backgrounds held that all statements in the New testament alluding to Peter as head of the Church apply as well to all his successors; that the inheritors of Peter’s see gain with it their election to the pontificate all of the prerogatives This concept was reinforced and propagated throughout the early centuries. In the records of the Council of Nicea , for example it is recorded that “Ecclesia Romama semper habuit primatum” ( the Church in Rome always holds primacy). These are the roots of the authority of the Popes of Rome, the institution of the Papacy, the formal leadership of Christ’s Church on earth.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,
Who says the ONE church must be in communion with the successors of Peter? Where do you find that ANYWHERE in God’s Word? You won’t. You can find SOME church fathers who seem to have thought that, but there are many that didn’t…as EO sources are quick to point out.

Consider Jesus prayer. What he established is to be perfectly ONE (hierarchy & rank and file together) as He and the Father are ONE.

Jn 17:
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21* that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Show me where there is an expiration date on that prayer of Jesus. There isn’t.

The Church and it’s hierarchy that Jesus established in the first century with Peter as the head, does not end in the first century. It goes on till the end of time. How that happens comes from His Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, the Catholic Church. Where Pope Francis is 266th successor to St Peter in Rome.
j:

The argument you make about Judas is one of the more compelling arguments. Yes, Judas had an office and it was filled by another. Thus, if Peter had an office, his too should be filled by another. The problem is…Peter passed his office of bishop off to MULTIPLE people in MULTIPLE cities. What makes you think that because Peter died in Rome, that is his true successor? Doesn’t it make more sense that his successor should be the one he appointed himself while still alive?

Peter appointed bishops while he was alive. Just like popes appoint bishops during their pontificate. That doesn’t translate to the bishops they ordain are then the pope…
j:

The only response to this argument you can make is to say that Peter’s office as head of the church, -]NOT /-] and Bishop of Rome, is the office that got filled and that could only be filled upon his death or removal from that office. That would be a fair point…But why then does the pope have to be the Bishop of Rome!!! Why can’t he be the Bishop of New York? Why does the head of the church office and the Bishop of Rome have to be one and the same? It doesn’t. Even I were to accept every other argument you make, the idea that the Bishop of Rome must be the Pope is still completely illogical./

When Peter was alive, he was bishop of the Catholic Church of Rome AND head of the entire Catholic Church.

It’s not either/or but both/and. Those bishops who follow in this line are popes, successors to Peter.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for this…However, the problem with all of these arguments is that it assumes the authority of Peter gets passed down to his successors. Why? Why can’t Peter have been the chief apostle without that role passing to his successors?

After a question from St. PETER, Jesus Christ Himself replied:
“Who is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master will set over his household…Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing…”

So we know that Jesus intended to set one servant over His whole household. We also know that this servant exists when the Master returns (i.e., the Second Coming). There are only two possible interpretations:
(1) the head servant whom the Master set over his household is immortal.
(2) the office of the head servant will exist until the Master returns.

Decide for yourself which is more logical.

Interestingly, this parable is often known as “the Parable of the DOORKEEPER.” I believe the connection to the keys is rather apparent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rfournier103]

Thanks for this…However, the problem with all of these arguments is that it assumes the authority of Peter gets passed down to his successors. Why? Why can’t Peter have been the chief apostle without that role passing to his successors?

The Primacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession, eh…?

Acts 1:15-16 ~ **During those days Peter stood up **in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.

It seems here Peter is in charge of at least 120 persons. Did John stand up? No. Did Andrew stand up? No. James the Greater or James the Lesser? No. Peter was in charge.

Acts 1:17 ~ He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.

There is NO doubt that the Apostles counted Judas to be one of them, and therefore could be replaced.

Acts 1:20 ~ For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.'

Judas turned Jesus Christ over to the Romans to be Crucified. Perhaps the greatest sin ever committed by a man. The Apostles DID NOT ABOLISH Judas’s Office (or Bishopric, if you will). You argue here:

…you will see that the previous holder of the keys was REMOVED from office because of his conduct. Catholics, however, would NOT say that the Bishop of Rome should no longer have its place of power DESPITE the many very terrible things the papacy has done throughout history.

Have ANY of the popes committed an atrocity worse than what Judas Iscariot did? This kinda blows your argument out of the water. Judas’s office is preserved, while you say Peter’s should be abolished? Sorry, dude. Nice try, though.

The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 6:3-6 ~ Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the Apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

Here, Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original Twelve Apostles as the Church has grown. In those days; “laying on of hands” was the customary Jewish way of designating persons for a task and invoking upon them the divine blessing and power to perform it.

**Acts 9:17-19 ~ ** So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus.

Even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This proves the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:1-3 ~ Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who was a close friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 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.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.

Acts 14:23 ~ **They appointed presbyters for them in each church **and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.

The Apostles and newly-ordained men appointed priests (presbyters) to have authority throughout the Church.

 

[steve_b]

You mean to tell me that I should believe Peter’s successors (only the ones in Rome) should have absolute authority over the Christian church because Jesus said Peter, not his successors, had the “keys” and that these “keys” MUST represent dynastic authority? I have never found that argument tenable. First of all, Catholics pick and choose the parts of the passage in Isaiah to apply to this situation. If you read the passage carefully, you will see that the previous holder of the keys was REMOVED from office because of his conduct.

Jesus was establishing HIS Church. He selects Peter to head His Church…symbolized by the keys given to Peter. The new has come the old has passed away. [2 Corinthians 5:17](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians+5:17&version=NRSVCE)

Now If one wants to take it further and say the scribes and Pharisees who sit on Moses seat got fired, well I won’t argue with that. But it really isn’t about who gets fired in the old system. We have a new system in place. Jesus is not trying to put a patch on Judaism Mark 2:21. It’s about who Jesus gives the keys to, in HIS kingdom.

 

[mardukm]

Sorry I did not notice this before, but there are a few important mistaken assumptions about Catholic teaching on the papacy evident in this post. I am not accusing you of actually proposing these straw men, since you have indicated that you are asking your questions based on what you have heard from non-Catholic (i.e., Orthodox and Protestant) arguments. Permit me to point it out:

You mean to tell me that I should believe Peter’s successors (only the ones in Rome) should have absolute authority over the Christian church because Jesus said…

NOwhere does the Catholic Church teach that Peter nor his successors in Rome have “absolute authority” in the Church. At no time in the history of the Catholic Church (both before and after the Great Schism) has the Pope EVER exercised absolute authority in the Church.

Finally, you suggest that Jesus MUST leave behind a single authoritative person to rule over the whole church. But why? Why can’t the bishops, ruling together, make the decisions?

NOwhere does the Catholic Church teach that Peter nor his successors rule the Church ALONE. This is just another straw man.

I am well aware of the “keys” theory that links the Old Testament passage in Isaiah to Jesus’ promise of authority to Peter. The issue for me isn’t whether PETER had that authority, the issue is whether it was transferable. You say that it is, as does Scott Hahn and many others, because the “keys” signal a dynastic office. This, however, is really a stretch

Let’s be clear on the Catholic teaching, Please read Pastor Aeternus again. You will notice that while it states that Jesus promised to give the keys to St. Peter, it does NOT say that these keys are passed down exclusively to the Popes of Rome. The actual Catholic teaching is that St. Peter is, to this day, the holder of the keys. He has not nor has ever relinquished them, The Pope inherits not the keys, but the PRIMACY of St. Peter, St. Peter himself forever holding the keys, and working through the Pope of Rome in the primacy of the Church. As the ancient Ecumenical Councils have testified, “Peter has spoken through Pope…” Further, it is the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church that St. Peter shared the keys with the other Apostles, and thence with their successors (the Pope of Rome and other bishops of the Church). Hence all bishops share in everything the keys signify, not only the power of forgiveness, but also the power of teaching and governing. But the act of giving the keys primarily to St. Peter itself signifies something unique - a primacy which is also uniquely inherited by one (as the very definition of the word “primacy” dictates).

If the non-Catholics are basing their arguments on these straw men, does that not make their position inherently weak? Isn’t that logical?

However, it is not the non-Catholics who are completely at fault for this gross caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. As indicated in a prior post, there are Catholics adhering to an Absolutist Petrine view who actually perpetuate these misinformed exaggerations about the papacy. I pray your time here will help you distinguish these aberrations of Catholic teaching from the true teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy. But be forewarned - there is a fair share of Absolutist Petrine advocates here in this website.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rfournier103]

Continued from post 53…

I have some passages from Paul’s Letters to Timothy. Timothy, whom Paul converted, was of mixed Jewish and Gentile parentage (Acts 16:1-3). He was the Apostle’s companion on both the second and the third missionary journeys ( Acts 16:3; 19:22) and was often sent by him on special missions (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor 4:17; Thes 3:2). In 1 Timothy (1 Tim 1:3), he is described as the administrator of the entire Ephesian community.

**1 Tim. 3:1 ~ ** This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the **office of bishop **desires a noble task.

Paul uses the word “bishop” which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of bishop and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

**1 Tim. 4:14 ~ ** Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.

Again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

**1 Tim. 5:22 ~ ** Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.

Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

**2 Tim. 1:6 ~ ** For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands.

Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

**2 Tim. 2:2 ~ **And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. ****

This verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, from Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). The student (Timothy) becomes the teacher. It goes beyond the death of the Apostles.

All of these passages show a passing of the torch/succession.

 

[rfournier103]

Continued from post 56…

Titus 1:5 ~ For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

The elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work. (see Luke 10-1)

1 John 4:6 ~ We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

 

[spina1953]

Sorry I did not notice this before, but there are a few important mistaken assumptions about Catholic teaching on the papacy evident in this post. I am not accusing you of actually proposing these straw men, since you have indicated that you are asking your questions based on what you have heard from non-Catholic (i.e., Orthodox and Protestant) arguments. Permit me to point it out:

NOwhere does the Catholic Church teach that Peter nor his successors in Rome have “absolute authority” in the Church. At no time in the history of the Catholic Church (both before and after the Great Schism) has the Pope EVER exercised absolute authority in the Church.

NOwhere does the Catholic Church teach that Peter nor his successors rule the Church ALONE. This is just another straw man.
mardukm: As always your exegesis is flawless. I just want to point out that in my posts on this thread while I have used the word authority, it is not meant nor to ever mean absolute authority. It seems to me that the Pope together with the Bishops share the authority, while the final authority resides with the Pope it is never absolute as you have so well pointed out.

Let’s be clear on the Catholic teaching, Please read Pastor Aeternus again. You will notice that while it states that Jesus promised to give the keys to St. Peter, it does NOT say that these keys are passed down exclusively to the Popes of Rome. The actual Catholic teaching is that St. Peter is, to this day, the holder of the keys. He has not nor has ever relinquished them, The Pope inherits not the keys, but the PRIMACY of St. Peter, St. Peter himself forever holding the keys, and working through the Pope of Rome in the primacy of the Church. As the ancient Ecumenical Councils have testified, “Peter has spoken through Pope…” Further, it is the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church that St. Peter shared the keys with the other Apostles, and thence with their successors (the Pope of Rome and other bishops of the Church). Hence all bishops share in everything the keys signify, not only the power of forgiveness, but also the power of teaching and governing. But the act of giving the keys primarily to St. Peter itself signifies something unique - a primacy which is also uniquely inherited by one (as the very definition of the word “primacy” dictates).

If the non-Catholics are basing their arguments on these straw men, does that not make their position inherently weak? Isn’t that logical?

However, it is not the non-Catholics who are completely at fault for this gross caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy. As indicated in a prior post, there are Catholics adhering to an Absolutist Petrine view who actually perpetuate these misinformed exaggerations about the papacy. I pray your time here will help you distinguish these aberrations of Catholic teaching from the true teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy. But be forewarned - there is a fair share of Absolutist Petrine advocates here in this website.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

You mean to tell me that I should believe Peter’s successors (only the ones in Rome) should have absolute authority over the Christian church because Jesus said Peter, not his successors, had the “keys” and that these “keys” MUST represent dynastic authority? I have never found that argument tenable. First of all, Catholics pick and choose the parts of the passage in Isaiah to apply to this situation. If you read the passage carefully, you will see that the previous holder of the keys was REMOVED from office because of his conduct

In addition to what I previously posted, to specifically address the issue of “papal authority” using a Church document for definitions. Intertwined with these 3 quotes re: papal authority, is also the authority and distinction made of the authority of the college of bishops. (link provided)

• The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church
• the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power
• his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment

here’s the context to those quotes.

Note: among other highlights I made to this document, I also highlight words that are qualifiers that we’re all familiar with that set limits and distinctions to statements made i.e. “provided” , “only with”, “never without” “when” ] etc

Ch 3, sections 22 & 25 Lumen Gentium (emphasis mine)

(excerpt from #22)

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority **unless **it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, **provided *we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock…

[snip]

(excerpt from section #25) Note: authority sometimes gets included with infallibility as well, even though infallibility is not part of the topic of this thread.

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.”…snip]

Here’s the entire document
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

 

[spina1953]

In addition to what I previously posted, to specifically address the issue of “papal authority” using a Church document for definitions. Intertwined with these 3 quotes re: papal authority, is also the authority and distinction made of the authority of the college of bishops. (link provided)

• The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church
• the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power
• his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment

here’s the context to those quotes.

Note: among other highlights I made to this document, I also highlight words that are qualifiers that we’re all familiar with that set limits and distinctions to statements made i.e. “provided” , “only with”, “never without” “when” ] etc

Ch 3, sections 22 & 25 Lumen Gentium (emphasis mine)

(excerpt from #22)

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority **unless **it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, **provided *we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock…

[snip]

(excerpt from section #25) Note: authority sometimes gets included with infallibility as well, even though infallibility is not part of the topic of this thread.

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.”…snip]

Here’s the entire document
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

I think that you have stated it quite well. I would like to add that it might take centuries before a infallible statement is made by a Pope.