Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[jinc1019]

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.

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

Hi Marduk,
First, the Pope does have absolute authority in the Church. Why? Because in the end, anything he declares to be infallibly true is infallibly true (on issues of faith and morals). Although he may not choose to exercise this authority at all times, he still has it according to Catholic teachings.

Second, in regards to your understanding of St. Peter and the keys as it relates to papal authority…I have never heard this understanding once from Catholic apologists. Scott Hahn in particular, who has spent a great deal of time making the “keys” argument, is quite clear that the keys symbolize a dynastic office that would be passed down…thus, the keys are passed down. You are saying the keys remain with St. Peter and the successors simply inherit the position…but that doesn’t even fit into the theology of the keys. The keys in Isaiah 22 were passed down as well to the successors…not just the office. I have no idea where you are getting this conception of the keys and the office of the pope, but I would very much like to read it if it is from an official Catholic source.

 

[jinc1019]

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

Additionally, if your conception of the papacy were the one being taught by the overwhelming majority of Catholics, it would be far easier to accept. This is not, however, the doctrine being propagated by Catholics in America and I am not certain your view is truly the Church’s.

 

[MrSnaith]

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.

This is false, Catholics would not teach that this is impossible. In fact, quite the opposite. We would teach exactly what you suggest should happen. The relation of the Church to the Davidic Kingdom isn’t analogous. Jesus really is a Davidic King, and therefore His Church has the same structure. The Pope can be removed from office.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

No one here is disputing that the powers of the bishop are transferred through the office of bishop. The issue is whether St. Peter’s position as head of the church is transferrable or not. These passages have nothing to do with that.

 

[jinc1019]

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 don’t disagree with any of this. I believe this is what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[jinc1019]

Ah…okay…you are equating the spiritual and temporal authority, or combining them.

 

[jinc1019]

But there is God’s word that when hands are laid upon…there is a transfer of authority:

 

[MrSnaith]

Burning dissenters at the stake is not considered “faith and morals,” but ruling about sexuality is.

Please provide the papal, or magesterial document that taught the moral validity of burning someone at the stake.

 

[jinc1019]

Who has said that the Pope has absolute authority – as though he is God?

The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

Yeah, but who decides what “faith and morals” are? The Pope. Thus, the Pope can effectively have authority over anything.

 

[jinc1019]

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!

However many corrupt, immoral Popes there have been in the past, it seems evident that SOMEHOW they were prevented from uttering nonsense drivel as doctrine for the Church to adopt! In fact, none of them has taught anyone toward Hell. What they remind us of though is that they are mortal creatures like everyone else and not divine as part of the office!

The fact is, The Pope, remains under more heat throughout his tenure, than perhaps his brother bishops. The parables of Our Lord are pretty clear as to what happens to the Key Holder when the Master of the House returns and finds his house in disorder!..and crystal clear about those servants who usurp the Key Holder!

The OP’s main contention seem to be a challenge to the status of Peter being transferrable. The fatal flaw in the challenge is that if Peter’s primacy and leadership (Papacy) ended with Peter, then there is no Christian church today! NO Bishop anywhere in the globe can claim this role - according to Scriptures!

The other 12 Apostles and Sees would ALSO be dead if their bishopric is non-transferrable.

Moreover, the church having ‘died’ with Peter, there would be NO Scriptures to measure ALL other writings against, except maybe the Torah! The result will be the Book of Mormon will be as valid as the Quran and the New York Drivel and every man MUST attain Heaven since every rule and code dreamt up by the human mind MUST necessarily be accepted by God Who didn’t leave a Guide Book!

Some excellent answers already presented in this thread…

With all due respect, you are totally wrong on your point about the “death” of the entire episcopacy. You are ASSUMING, based on no evidence at all contained in scripture, that the office of bishop and the office of apostle are the same thing.

 

[jinc1019]

We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. (aside from when the Vicar of Christ makes a pronouncement ex-cathedra)

Like Henry VIII wanting a divorce? And all the Protestant sects that sprung up from that?

Saying “the Church is the reason the Reformation happened” is like saying that fire is the reason forest fires happen. Reform WAS needed; but they LEFT the Church. They didn’t reform it.

You keep saying that. Has the Church wronged you in some way? Has the Pope, or one of his predecessors wronged you in some way? If so, we can talk about it. :console: It’ll be okay

Seriously? CATHOLICS choose? Trust me, buddy… nobody ever asks ME what I think about faith and morals. You seem to think that the laymen of the Faith have some kind of say in the interpretation of doctrine. I can assure you we do not.

I think lots of Protestant sects have also burned people at the stake for various reasons. (witchcraft, etc…) But I don’t think it has ever been part of ANY Christian doctrine to burn people at the stake.

Did Judas selling out Jesus prompt the Apostles to abolish his bishopric? Tune in to Acts Chapter One and find out!

Have a splendiferous day!

~rfournier103. /QUOTE

I think you should read an unbiased book about the Reformation. The reformers, many of them, left because they were either thrown out, threatened, or killed! You can’t seriously be saying it’s their fault they left? Many would have gladly stayed.

 

[jinc1019]

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…

I am not a member of any church currently. I was baptized and raised in the Catholic Church.

The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others that have committed grave errors is that they don’t claim to be perfect on “faith and morals” and they don’t claim to have supreme authority over all other Christians and they don’t claim to be “infallible on faith and morals.”

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Assuming you are correct that no one else has claimed this (I have heard mixed things about this), you make a very good argument. If Peter was the Head of the Church, and if he intended to pass this role to someone else, it would make sense that he would make this clear. Rome has made that clear unless another ancient church also made a competing claim early in Church history.

 

[jinc1019]

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

I don’t disagree with ANY of this.

 

[jinc1019]

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

I am sorry…but no. This is legal gymnastics. Popes delivered the charges knowing the outcome and the punishment.

 

[jinc1019]

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]

Again, none of this disputes my argument. I don’t disagree with Peter’s authority or the authority of the Twelve. The issue is whether the authority has been passed down or not.

 

[jinc1019]

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!

Thank you for this source. I have NOT read it but will. I greatly enjoyed Dr. Pitre’s book, “The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” (I think that was the title).

 

[jinc1019]

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:

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:

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:

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.

First,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I agree with much of what you said…EXCEPT one important point. You suggested that once the two bishops in disagreement reach the point where they must call a council, the council can’t arrive at a decision. But why? A council can always arrive at a decision where the majority of the bishops come to a conclusion. I suppose a council could choose NOT to take up an issue…but if it is a major issue, there is no reason for this to occur.

With that said, I agree with everything else you mentioned. My position is this: If a dispute arises, the bishops of the world should come together and come to a conclusion. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is 100% correct, nor does it mean it can’t be re-evaluated in the future. It does, however, give a definitive teaching based on what the majority of leaders in the Church believe.

 

[rfournier103]

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.

Who decides what conduct is grounds for removal? Is there anything in the Bible that could provide something cononical for such an instance?

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

**Acts 15:12 **- only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

**Acts 15:13-14 **- then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

You’re right… he DID play a major role. He spoke up in support of Peter. Nice try; and thanks for the assist.

Third, your argument about the seat of Judas is valid to a limited extent.

Wow. That’s a HUGE concession on your part. Thanks. :dancing:

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.

Aren’t we talking about ONE office in particular here? Isn’t that the whole point of the thread? ALL the offices are transferrable. Peter has primacy, so would not his successor recieve that authority?

Do you really think that St. John was considered an equal with newly appointed bishops? Doubtful.

Why not? Do we have evidence to the contrary?

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.

Conjecture on your part. Do you have proof that it isn’t?

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.

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

Ordination and Holy Orders have EVERYTHING to do with the transfer of authority. That’s why I introduced it into the conversation. Ordination and Holy Orders transfer authority. Unless you think that Sacrament is bogus and does no such thing…

I think you should read an unbiased book about the Reformation. The reformers, many of them, left because they were either thrown out, threatened, or killed! You can’t seriously be saying it’s their fault they left? Many would have gladly stayed.

Can you reccomend one? Most of what I know about the Reformation is what I learned in history class in High School and College. (Public, by the way. NOT Catholic schools) However, the history books CLEARLY state that Martin Luther AND Henry VIII LEFT THE CHURCH. THEY EITHER DID, OR THEY DIDN’T. What notable reformers would have stayed? Names, please.

I am not a member of any church currently. I was baptized and raised in the Catholic Church.

I certainly hope you find a church somewhere that lives up to your lofty standards.

The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others that have committed grave errors is that they don’t claim to be perfect on “faith and morals” and they don’t claim to have supreme authority over all other Christians and they don’t claim to be “infallible on faith and morals.”

The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others is that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[mardukm]

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

Please explain the reasons for your statement. Btw, I am having a discussion in a separate thread on this very topic with brother MilesVitae. It is in the Non-Catholic Forum entitled “Divine Institution of the Papacy.” It would be great to have your (name removed by moderator)ut there on this particular topic.

Also, I noticed the great number of posts to which you responded, and I have to commend you for your diligence.

Blessings,
Marduk