Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[rfournier103]

Your post is spot on. It seems to me that during those times in history of the Middle ages, the Protestant reformation people had a much different way of thinking and of course they did not have all the information in which to be actuate in their assumptions of what Scripture means, they only saw it one way. Also, there were political aspects that also caused much in the way of thinking that was not there before as well as the beginnings of a national identity that caused new ways of thinking about themselves and religion and the beliefs they held. All these ways influenced their thinking of their times.

Thanks, spina!

I wonder what church jinc1019 belongs to? Maybe we’ve been barking up the wrong tree? I’m sure THEIR LONG AND GLORIOUS HISTORY goes all the way back to the Apostolic Age; and haven’t “committed many grave and horrific errors over time” like the Catholic Church has. jinc1019 has been remarkably silent about that…

 

[MilesVitae]

Understandably, I think you confuse my position. I am NOT arguing that Peter didn’t have the authority you suggest (although I am not sure he did). I am arguing that the authority may not have passed through apostolic succession. And if it did, I am arguing that the OTHER successors have an equal claim to Rome since they too used to be seats where Peter ruled. The only reason Catholics can give me for why Rome MUST be the successor to Peter and not Alexandria (or another ancient seat) is because Rome is where Peter died. But where does it say that has anything to do with it? Peter had successors before the second Pope was even elected…shouldn’t they be in line first? And if you are arguing, as some have, that Peter’s position was simply “head of the church,” then why must the head of the Church be in Rome? He could be anywhere!

Jinc,

The Bishop of Rome is not considered Peter’s successor merely because Rome was a petrine see - otherwise, as you say, Antioch and perhaps Alexandria would have an equal claim. If Peter was meant to pass on His primacy, he would surely have made clear to whom he was handing it on. As it is, Rome is the only church which has claimed to have received this office (Antioch and Alexandria never have, as far as I’m aware), so Rome is the only contender. As such, if Peter did pass on his position, it is certainly the Roman bishop who possesses it.
Again, my point is not that Peter must have handed his primacy on, let alone had to must handed it on to Rome - nor is my point that, because Rome claims to have received this primacy, therefore it must be true. Rather, my point is simply that, if we conclude that Peter handed on his primacy, then (since no one else claims to have received it), it was obviously to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #74
The only reason Catholics can give me for why Rome MUST be the successor to Peter and not Alexandria (or another ancient seat) is because Rome is where Peter died.
Peter had successors before the second Pope was even elected…

369. I have heard it said that St. Peter never was in Rome.
You may have heard that stated, but you have never heard any proof advanced in its favor. It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence.”

370. 1 want proof outside your Catholic tradition. Does Scripture say that St. Peter was ever in Rome?
Catholic tradition is not a mere matter of rumor and report. It is down in black and white in documents as historical as any other documents, beginning from the year 97 with the declaration of the fact by Clement. It would not matter if Scripture did not give any evidence on this point. However it does. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome. St. Paul wrote to the Colossians from Rome, sending the kind wishes of Mark, thus also indicating Mark’s presence in Rome.
See Catholic Culture:
It is well established that Babylon is a code name for Rome. It is used in this way in the Revelation to St. John (The Apocalypse) six times

Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in the *Oxford Dictionary of Popes *says, “It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome…To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c.180), it was common knowledge that he worked and died in Rome.”

Even anti-Catholic apologist James White of Alpha Omega Ministries, in a June 1995 debate with Joe Gallegos, conceded, “According to the Papal claims, Peter was the Bishop of Rome until his death. There is plenty of evidence of this from the writings of early fathers, but surprisingly little from the Biblical text itself.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=635

 

[pablope]

Again, because I don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to dispute what you are saying, I will defer to someone who does.

However, I would like to point out that the fact that there are still questions yet to be definitively answered in the Catholic Church is, to me, evidence of the fact that the church does not have this authority/infallibility. If the Church could infallibly and definitively resolve all issues, why wouldn’t it? It’s not logical, yet that is precisely what the Church has done.

Well…you just made the case of why we still need a Peter on the Church today.

If the Church is going to speak on any of these unresolved issues…who do you think should speak for the Church?

Who in the Church will say the words…echoing what Peter says in Acts 15:11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we…?

From 1 John 4:6

6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Who among the “us” will speak for the “we”?

If there is no Peter and his successor…who do you think should do the speaking for the Church?

 

[Usagi]

For instance, why wouldn’t choosing to burn people at the stake who disagree with you theologically be an issue of “faith and morals”?

It would! But as you probably know, the Popes did not order or perform the burning. The Church’s role was to confirm the charge of heresy, which at the time was a capital crime.

That there can be such a thing as a capital crime, for which the state is empowered to execute the criminal, is the constant teaching of the Church.

The opinion on how and when that power should be used is the thing that has changed.

Usagi

 

[Abu]

jinc1019 #75
I don’t disagree that someone must have the authority…But who says the Pope is the one to have it? Only the Catholic Church. I believe the “Church” you reference in scripture is all of the bishops properly consecrated.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, explicitly as you were shown in post #41:
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) [Later, also to the Twelve]

**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).

Even Aldous Huxley could write “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.” Collected Essays]

 

[spina1953]

if I remember correctly a few years ago the bones of Peter were found right under the alter of the Church in the Vatican. I would also like to point out that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church he is also the Bishop of Rome two different things. IOW’s the Pope is both the Bishop of Rome and also the Pope of the whole Church.

 

[TCEL]

OP, I’m sure this has already arisen in this thread somewhere, but I haven’t read through all of it. I hope by a strictly logical case you aren’t excluding the testimony of Scripture? Otherwise my (name removed by moderator)ut won’t be helpful.

What helped solidify it for me was learning more about the Old Testament. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Dr. Brant Pitre, but I have really enjoyed any bible study done by him. His specialty is “re-presenting” the richness of Judaism’s influence on the context of Catholicism. I’ve linked to his outline for his bible study called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy. If it looks interesting (and I can only repeat that I have never found his bible studies otherwise), you can order it from his website. Have fun!

EDIT: Well, I attribute it to pregnancy brain. (Yes, what they say about it is true.) I’m sorry, I didn’t see that you said you had already read up on Brant Pitre!

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said in post 76 (bold mine):

I don’t disagree that someone must have the authority…But who says the Pope is the one to have it? . . . I believe the “Church” you reference in scripture is all of the bishops properly consecrated.

You are putting forth an Eastern Orthodox-type of model here. That’s fine. Now let’s walk through it.

You said this ultimate authority concerns “all of the bishops properly consecrated.”

OK. Let’s go through a serious disagreement. There have been many in Church history

Think of the heresy of Nestorianism and BISHOP Nestorius—author of the Nestorian Heresy. Bishop Nestorius is rejected by Catholics AND Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet he was a “Bishop properly consecrated”.

So let’s take a new issue (any contentious issue. Not necessarily Nestorianism). Let’s call it “Issue A”.

Now let’s say “Issue A” is a point of contention among Eastern Orthodox Churchmen. Let’s say “Issue A” is a point of contention among Eastern Orthodox BISHOPS who were properly consecrated.

How is this issue (“Issue A”) going to get definitively settled?

One Eastern Orthodox Bishop (Let’s call him EO Bishop X) states: “I think “Issue A” was Apostolic Teaching and I will proclaim that in my Church (or what we would call “Diocese”).

Now another Bishop who is likewise “properly consecrated”, let’s call him EO Bishop Y says: “Oh no Bishop X. That is NOT Apostolic doctrine!”

Who is correct?

They both think it is a big deal (Apostolic doctrine).

They are both “properly consecrated Bishops”.

They both disagree.

Now what?

How far are you going to get down the latter of authority to come up with a solution? Can you come up with a scenario where NO solution can be found?

We will ignore the “Forget about it (Lukewarmness)” attitude because we are assuming the issue IS important. Likewise forget about the “Agree to disagree and go separate ways” attitude for the same reason.

So we are left with two Bishops who were properly consecrated.

They must . . .

• Discussion and reason together
• Appeal to the Fathers
• Appeal to Sacred Scripture
• Appeal to Oral Tradition
• Appeal to Bishops synods

Now I know what you are thinking. You are already thinking “but there are Catholic Bishops that have gone astray too.” Fine. We will get to that. First I just want you to play out the authority paradigm in your mind. THEN we can get to where authentic infallible authority is found within Christendom.

 

[Cathoholic]

So we have (and yet no solution) . . .

• Discussion and reason together
• Appeal to the Fathers
• Appeal to Sacred Scripture
• Appeal to Oral Tradition
• Appeal to Bishops synods

EO Bishop X and EO Bishop Y “discuss and reason” together. No answer. Now what?

EO Bishop X and EO Bishop Y both appealed to the Fathers. No answer. Now what?

EO Bishop X and EO Bishop Y both appealed to Sacred Scripture. No answer. Now what?

EO Bishop X and EO Bishop Y both appealed to Oral Tradition. No answer. Now what?

By this time they are really upset. They call a Bishops synod.

EO Bishop X and EO Bishop Y both appeal to this Bishops Synod. But still no answer. Now what jinc1019?

How do they settle this issue that threatens to fracture the Church jinc1019?

You said:

Unity is obviously very important, . . . .

WHY is unity “very important” jinc1019?

I agree unity is “very important”, but I might not agree with “WHY” you think unity is “very important”.

You also said:

Unity is obviously very important, but that doesn’t mean we must all agree on everything.

But nobody is asserting we have to agree on “everything”.

Yet we have two “properly consecrated” EO Bishops who say we MUST agree on this given issue (Issue A).

What should they do?

It is not good enough for the Bishops to ask “Cathoholic” or “jinc1019”;

“Hey Cathoholic (or jinc1019). Is this an issue we need to agree upon or not?”

No. The Bishops don’t ask you or I (nor should they).

These properly consecrated Bishops have already asserted this is an important issue.

Now, HOW do they deal with it jinc1019 in . . . .

A manner that will not fracture the Church . . . . and . . . .
What ever is bound upon earth (which assumes an earthly authority) is bound in Heaven

• Unity
• Authority “upon earth”

HOW do they deal with it jinc1019? Remember they are at a doctrinal impasse despite exhausting all of these channels and they BOTH think this is an important issue or a “deal breaker”.

Now the denial of a Papacy would say: “This does NOT prove Catholicism”.

I agree. I am not appealing for Catholicism (yet) on this post!

I am merely trying to appeal to a paradigm. A paradigm that sees authority of such magnitude, that WHATEVER is bound upon earth, will be bound in Heaven.

Once you see the Biblical paradigm THEN we can talk about WHO possesses this Biblical paradigm.

That’s WHY I have not tried to defend Catholicism per se (yet) on this thread.

And I am not convinced you see ANYBODY having such infallible authority that “whatever they bind here on earth will be bound in Heaven” except your own paradigm (but you probably wouldn’t put it that way).

In effect a proponent of this idea would be saying: “I personally infallibly bind on earth, that nothing can be infallibly bound, and this will be bound in Heaven.”

Or they might agree to this: “I personally infallibly bind on earth, that only doctrines that I agree with, can be infallibly bound. And this will be bound in Heaven.”

That would be an interesting position to take by a non-properly consecrated Bishop, like me or you or any other lay person.

This would really be a sneaky sort of arrogance jinc1019.

Now I am NOT saying YOU possess this arrogance mind you jinc1019; I am merely critiquing the IDEA of no final earthly authoritative doctrinal arbiter and just playing out this idea of rejecting a final arbiter of earthly authority to its logical conclusions.

You said in post 76:

But who says the Pope is the one to have it?

I am not saying that the Pope is the one to have it (yet). I am just asking you to appreciate the doctrinal solving paradigm and the magnitude of authority Jesus left somebody (who it is, we will have to discuss later).

Once you see that, THEN we can perhaps explore WHERE in the world, a Christian paradigm is found that satisfies the Biblical prototype for solutions such as the problem put forth above.

Now someone might object and say: “Well I don’t think “Issue A” is a deal breaker!”

But as soon as they assert that, they are saying THEY possess the authority to decide what issues are “deal breakers” and what issues are not “deal breakers”.

It confers a “papacy” unto themselves. It is a form of Protestantism (because we are not Bishops properly consecrated).

WHO gets to decide on which issues are important or unimportant, becomes ITSELF a doctrinal issue, so rejecting the issue per se, would not solve anything definitively and authoritatively either.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Jinc, some interesting replies, as always.

However, I thoroughly disagree with you about what Popes can and cannot get away with. While I agree that Popes are subject to the law like everyone else…They can make the law! And they can make it infallibly. Thus, a Pope can determine that he has the right to wage war against Muslims and his ruling cannot be contested!

Pope’s can make infallible proclamations on matters of faith and morals, not on matters of discipline. He cannot institute canon law that protects his own person against sinful actions; it’s just not possible, that is to say, other authorities within the Church and the faithful could reprimand or remove him in cases of such gross violations. Consequently, he cannot determine that he has a right to wage war against Muslims and that his ruling cannot be contested, because such a ruling would not be a matter of faith or morals, but a judgement on a present worldly situation. For example, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, he didn’t do so infallibly and the monarchs of Europe and leaders in the Church could have refused him support (as has often been done in Church history), but they supported him because they agreed that it was the right thing to do. Canon Law and infallible proclamations are different things altogether.

Even if a Pope is forced to live within guidelines, when has any Pope ever been removed for misconduct? I don’t think it has ever happened in 2,000 years! Why? Because any attempt to remove the Pope would simply be denied by the Pope himself, who has supreme authority. It’s like saying a King is subject to the law…Well yes, but the King is also able to create the law. And unless a King steps down, a King is King forever no matter what a King does. Only a violent revolution often does the job (obviously I am not advocating for this!).

Actually, Popes have been removed from office or at least contested. Have you heard of the Avignon Papacy? Anti-popes have contested the position of the pope (and had support from monarchs and Church leaders), not usually because of moral matters but for political ones. Theoretically, it could also happen over moral concerns. Yes, the Pope has authority but that authority relies on the support of the Church, especially other bishops.

Additionally, I am well aware of infallibility and impeccability. The issue, however, is that while everyone knows Popes are not perfect, Popes can DECLARE certain actions and decisions to be perfect whenever it is convenient for them or whenever it makes sense theologically.

Really? What actions and decisions can they declare to be “perfect”? Popes cannot declare items for belief or action contrary to the faith. Yes, they may act like jackasses but they cannot force others to act in the same way through disciplinary rulings.

Finally, I am not suggesting all or even most popes were bad people. Most were incredibly holy men. but holy men can make mistakes and can be wrong…Popes, however, cannot according to Catholic theology. Again, if the Church’s position on the Pope was that he is the leader of the Church but that he could be removed by the rest of the bishops and that he is not infallible, I would have no problem with it at all. My issue is that there is no way to control the Pope’s power.

But there is a way to control the Pope’s power. Again, the Pope’s genuine earthly authority relies on support from other Church leaders. The Pope can declare till his blue in the face that everyone should bow and worship him, but no faithful would follow him. Christians are not obliged to obey the Pope when he preaches contrary to the faith. I think you’ve got a generally skewed impression of what papal authority is, as if he is some kind of all-powerful dictator.

However, even if we grant this, I still can’t see how we escape this in Orthodoxy either, at least on a smaller scale, after all, who can overthrow and replace a patriarch or local bishop?

Historically speaking, this fear HAS been warranted. Popes have openly opposed the idea of separation of church and state, for instance, for centuries. When the Magna Carta was written in England, the Pope called it “shameful.” Popes have, historically speaking, opposed political liberty in numerous instances. This is a great concern for me.

I would disagree with the suggestion that popes have opposed the idea of separation of Church and state; in fact, I’d say the contrary is true. In most cases, popes have been against the state having control of the Church or vice versa.

I didn’t know about the Magna Carta. Why did the Pope call it “shameful”?

 

[steve_b]

Agreed!..although the use of the words underlined seem to be a ‘threat’ to some within and without Catholicism! That is a*** faith ***issue for them, for in essence they are ‘saying’ - we trust Jesus only so far!

In fairness to Abu, he never said “absolute authority”. He said “supreme authoirty” which is Church language from Lumen Gentium. When some see “supreme” they automatically think “absolute”. And in this case Abu was imputed as saying absolute when he didn’t say that.

 

[MrSnaith]

Hello Jinc1019,

Thank you for this lively discussion. A few points:

• You’ve conceded that Peter was given primary authority over the other Apostles. What you contend mainly on this point is that his authority could be passed on.

My response to this is simply to ask, if Jesus didn’t intend for the authority to be passed on, what was the point? Without succession, this seems like a meaningless gesture by Jesus, as it is clear that not all doctrinal issues were settled during Peter’s lifetime.

• You have recognized the similarity in structure between the old Jewish Kingdom and the Catholic Church, but have questioned it’s legitimacy as the model for the Church, particularly since that kingdom was not in existence at the time of Jesus.

I respond that the Messiah was prophesied to be of the line of David for a specific reason: that he would have the right to ascend to the Davidic Throne. That is to say, Jesus was King specifically within the form of David’s kingdom. For example, Mary as Queen Mother is derived specifically from this kingdom structure. Likewise, within the Davidic Kingdom there was also appointed a prime minister who held the authority of the king in his absence. As king, using the same language as Isaiah 22 to pass on the Davidic authority, Jesus conferred the keys to Peter to act as Prime Minister during His absence. Jesus resurrected the Davidic Kindom as its legitimate king in the form of the Church.

In Isaiah 22, the Lord promised to give Eliakim the authority of the Kingdom, that he would fasten Eliakim like a peg to a firm place, and he would be a seat of honor, and all the glory of the kindom would rest on him. Well, Jesus doesn’t just say that the Church would be built on Peter, but He says that he is ALSO the firm place, the rock, upon which would hang the glory of his family, its offspring and offshoots, and all the lesser vessels. Continue reading Isaiah 22, Eliakim would later be sheared off from the firm place, and would fall along with the kingdom. But Jesus says to Peter, you are the rock, the firm place, and the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church. So, unlike Eliakim, who was the peg only, and he was defeated, the Church would not be, because Peter was also the rock.

• You have expressed your concern over abuse of Papal authority, indicating that the Pope can make and dissolve laws, any kind of laws, and nobody can gainsay him.

There have been abuses, but not the kind that you’re concerned about. Christ gave us His assurance that the Kingdom would not be sheared off, conquered by the gates of hell, fall into apostacy, or disunion with Him. But this protection from being sheared away is tied specifically to the authority of kingship, both in Isaiah 22 and in Matthew 16. Therefore, this protection from the gates of hell is protection from authoritative error. Properly speaking, it regards infallibility, not impeccability. Moreover, it is specifically tied to Peter, rather than the rest of the Apostles. Yes, Jesus gave the other Apostles ministerial authority, like what was given to Peter,but the promise of protection from error was given specifically to Peter, and not the others.

In practice, the authority of the Pope’s infallibility is always expressed in conjunction with the other Bishops. That is to say, the Pope does not declare anything in isolation, or in contradiction with the body of bishops, nor anything that is in contradiction with either Scripture or Tradition.

When it comes to matters of discipline, the Pope, as well as all the other bishops were given authority to bind and loose as described in Matthew. Indeed, the Pope has no authority to bind or loose Doctrines, only disciplines, regulations. That is why both Peter and the other Apostles were told they have the power to bind and loose. They share this power. But what was not given to the other Apostles, only Peter, was the promise of protection from error.

Therefore, your concern that the Pope can willy nilly make laws that command us to, for example, wage war against Muslims is not based in actual Church teaching, Church practice, or historical fact. The Pope simply cannot do this.

• You have expressed your dislike of hierarchy as a mode of government, and as such find the hierarchy of the Church to be a questionable thing.

I would assert to you that God, Himself, is a hierarchy: Father, Son, Spirit. Each person is equal, they are all God, infinite, but the Son is obedient to the Father’s will, and the Holy Spirit is obedient to the Father and the Son when they send Him. The scholastics of the middle ages considered the universe to be hierarchical in nature, with higher and lower creatures. We were given dominion over animals. The form of government given to Israel was a hierarchy, a kingdom. Likewise, Christ gave us a hierarchical Church.

Referring again to the scholastics, everything is considered to be ordered, and sin is considered to be disorder. But what is order? Order is really sequence. First things first, second things second, third things third. Our universe is ordered. Cause comes before effect, the microbe comes before the complex animal. Sin is the disordering of goods. Loving your spouse is good, but when you place her before God, you break away from the proper order of things. God comes first, she comes second. Sex is good, but when it is taken out of its proper order (ie, before you’ve committed yourself entirely to a spouse), then you sin. Hierarchy is nothing more than an expression of order, and our first sin was disobedience.

And just as the Trinity has a head, the Father, to which the other members are obedient, so too should the members of a family have a clear head, as exemplified in Ephesians 5. So too, our Church is a hierarchy, with a clear head, Jesus Christ, and He has placed Peter as His first, His Prime Minister to act in His stead.

 

[Abu]

MrSnaith #93
Indeed, the Pope has no authority to bind or loose Doctrines, only disciplines, regulations.

A good post, with a caution: the above sentence can be taken to mean that the Pope cannot infallibly define dogmas or doctrines, but Christ has expressly given St Peter and his successors that precise power of defining infallibly – whereas dogmas and doctrines cannot be contradicted.

 

[MrSnaith]

A good post, with a caution: the above sentence can be taken to mean that the Pope cannot infallibly define dogmas or doctrines, but Christ has expressly given St Peter and his successors that precise power of defining infallibly – whereas dogmas and doctrines cannot be contradicted.

Thank you for this clarification. I actually had to cut down over 2000 characters from my original post, and this was unfortunately a section that I didn’t trim very well. Yes, you are correct. What I meant here was that popes cannot just make up doctrines, or do away with doctrines. Your clarification is very appreciated.

 

[mardukm]

A good post, with a caution: the above sentence can be taken to mean that the Pope cannot infallibly define dogmas or doctrines, but Christ has expressly given St Peter and his successors that precise power of defining infallibly – whereas dogmas and doctrines cannot be contradicted.

Wow! You’ve stated something with which I actually agree!

Blessings

 

[jinc1019]

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.

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…

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.

I think you are missing the point. Because we don’t know what Peter said on the matter, how do we know Peter chose the successor at Rome to be the successor of the head of the church? He could have chosen someone else or no one at all. We just have no evidence to back it up OTHER THAN allusions to Rome’s primacy, which read in context, truly say nothing about papal supremacy until much later than the era of the Apostles (200 ad and higher).

 

[jinc1019]

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

Personally, to read the weight and power of the primacy of the pope into this passage is a stretch.

 

[jinc1019]

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:
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.

First of all, you misrepresent much of what I actually said. I never said the Pope’s office should be removed…My point was that if the analogy is going to be fairly applied, then INDIVIDUALS occupying the papal office SHOULD BE REMOVED for poor conduct. They, of course, are not and Catholics would teach that this is impossible. That was the point of my comment on that issue.

Second, your description of the First Jerusalem Council is false. James did play a major role and even gave the final pronouncement.

Third, your argument about the seat of Judas is valid to a limited extent. The problem you run into is…If the 12 apostolic seats were offices to be replaced, that would at least make sense within the parameter of your argument. You, however, ONLY apply that logic to the seat of Peter. You ignore the other 11 seats and lump them into the same category as the other episcopal seats. Do you really think that St. John was considered an equal with newly appointed bishops? Doubtful. But your argument hinges on that point. Why? Because if those apostolic seats were unique to that time and place, then the successors to them do not necessarily have the same authority.

Fourth, I never said anything about ordination, holy orders, or anything else related to that. I have no idea why you brought it up. You can believe in all of those things and still reject the authority of the pope.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Again…No one is arguing here that Peter didn’t have the authority. The issue is whether his successors also have that authority.