On the supposed convenience of Papal Infallibility (As Protestants would claim)

[RedFan]

I accept all of that. I don’t question Peter’s having been given power to bind and loose. (I actually think all of the apostles may have had such power.)

 

[po18guy]

1st Clement to the Corinthians.

 

[RedFan]

Then there is the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth toward the end of the First Century, urging them not to depose their own leaders. First Clement: Clement of Rome Because it responds to a matter on which at least some Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, one might think that these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)

You disagree, I take it?

 

[Cathoholic]

OK RedFan.

So do you think “the Keys” represent a “one and done” paradigm?

Or do you think “the keys” are a FULFILLMENT indicating authority in a dynastic context?

Before answering this, consider how the keys for Eliakim, which empowered him to speak on behalf of King Jesus, er I mean King David, allowed him plenipotential powers such that whatever he would open, none would shut, and what ever he shuts none would open in Isaiah 22.

The Stewards over the ages, were given POWER to bind and loose on behalf of the King himself.

Do you think Jesus MIGHT be drawing on some familiar prefigurement Old Testament teaching to the Apostles (and more specifically to St. Peter) at Caesarea Philippi?

Remember this “stewardship” of the David is dynasty was still present hundreds of years AFTER King David’s passing.

Do you think the dynasty that Jesus is handing on to Peter is going to be non-existent after St. Peter?

 

[RedFan]

OK RedFan.

So do you think “the Keys” represent a “one and done” paradigm?

Nope.

Or do you think “the keys” are a FULFILLMENT indicating authority in a dynastic context?

Nope.

Do you think Jesus MIGHT be drawing on some familiar prefigurement Old Testament teaching to the Apostles (and more specifically to St. Peter) at Caesarea Philippi?

That could be true, but it hardly matters; my interpretation of the NT passages in question would be unchanged regardless of OT prefiguring or lack thereof.

Do you think the dynasty that Jesus is handing on to Peter is going to be non-existent after St. Peter?

Nope. I think apostolic succession remains important as the repository of the Church’s authority. Just as all of the apostles were commissioned with the same power to bind and to loose that Matt. 16:19 references as being conferred on Peter, see John 20:22-23, so all of apostles had power to appoint successors and bishops in cities throughout the Mediterranean world, with equal authority.

But this isn’t about my beliefs. It’s about yours. The burden is on you to furnish the evidence that I have been asking for, and that you say exists. We both assume that ecclesiastical authority can be passed from an apostle to a successor, including by Peter. But you say two more things. You say the passage of Peter’s power should be deemed preeminent. And you say that he in fact passed his power off TO LINUS. (This last item has been the subject of our post thus far; I am not sure why you want to expand it, although as you see I am happy to oblige you.)

I am not the first person to treat all apostolic successions as equal, and presume Peter the first among equals. The first would be St. Cyprian. He was a champion of this view of episcopal autonomy: ‘And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. . . And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

 

[Cathoholic]

RedFan.

I asked you

So do you think “the Keys” represent a “one and done” paradigm?

.

You said “nope”.

Well St. Peter was given “the keys”.

If you DENY Apostolic Succession, then you ARE asserting a “one and done” prototype.

Do you see the problem with this answer?

I’ll deal with the other points you bring up too, but I want to know where you stand on these foundational issues (as it will effect everything else).

Would you AFFIRM THIS?

.

IF St. Peter had a UNIQUE aspect of authority, then would you at least agree that then HIS SUCCESSORS would too, enjoy this charism?

.

You are either going to have to say, “no” and deny the obvious. That St. Peter had special authority.

Or you would have to say “yes” to St. Peter, but “no” to his successors” (which is what I think you are attempting to say). In this case you WOULD BE denying the passing on of this gift. You WOULD BE asserting a “one and done” scenario despite your “Nope”.

Or you would have to say yes to St. Peter, AND ”yes” to his successors (in which case you are affirming the Catholic position).

Or I suppose you could just say, you have no predilection here and just “don’t know how you are leaning” (but the tone of your answers does not suggest this to me).

 

[Cathoholic]

I am not the first person to treat all apostolic successions as equal, and presume Peter the first among equals. The first would be St. Cyprian. He was a champion of this view of episcopal autonomy: ‘And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained. . .

This doesn’t say what you think it is saying (the context of this is forgiveness of sins. Not “episcopal autonomy”. If you think it’s “episcopal autonomy”, you go and castigate the Bishops who condemned the NON-autonomous Bishop Nestorius back in the 400’s A. D.).

More on your “episcopal autonomy” ideas later.

(But I wanted your opinion on the “first among equals” issue, NOT because I wanted your opinions on the issue per se, so much as I wanted to see what STANDARD OF EVIDENCE YOU used that you’d hold YOURSELF to. I wanted YOUR standards, so I can take and reapply those same standards to principles of the papacy in general later on in our discussion.)

 

[RedFan]

If you DENY Apostolic Succession, then you ARE asserting a “one and done” prototype.

Are you just reading selectively? I explicitly affirmed apostolic succession:

I think apostolic succession remains important as the repository of the Church’s authority

I am done answering your questions. If you persist in refusing to answer mine, that’s fine too. Our engagement on this post has devolved from a quest for early evidence (or didn’t you read that either? Well, I’ll reproduce it for you)

When it comes to Peter’s passing on the Keys to the Kingdom to his successor in Rome, and that successor to the next, and so on in an unbroken line of Roman bishops – well, where is the evidence?

into an argument over what “Keys” mean or what Cyprian meant, seasoned with a dash of criticism of my “tone.” That is not how I wish to proceed.

So let’s stop. You buy Petrine primacy. I get it. You think it makes sense as the best interpretation of Matthew’s gospel. I get it. And you think Linus acquired Peter’s hegemony, not just over the Roman church but over the worldwide church. I get it. But it’s time for me to continue with my quest for evidence of someone alive in the first two centuries of Christianity who thought so too – and to pursue that quest with someone who actually reads what I write with a modicum of care. Someone who will simply lay out their evidence, without continually trying to set me up with questions on my views of what I would find persuasive after I’ve already disclosed what would fit that bill. You are clearly not that person, Cathoholic.

 

[RedFan]

By the way, Cyprian absolutely thought all bishops were equal. In the middle of the third century, Pope Stephen’s view regarding the efficacy of baptism by heretics was rejected by 87 bishops at a Council of Carthage organized by Cyprian, at which he stated: “For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

If you want to debate me on the writings of Cyprian, I’ll be happy to oblige you.

 

[Cathoholic]

Our engagement on this post has devolved from a quest for early evidence . . .

Calm down RedFan.

I want to have the discussion with you OK?

Not trying to accuse you of denying Apostolic Succession. That’s WHY I prefaced it with the question marks ("?").

So basically you are saying St. Peter had no special charism over the other Apostles right?

 

[Cathoholic]

RedFan:

And you think Linus acquired Peter’s hegemony . . .

(Emphasis mine)

This is an utter mischaracterization of what we claim concerning St. Peter’s office.

 

[Cathoholic]

The St. Cyprian quote is not directed at the papacy but at a bishop (Jubaianus).

And go back and re-read it and you will see bishops correcting bishops in the very document you cited (they would not do this if they were all mere “equals” . . .
. . . . UNLESS. . . .
. . . . unless these brother bishops who are equals with one another had one authoritative source to go beyond mere bickering with one another.

And they DID have that source of unity to help heal divisions among them.

That authority is the successor to St. Peter who is called to “strengthen the brethren”).

I’ll try to get to a computer soon and give more details soon (the detail required of me is not feasible now with my android).

Thanks for your patience with me RedFan.

 

[Cathoholic]

OK. I want to look at a few prerogatives that St. Peter has that seems to be at least somewhat exclusive to him (and of course since you affirm Apostolic Succession, by extension, to St. Peter’s successors too).

In this post I will look at one—St. Peter’s charism to “Strengthen the Brethren” (we’ll come back to the Keys later).

Let’s go to the “Upper Room.”

Satan wants to sift all the Apostles through his evil proverbial hands like wheat and Jesus is warning them of this!

LUKE 22:28-31 28 You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,

The “you” that is emphasized above, in the original Greek language, literally means “you-all.”

So Jesus is telling Simon that Satan wants to sift ALL the Apostles like wheat.

Let’s look at the above set of verses inserting “you-all” when appropriate, so we can get a better picture of the attack that Satan is making on all the Apostles here.

.

LUKE 22:28-31 (With “you-all” inserted for grasp of the Greek meaning)

LUKE 22:28-31 28 You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you-all, that he might sift you-all like wheat,

.

Now how does Jesus counter Satan’s attack? How does Jesus overcome this incredible Satanic attack upon the Apostles?

Fortunately the very next verse tells us how Jesus battles Satan. Let’s take a look.

Let’s see how Jesus counters Satan’s attack on all the apostles.

.

LUKE 22:28-32 28 You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom,
and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you (“you-all”),
that he might sift you (“you-all”) like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you (the “you” is singular here!)
that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again,
strengthen your brethren.

.

Now the “You” that Jesus uses here in verse 32 (emphasis mine again) is in the singular, not the plural!

It literally means “you Simon”!

Notice it is Simon Peter that Jesus uses to “strengthen the brethren.”

Not that Jesus doesn’t pray for all the Apostles. He does.

This is a special protection of God, to the Apostolic College . . . . But exclusively (in this context) through St. Peter.

This is a special UNIQUE CHARISM of St. Peter, that involves all the other Apostles THROUGH St. Peter.

Peter’s protection here is meant to help all the other Apostles here too, or as St. Luke says, . . . . . to “strengthen your brethren” or as other translations have “confirm the brethren.”

 

[Cathoholic]

The Greek so strongly points to Simon and Simon alone, that the Protestant translation, the New International Version (NIV), already inserts this right into the translation to highlight the fact that Jesus is addressing Simon alone here.

.

LUKE 22:32 (NIV) 32 but I have prayed for you Simon that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

 

[Cathoholic]

More on St. Cyprian (of what was quoted) . . . .

St. Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage in north Africa from 248-257 A.D. and
martyred for the faith in 258 A.D.) says this (with parenthetical addition mine) . . .

St. Cyprian . . .The Lord says to Peter: I say to you, He says, that you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you (Peter) I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
And again He says to him (Peter) after His resurrection: feed my sheep.
On him (Peter) he builds the Church, and to him (Peter) He gives the command to
feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles,
yet He founded a single chair, and He established His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed, the others were that also what Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . .

.

(By the way, notice in the above, St. Cyprian asserting there is only ONE CHURCH.)

.

This primacy given to St. Peter is an INTRINSIC REASON for that UNITY.

The CCC says the same thing . . . .

.

CCC 882a The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity BOTH of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 . . . . .

.

The individual Bishops have a share in this unity, but a share that is distinct from that of St. Peter.

.

CCC 886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 . . . .

.

This is also WHY Pope St. Leo the Great can say back in the 400’s A.D. . . . . .

POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT “Whatever Christ has willed to be shared in common by Peter and the other leaders of the Church, it is only through Peter that He (Jesus) has given to others what He has not refused to bestow on them.” . . . . Blessed Peter is therefore told: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven. Whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven. The authority vested in this power passed also to the other apostles, and the institution established by this decree has been continued in all the leaders of the Church. But it is not without good reason that what is bestowed on all is ENTRUSTED to ONE.

.

 

[HeDa]

“The pope is under the councils and the councils are under the Pope” helps me in understanding the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Cathoholic]

RedFan?

RedFan. You said . . . .

By the way, Cyprian absolutely thought all bishops were equal.

It’s not that the successor to St. Peter is “more equal” than other bishops.

It is that he has a special charism (to strengthen the brethren).

A special charism, that comes FROM God, and goes to the other bishops THROUGH the Bishop of Rome, through the successor of St. Peter.

And that’s WHY bishops can challenge other bishops. Because the bishops in UNION with St. Peter (and his successors–recall your explicit affirmation of Apostolic succession) will enjoy a share in that charism as long as they are in UNION with St. Peter (AND his successors - that again, YOU already affirm).

That’s WHY all those “equal” bishops can challenge other bishops in the very same documents YOU were citing.

And that’s WHY the bishops make up the official teaching office (Magisterium) of the ONE Church (also in the documents YOU cited) as long as they are IN UNION with St. Peter.

And that same ONE Catholic Church, still faithfully safeguards and teaches this truth to this very day.

.

CCC 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

.

This safeguards unity. A unity that Anglicanism, no longer enjoys.

.

. . . it is not without good reason that what is BESTOWED on ALL is ENTRUSTED to ONE.

.
And if you knew and affirmed this ancient teaching, you would not appeal to St. Cyprian to rationalize your ecclesial communion’s breaking away from the ONE True Church. Because the very St. Cyprian quotes you gave, affirm this truth.

 

[Cathoholic]

TommyT1:

Throughout Church history it was taught that the Pope had a certain infallibility, but it wasn’t until 1870 that infallibility was finally defined and the conditions for it were made certain. For many non-Catholics, it seems very convenient that the Church took so long to define an essential principle that has been controverted for over a millennia and has caused many schisms.

Go back to Matthew chapters 16 and 18.

.

“WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and WHATEVER you loose on earth, will be loosed in Heaven.”

.

Now admittedly it is not “developed” in Matthew 16 and 18, but it IS stated.

NOBODY even claims to have such power except the Catholic Church (and various Eastern Orthodoxies) and only then, under certain explicit circumstances.

Infallibility in Scripture is on remarkable display here (because God is not going to “ratify sin” in Heaven. But God WILL protect those on earth under certain circumstances).

LUKE 10:16 16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

.

But the Church today is NOT supposed to look like the ancient Church is it?

.

MATTHEW 13:31-32 31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

.

MARK 4:30-34 30 And he said, “With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable shall we use for it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” 33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

.

LUKE 13:18-19 18 He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? 19 It is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his garden; and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.”

.

1/2

 

[Cathoholic]

2/2

TommyT1:

I would propose that because even though the Catholic Church understood that the Pope had infallibility due to Tradition and Scripture, that it was up to Catholic theologians to discover the nature of this principle.
Is this a valid way to explain the Church’s seemingly neglectful timing of defining Papal infallibility? Why did it take so long?

.

I think you are on the right track TommyT1.

.

Although they understood this infallibility from the beginning, the Church is still “discovering the nature” of the extent of boundaries of this infallibility just as you posit. The CCC says the exact same type of thing . . . .

.

Growth in understanding the faith

CCC 94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

.

CCC 2651 The tradition of Christian prayer is one of the ways in which the tradition of faith takes shape and grows, especially through the contemplation and study of believers who treasure in their hearts the events and words of the economy of salvation, and through their profound grasp of the spiritual realities they experience.2

.

CCC 2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

.

And just as po18guy said in post 2, “Human disobedience has always caused trouble” . . .

.

The Church would term that concept as sin “darkens the intellect”.

More sin, the tougher it may be to see things and the longer it takes the Church over time to flush out these meanings and the people to accept it.

Mark Shea terms this type of darkening of the intellect as . . . . “sin makes you stupid”.

.

The Catechism teaches us that by living purely (via grace–“the faithful”), we may understand more deeply what we believe.

.

CCC 2518b . . . . The faithful must believe the articles of the Creed "so that by believing they may obey God, by obeying may live well, by living well may purify their hearts, and with pure hearts may understand what they believe."311