Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[spina1953]

THIS, is as it IS!
Thanks 'Soldier’

Like most who look at Catholicism, Jincs, sees the Papacy and focus’s on him and think we hold the Pope in such esteem as the Head of The Church as though he is The Church or started the faith!

The ONLY reason we see the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, is because of his BOSS Who happens to be The One we believe to be Second Person of the Holy Trinity!

Jesus is the one Who gave Peter the Keys of The Kingdom. Francis is the one in the line of Peter. Catholics listen to Francis, because we’re FOLLOWING Jesus. Our eyes are firmly fixed of the one ‘behind’ the Papacy; NOT the Pope!, per se.

Not every Catholic drew their first breath as Catholic when the doctor slapped them! Many found The Church by ‘following’ their noses and looking for Christ, and are now listening to Francis and his predecessors - because that’s where following Christ takes you!

Jinc, you’re in a room with the Pope as a pencil in your hand; hold that up and focus on the pencil…and you’ll see the pencil and all it’s faults/use/properties/colour…as the background blurs and goes out of focus!

NOW, Catholics see the same pencil, except we fully understand with ABSOLUTE certainty that Jesus is the one holding the pencil TOWARD us!!.. and most can hear Him say, ‘Use mine! It draws better and never breaks!’ (Matt 16)

Your entire beef is that the Pope can fault; might fault; has faulted; and shouldn’t have his AUTHORITY!! You don’t TRUST him or his office. That’s because you don’t have the understanding of the faith - before you’ve discarded it - that it’s NOT the man we hold to, but our absolute trust and faith in the One Who is ‘BEHIND’ him!

HE IS THE ONE WE ARE FOLLOWING and LISTEN TO!

Well said!!!

 

[jinc1019]

That’s a rather irresponsible statement. If you are going to challenge Catholic teaching, then challenge Catholic teaching, not a caricature of it. Please quote a Magisterial document that states that the Pope can “determine that any of his actions are within “faith and morals” and therefore issue an infallible decree.” Please don’t bother with statements from singular theologians.

The power of veto means the power to UNILATERALLY cancel what all other authorities say. The Pope has no such UNILATERAL authority. He is a member of a College of bishops. He has a PERSONAL, not unilateral authority to make certain decisions, but those personal decisions must always be made in communion with his brother orthodox bishops in the College. He has no authority to act outside of the context of the College, because, contrary to the claims of some Absolutist Petrine advocates and detractors of the papacy, the College is of divine institution just as much as the papacy is of divine institution. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and if you disagree, we’d like to see you produce the Magisterial documents that say contrariwise. Since you have come on here and made the claim of “absolute power,” the onus is on you to prove it from our Magisterial documents.

The episcopal Magisterium of the Church - the College of bishops. What other answer would you expect?

Ok. So you admit it is not the Pope ALONE. So where do you get the idea of “absolute power?”

Christians have a right to dissent from a Pope’s teaching that is contrary to Sacred Tradition. The problem with your argument is that you forget that the Pope is not the only bishop in the Church. His brother bishops can correct him. The most recent example was at Vatican 1. The Pope was known to be a neo-ultramontanist before and during the Council. But he eventually accepted the correction of his brother bishops against the neo-ultramontanist excesses as enshrined in Pastor Aeternus, and confirmed the Council. It’s almost like what happened at the Fifth Ecum. You really need to study the debates that went on behind the scenes at the Council to understand that the purpose of the Council - as far as the papal prerogatives were concerned - was in fact to decrease the power of the Pope in opposition to the exaggerations of the neo-ultramontanists…

Blessings

Markdum,
The problem between us is that your view of what the papacy is is not the same as the papacy Roman Catholic apologists project. While I am not willing to say your view is wrong…I don’t have any evidence that suggests it is right. Until I do, I can’t really argue your points. If your view of the papacy is true, I would be far more likely to accept the papacy. The problem is, your view is not the view I have seen argued in any of the readings I have encountered. Where is the best place to find your views?

 

[jinc1019]

Who gave St Peter the power to teach truths on what to believe and how to act morally, infallibly? God alone. [Posts #41,75]. “Anything” is not included.
That is precisely why they do not have the authority which Christ gave His Church and cannot teach the fullness of faith and morals with which Christ empowered His Church.

Sins committed by members of the Church whether prelates or laity cannot nullify the freedom from teaching error on faith and morals which Christ gave to His Magisterium. He did not give anyone impeccability.

Peter’s authority has been passed down
‘For the historical fact of continued succession in the office Christ had conferred on St. Peter we naturally have to look to early Church history. The New Testament records Christ’s promise that His Church as He instituted it would last all days till the end of time. This promise implied the constitutional permanence of the office of head of the Church which He had bestowed upon Peter.

‘For subsequent events we can scarcely find a better authority than that of St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp who, in turn, had been a disciple of St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaeus wrote his great work “Adversus Haereses” during the time of Pope Eleutherius, who held office 177A.D. to 189 A.D. and whom Irenaeus described as the “twelfth from the Apostles.” In Bk. 3, sect. 2, St. Irenaeus expressly says: “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up of the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop. Paul mentions this Linus in his epistles to
Timothy (2 Tim., 4:21).” Irenaeus then lists the successive Bishops of Rome as Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius, adding: “It is in this order and in this line of succession that the tradition has come down in the Church from the time of the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth has come down to our own day.”

‘Eusebius, in his “History of the Church”, Book 5, c. 58, says that Pope Victor, the successor of Eleutherius, “was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after Peter.” ’
[See DR RUMBLE “QUESTIONS PEOPLE ASK”, Chevalier Books, 1972].

I have closely examined the historical evidence on the matter and the truth is that there is virtually no evidence from the early church which states that the Bishop of Rome is entitled to the degree of power he has today. Irenaeus, the very same man you quoted above, said this in Prescription Against Heretics, 32:

Let the heretics attempt something of the same kind, for their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare by its own diversity and disagreement that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man. This is so because just as the apostles would never have taught anything that was self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated any teaching different from the apostles … To this test, therefore, [the heretics] will be submitted for proof by those churches whose founder was not from the apostles or the apostolic men—since they are of a much later date, as churches are in fact being founded daily—but who, since they agree in the same faith, are considered no less apostolic because they are of the same family in doctrine.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me doctrine stems from the outgrowth of understanding better a passage of Scripture. IOW’s before a doctrine can explain something, it first has to be understood what something means. This not always arrived at in a immediate manor or way. The passage in Matthew 16, giving the keys to Peter to bind and loose in heaven and earth, and that Peter is going to be the rock that Christ will build His Church on and that nothing not even the gates of hell will be able to prevail has meaning. But what meaning could this have? it appears that, it was very much understood that peter was to be the head of the Church Christ was building and gave him authority which Christ did not give the other Apostles at that moment in time. If as it has been suggested, that Jesus was giving the keys to all of the Apostles, Why did not Matthew say so in his Gospel account? Also why did not Matthew say in his Gospel account that all of the Apostles had the very same authority that Jesus gave Peter at that time?

So, it seems to me that the reason why Jesus gave Peter the authority and the responsibility is that Jesus wanted His Church to be built on a solid foundation and picked Peter to be that foundation. Are we then to question what Jesus intended? It also seems to me if Peter was not to be the authority that the Church claims then all of the Churches would have had their very own authority to say and do and decide what to believe or not to believe and any other church would have the right to question what any other church believed and taught. There has to be a central authority. I also noticed that only Jesus preached and taught he did not have any competing person claiming the same things he Jesus claimed. Jesus by the authority of the Father in heaven is who gave the authority to Peter. There is nothing that says that Peter could not pass on his authority to anyone he decided on. The Church needs a leader and Jesus choose Peter to be that leader of His Church.

Those who are more knowledgeable in understanding Scripture have come to the conclusion that Matthew’s 16 passage does indeed give Peter authority over the Church.

 

[Abu]

coptsoldier #138
The times in which a pope can speak infalliability are very, very rare. In all of history, a Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra twice, and despite popular opinion it is not ex-cathedra every time he speaks of the faith and morals, but rather when a decision has to be made regarding the faith and the Bishop of Rome is called upon to resolve a dispute and uphold the faith, This is when his supremacy and Infalliability apply.

Factually, the understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility has been developed by Bl John Paul II, after Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirmed the teaching of Vatican I: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Bl John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires:
The assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1);
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2).

In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

 

[spina1953]

Factually, the understanding of the dogma of papal infallibility has been developed by Bl John Paul II, after Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirmed the teaching of Vatican I: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Bl John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires:
The assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1);
A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2).

In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Answer by David Gregson of EWTN on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

Great way to explain Papal Authority!!!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Coptsoldier,

The times in which a pope can speak infalliability are very, very rare. In all of history, a Pope has only spoken Ex-Cathedra twice, and despite popular opinion it is not ex-cathedra every time he speaks of the faith and morals, but rather when a decision has to be made regarding the faith and the Bishop of Rome is called upon to resolve a dispute and uphold the faith, This is when his supremacy and Infalliability apply. Also Papal infalliability only applies to doctorine always held by the Church, not to new pseudo-Theology, so in that the Orthodox and Catholics are in agreement, that the Churches Dogma is infalliable.

You are absolutely correct that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 is a very rare occurrence. Please do not be misled by Abu’s “Pope alone” agenda. He is a bit confused about (among other things) the exercise of infallibility by the universal ordinary Magisterium, on the one hand, and the exercise of infallibility by the Extraordinary Magisterium, on the other. He (and other Absolutist Petrine advocates like him) want everything to be about the Pope alone, with the bishops nothing more than his “Yesmen.” Thus, even papal pronouncements such as Humanae Vitae, which was pronounced according to the COLLEGIAL infallibility of the universal ordinary Magisterium, they pretend are also due to the:“papal” infallibility defined by V1 – not that the “papal” infallibility defined by V1 is bereft of the collegial element, but those like Abu think that “papal” infallibility has no collegial element.

But to be concise, Catholics normally understand that the primacy was exercised to pronounce ex cathedra more than twice. Many theologians come up with different lists, but I’ve noticed that all of them have at least 5 in common: (1) Pope St. Leo’s Tome to the Fourth Ecum; (2) Pope St. Agatho’s Epistle to the Sixth Ecum; (3) Benedictus Deus by Pope Benedict XII; (4) The dogma of the IC; (5) The dogma of the Assumption. Of course, none of theses lists are dogmatic. It is perfectfly fine to believe as a Catholic that there have only been 2 ex cathedra pronouncements.

1. Papal supremacy between the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch’s of the Eastern Churches is not one of servant/Master.

You can’t know how satisfying it is for me to read the term “supremacy” used by a fellow Oriental in reference to the Pope. Most Catholics I’ve met understand it to mean “absolute, unilateral power.” But according to our Oriental Tradition, that’s not what it means. It is just so relaxing to see that word expressed by someone who I’m secure does not have the “absolute power” mentality when using that word.

Thanks again, brother. Your presence here is a balm to my soul.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

1. The Early Church taught that when the Bishop of Rome speaks, St Peter is speaking.

And we can’t fail to mention the Synod of Sardica, with the strong participation of our own great Pope St. Athanasius, and confirmed by 2 of the 7 Ecum Councils, which affirmed the universal appellate authority of the bishop of Rome with the words “in honor of St. Peter.”.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[coptsoldier]

Sorry I meant that its been declared ex cathedra twice since v1. I will agree though that the view of papal absolutist power is wrong. This is shown by the existance of us eastern (or in our case oriental) catholics. We recognise that the pope is the universal bishop, however we have our own synods, and canons, and alot of our patriarchs arent even cardinals.

As my ukrainian priest said to me, the latin church cant ignore the second lung anymore.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Coptsoldier,

I tried to send you a PM, but it is not yet set up to receive messages. I wanted to ask you a favor for one of our Coptic Orthodox brothers. He has been trying to contact a certain Coptic Catholic parish in Australia, but is not having any success. I will give you more information by PM once you set up your Private Message function. Perhaps you can contact him and provide some help.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry I meant that its been declared ex cathedra twice since v1. I will agree though that the view of papal absolutist power is wrong. This is shown by the existance of us eastern (or in our case oriental) catholics. We recognise that the pope is the universal bishop, however we have our own synods, and canons, and alot of our patriarchs arent even cardinals.

As my ukrainian priest said to me, the latin church cant ignore the second lung anymore.

 

[mardukm]

We recognise that the pope is the universal bishop, however we have our own synods, and canons, and alot of our patriarchs arent even cardinals.

Btw, I wanted to inform you that two Popes of Rome have explicitly repudiated the title “universal bishop” - Pope St. Leo, and Pope St. Gregory. I know that there are modern Latin Catholic apologists who try to defend the title by reinterpreting what it means, but I would simply advise that we not use it at all. Our Orthodox brethren are sure to charge us with contradicting Sacred Tradition if we use it (and, in my opinion, rightly so).

The proper terminology should be “universal HEAD bishop.” Head bishops (like our Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Popes) have a different function in the Church than a local bishop, as I’m sure you know. There is only one head bishop for a metropolitan see, just as there is only one head bishop for a patriarchate, just as there is only one head bishop for the Church universal. But it would be wrong to say that there is only one bishop for a metropolitan see; it would be wrong to say there is only one bishop for a patriarchal see; and it would be wrong to say that there is only one bishop for the Church universal. That is what the term “universal bishop” implies, which is why past Popes have NEVER used that title. It is better to use the term “universal head bishop,” or “universal primate,” or some such title that designates that the universality is with respect to his role as a head bishop, not as bishop.

I hope you can agree.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[coptsoldier]

If you are referring to Didymus over in Eastern Catholic Forums, I will contact him as soon as possible

 

[jinc1019]

Dear brother Abu,

You post #134 is your second post which I find highly satisfying. I would clarify just one thing, however:

The power of binding and loosing refers not just to the government of the Church, but also to the power of teaching and the power of sanctifying.

As far as the power of teaching and the power of sanctifying, all bishops are equal. It is in the power of governance that their is an hierarchy. Metropolitans have a greater power of governance than the local bishop; Patriarchs have a greater power of governance than a Metropolitan; and the Pope has a greater power of governance than a Patriarch. But though there is an hierarchy of the power of governance, all are bound by the divine constitution of the Church to work in communion with each other for the good of the Church.

At first glance, it might seem that the Pope has a greater power of teaching than the bishops. But this is not true. ALL bishops have the same fonts of Scripture and Tradition from which their teaching flows, and it is the same Holy Spirit Who establishes and guards their teaching authority. It is only in the power of governance that the distinction lies. whereby the distinction of primacy is realized.

Blessings

Markdum,
While I do not disagree with all of your points here…Where precisely do you see the Pope given a hierarchical power over the other apostles? Where do you see patriarchs given a higher power over the bishops? The reality is that these positions, to some extent, are man-made, not hierarchies established by Christ.

 

[jinc1019]

THIS, is as it IS!
Thanks 'Soldier’

Like most who look at Catholicism, Jincs, sees the Papacy and focus’s on him and think we hold the Pope in such esteem as the Head of The Church as though he is The Church or started the faith!

The ONLY reason we see the Bishop of Rome as the Pope, is because of his BOSS Who happens to be The One we believe to be Second Person of the Holy Trinity!

Jesus is the one Who gave Peter the Keys of The Kingdom. Francis is the one in the line of Peter. Catholics listen to Francis, because we’re FOLLOWING Jesus. Our eyes are firmly fixed of the one ‘behind’ the Papacy; NOT the Pope!, per se.

Not every Catholic drew their first breath as Catholic when the doctor slapped them! Many found The Church by ‘following’ their noses and looking for Christ, and are now listening to Francis and his predecessors - because that’s where following Christ takes you!

Jinc, you’re in a room with the Pope as a pencil in your hand; hold that up and focus on the pencil…and you’ll see the pencil and all it’s faults/use/properties/colour…as the background blurs and goes out of focus!

NOW, Catholics see the same pencil, except we fully understand with ABSOLUTE certainty that Jesus is the one holding the pencil TOWARD us!!.. and most can hear Him say, ‘Use mine! It draws better and never breaks!’ (Matt 16)

Your entire beef is that the Pope can fault; might fault; has faulted; and shouldn’t have his AUTHORITY!! You don’t TRUST him or his office. That’s because you don’t have the understanding of the faith - before you’ve discarded it - that it’s NOT the man we hold to, but our absolute trust and faith in the One Who is ‘BEHIND’ him!

HE IS THE ONE WE ARE FOLLOWING and LISTEN TO!

In don’t disagree totally with what you are saying…But the issue for me is that historically speaking, Catholics HAVE blindly followed Popes who demanded, requested, ordered, or contributed to immoral and evil acts. It has happened. This isn’t an imaginary tale I am inventing. It has occurred and could occur again (although I hope and pray it does not!).

If everything you are saying is true, Catholics should have rejected these behaviors made by popes, but they did not. Many accepted them and assisted in them. This is not surprising-it arises out of a culture that says, “You must be obedient.” Of course they will say, “If we teach something immoral, you don’t have to listen to it or do it.” But when the Pope comes knocking on your door and asks you to do something, as a Catholic, you do it…And that’s the problem.

 

[jinc1019]

Important Update

I think it is really important for me to update my position on these issues that have been discussed here.

I want to start by saying that I greatly appreciate all of your time. It really does make a difference. I have been on CAF for a very long time and have had similar discussions many times in the past, but some of the arguments made here have, in conjunction with some of my more recent studies, connected with me better than previous ones have. After 3 years of studying these issues and essentially attending every different kind of church under the sun, I am finally starting to accept some of these teachings on authority (something I never thought was possible).

Where I Now Stand

Based on many of the discussions I have had here and many of the sources I have recently been directed to, I have come to following conclusions (some of which I held prior to having these conversations):

1. I agree that Jesus created an actual visible Church and that his 12 apostles were placed in charge of it.
2. I agree that Jesus likely made Peter the head of this church.
3. I agree, based on the fact that Judas’ apostolic seat is clearly referred to as an “office” in the Book of Acts, that these positions of authority were “offices” and, based on the fact that Judas’ office was filled by another, that these “offices” would have successors who would inherit the same authority as those who filled the offices before them.
4. I agree that there is very little evidence to suggest that these apostolic offices were destroyed or limited in authority based on the historical evidence. I don’t see any historical evidence to suggest that the authority was reduced for the successors.
5. I agree that it is likely, given the fact that the overwhelming majority of historic episcopacies agree (even outside the Catholic Church), that the Bishop of Rome after St. Peter died was given the title of “Head of the Church” and likely inherited all the powers of that office.
6. I agree that, historically speaking, unity, which was an incredibly important teaching of the early church, is very difficult to achieve with a system similar to that of the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, and Protestant churches.

With All That, Where Are My Disagreements?

It may appear from first glance that I am very soon going to be converting to Catholicism, but the truth is that there are still some very difficult issues that I don’t believe fall in favor of the RCC.

1. Although I can accept that it’s likely that the Bishop of Rome after Peter’s death became the “Head of the Church,” that bishop, the Pope, can only inherit whatever powers Peter himself had. The problem still remains: What powers did Peter have? Did Peter have the power to do all that modern Popes do? Historically, I don’t think he did. Peter didn’t confirm every single bishop appointed in every diocese in the world. There is no evidence Peter had the authority to force everyone in the Church to see things his way…And I still don’t see any evidence to suggest that Peter was given the protection of the Holy Spirit to teach infallibly on faith and morals (or any definition of what faith and morals is) APART from the other apostles. While it’s true that Peter was given the “Keys,” these keys do not suggest infallibility, only authority. The “binding and loosing” promise made to Peter was also made to the other apostles, so why do Catholics believe that Peter had a separate protection of infallibility distinct from the other apostles?
2. (And this is really important)…I think we can all agree that the individual Christian’s duty is ultimately to God, and if a Pope tells us to murder someone, rape someone, etc., then we have a duty to reject that Pope’s commands in order to ensure we are following Christ first and foremost.

But what happens if a group of bishops truly believe a Pope is teaching something, either infallibly or not, that is wrong or immoral? If the Pope and the bishops who agree with him (or just the Pope alone) do not allow dissent on the point, what are the other bishops supposed to do? Simply stay in the church and continue to fight? What if the Pope throws them out? This is ultimately the problem…If the Pope has something wrong, how is a Christian supposed to contest it? If we all agree that we are supposed to reject false teachings or commands by Popes, how can we go about doing this if the Pope is forcing us to submit to it?

Again, I appreciate all of your time. Some of you in particular (and you know who you are) have been extremely helpful and your efforts have obviously made quite a difference.

 

[TCEL]

With All That, Where Are My Disagreements?

It may appear from first glance that I am very soon going to be converting to Catholicism, but the truth is that there are still some very difficult issues that I don’t believe fall in favor of the RCC.

1. Although I can accept that it’s likely that the Bishop of Rome after Peter’s death became the “Head of the Church,” that bishop, the Pope, can only inherit whatever powers Peter himself had. The problem still remains: What powers did Peter have? Did Peter have the power to do all that modern Popes do? Historically, I don’t think he did. Peter didn’t confirm every single bishop appointed in every diocese in the world. There is no evidence Peter had the authority to force everyone in the Church to see things his way…And I still don’t see any evidence to suggest that Peter was given the protection of the Holy Spirit to teach infallibly on faith and morals (or any definition of what faith and morals is) APART from the other apostles. While it’s true that Peter was given the “Keys,” these keys do not suggest infallibility, only authority. The “binding and loosing” promise made to Peter was also made to the other apostles, so why do Catholics believe that Peter had a separate protection of infallibility distinct from the other apostles?
2. (And this is really important)…I think we can all agree that the individual Christian’s duty is ultimately to God, and if a Pope tells us to murder someone, rape someone, etc., then we have a duty to reject that Pope’s commands in order to ensure we are following Christ first and foremost.

But what happens if a group of bishops truly believe a Pope is teaching something, either infallibly or not, that is wrong or immoral? If the Pope and the bishops who agree with him (or just the Pope alone) do not allow dissent on the point, what are the other bishops supposed to do? Simply stay in the church and continue to fight? What if the Pope throws them out? This is ultimately the problem…If the Pope has something wrong, how is a Christian supposed to contest it? If we all agree that we are supposed to reject false teachings or commands by Popes, how can we go about doing this if the Pope is forcing us to submit to it?

Again, I appreciate all of your time. Some of you in particular (and you know who you are) have been extremely helpful and your efforts have obviously made quite a difference.

Well, I’ve only been passively following this thread, so I haven’t been reading through every post. Since I only provided a link I found helpful, and I’m sure different points have been discussed with great acumen, perhaps I can weigh in from a personal standpoint why I accept papal infallibility (at the risk of beating a dead horse). Plus, I like the spirit with which you approach these things, and I think you have good questions.

I haven’t done a lot of historical research into the topic. I really do take a lot of it on faith. But first, I do accept that Jesus established Peter as “al-bayit” (over-the-household), and gave special distinction to Peter when He prayed specifically for his faith (Luke 22:31-34). I also accept that this is an office that is passed on. Given that I accept those things, I have faith that Jesus would protect what He established.

In fact, I want to draw attention again to Luke 22:31-34.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” And he said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” He said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me.”

One may think that this proves exactly what you contend, Peter’s weakness. And it does! But in this, I see the paradox of papal infallibility. Despite his weakness, Christ prayed for Peter’s faith specifically, after having already given him the keys. Peter stumbles, but his stumbling is that of personal fault, not heresy.

As far as what to do when a pope is in error? I’m sure other people have better answers on this than I do. I’ve had doubts about this very issue too. It caused me some darkness. It was my to-be husband, who hadn’t converted yet, who reassured me the best answer was to have faith in what Jesus said. I didn’t like it because I didn’t get everything tied up in a nice, neat bow, but I think he was correct. I was approaching it with the presumption that Jesus did not in fact guarantee protection in the matters of faith and morals. So, that probably doesn’t help you, but I do feel ya! I don’t think there’s one quick, easy answer. Ultimately, in my case, it came down to the obedience of faith, as Christ was obedient to his father. That’s the best analogy I can think of whenever I go through my personal doubts and struggles.

Thanks for you taking the time to look into this! It really is important. And not to turn you off or anything, but my husband ended up picking Peter as his confirmation saint when he came into the Church.

 

[steve_b]

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).

1. 
   *]No one is saying Peter is the one or that it has to be his choice to choose his successor. Rome is Peter’s see. That is why his successors succeed to his see in Rome…
   *]We have 2000 years of evidence not allusions to papal primacy over the entire Church.

 

[MrSnaith]

Out of interest, I decided to look at all the interactions between Jesus and Peter. So far I’ve only gotten through Matthew, and I’m even more surprised by what I see than I expected to be.

Matthew 4:18-20 - Jesus calls Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew before any others, calling them to be fishers of men.

Matthew 10:2-4 - Peter, specifically, is called “the first.” Not Peter and Andrew together, as one might expect if this was a chronological phrase.

Matthew 14:27-31 - Jesus spoke to “them,” and Peter responds, taking the lead, and walks on the water with Jesus, until his weak faith betrays him. Peter is shown to be personally weak.

Matthew 15:14-20 - Jesus is speaking to the disciples, and Peter responds, asking for clarity, again taking the lead. Jesus points out Peter’s lack of understanding.

Matthew 16:14-19 - Jesus asks “them” who “they” say He is. Peter responds publicly on their behalf with true Doctrine, "You are Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus declares that it was the Father who revealed this to Peter, not “flesh and blood.” He then names him Peter, and that he would build His church on him, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Then he confers on Peter the keys of the Kingdom, granting him the authority to loose and bind.

Matthew 16:21-25 - Jesus foretells His own death, and Peter disputes Him privately. Jesus calls him Satan, and accuses him of desiring worldly things. This passage, immediately following the one where Jesus pronounces Peter to be the foundation of the Church, demonstrates that Peter’s public pronouncements on doctrine come from the Father, but his private doubts come from the world.

Matthew 17:1-5 - Jesus takes Peter, James and John as witnesses to His transfiguration. Peter, taking the lead once again, offers to build a tent for Him, Moses and Elija.

Matthew 17:23-26 - “They that received the didrachmas” come to Peter for payment, giving recognition to his authority among the Disciples.

Matthew 18:21-22 - Peter, among the other listeners, asks a question about forgiveness.

Matthew 19:23-30 - Jesus speaks to “them,” and Peter answers on their behalf as “we,” and Jesus promises them glory in the resurrection.

Matthew 26:31-35 - Jesus speaks to “them,” and Peter answers on his own behalf, and Jesus promises that he will fail, by rejecting Him three times that very day.

Matthew 26:36-45 - Jesus again taks Peter, James and John with Him to guard His private prayer. When He finds them asleep, He addresses Peter.

Matthew 26:56-58 - Jesus is arrested and “the disciples all leaving Him, fled.” But Peter follows from afar, then goes into the court of the high priest and sits among the servants to witness it to the end.

Matthew 26:69-75 - Peter fulfills Jesus’ prophecy and denies Him three times before the cock crows. Peter weeps bitterly in shame.

From Matthew alone, it’s clear that Peter has a leadership role among the Apostles. I will continue this venture in future posts.

 

[steve_b]

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

You wouldn’t continue to ask that if you actually read the posts that have been given you.

 

[steve_b]

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

What does that mean?
j:

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 Church is infallible on teaching in the area of faith and morals…alone. That is promised by Jesus

The Church is NOT impeccable…nor has it ever claimed impeccability.