Papal primacy

[po18guy]

Cherry picking happens all the time… Sometimes people latch onto a specific verse in order to prove their point, or disprove someone else’s. It’s sad when people don’t take the time to “follow the trail” of references, footnotes, etc…; or read the preceding and subsequent verses. That’s how misunderstandings happen…

Just trying to engender the practice, if not the habit, of looking at Church history in combination with the entirety of scripture. The profound fragmentation in protestantism is due in certain part to such isolation of verses. Look at the hundreds of denominations that are based on Romans 3:28 (disregarding that “works” pertains to the law of Moses), but disagree on almost everything else! I have had interaction with some who attempt to explain the Gospel by quoting Paul exclusively - to the exclusion of Christ!

 

[ZackMartin]

Hi dmar198

and ZachMartin, I saw you say earlier, when someone brought up some theologians from the last century, that you questioned the importance of such men’s thoughts, when they aren’t as important as the Church Fathers. I think you misunderstood the reasons they were brought up, which I will also apply to why I’m bringing up St. Francis de Sales: because their arguments are worth examining, and in this case, I think their arguments are successful if examined.

It felt to me like, some respondents were simply quoting certain people’s conclusions, with no indication of why we should care about what conclusion they reached or how they reached it. I think some people are historically significant enough (and I don’t mean to limit this to only Church Fathers), that I am interested to know what they thought simply because of who they are; and then of course, there are many other people, who are not in themselves significant enough for me to care what they say, but if they make a good argument, I am willing to listen to it. I guess it is the difference between saying “I read this book by so and so, and I found their arguments very convincing” vs. providing a list of quotes from sundry people who happen to agree with one’s conclusion, when it is not made clear if the person (re)producing that list of quotes has even read the works cited.

I have not yet read St. Francis de Sales’ arguments, but I plan to do so, and report back once I am done.

As to your other reference, to the article by Fr. Brian Harrison, I have had some time to read that, I have to commend him for making an original argument I had not considered before. I should point out another source for what is larger the same material rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison, but which I think is better in that it also links to his former article which provides important context for the later rtforum.org/lt/lt18.html. I agree with the basic contention of his former article, against sola scriptura - it is a logically untenable position.

Harrison’s basic contention is that “if there is to be any true and definitive revelation from God to humanity, then – given that God has plainly not decided to offer this revelation immediately and directly to each individual – he will need to establish a completely reliable intermediary, perennially accessible here on earth to ordinary people like you and me. In short, an infallible teaching authority”. On what basis does he seek to support that contention - Scripture, Tradition, Reason, or Experience? In the article, the justification he gives is based on Reason, but I’m not sure Reason alone is sufficient to justify that contention.

To begin with, even if Harrison is correct that God must establish “a completely reliable intermediary, perennially accessible here on earth”, that establishment is inevitably spatiotemporally limited. Harrison himself believes that such an institution did not exist prior to the 1st century AD, so for the first however many millennia of human history (however you measure it, the majority), there was no such continuous institution. (OT prophecy as an institution cannot be compared to the papacy.) Furthermore, that intermediary was spatially confined to a certain part of this planet, such that until the development of modern communication and transportation, much (even most) of the world’s population had no way of knowing of that intermediary’s existence, much less communicating with them.

But, if the idea that God must do this in history is compatible with a spatiotemporal limitation which includes us, surely it is also compatible with a spatiotemporal limitation which excludes us - maybe God must establish such an authority, but will not do so until five thousand years into the future; maybe God must establish such an authority, but has established one on a planet somewhere in the galaxy Andromeda. So even if Harrison can muster arguments based on Reason alone to suppose that this principle must be theoretically true, there is no way he can establish based on Reason alone that it is true for us in practice, which is what he needs to sustain his argument. (Now, maybe Harrison can justify this principle in some other way, such as through the use of Scripture or Tradition - but he does not present such a justification in these articles.)

In my next post, I will discuss an Eastern Orthodox response I read to Fr. Harrison’s work, and my own thoughts in response to that.

Regards
Zack

 

[ZackMartin]

Hi dmar198

Now, continuing on from my previous post, I found an Eastern Orthodox response to Harrison’s article which I think raises some good points (orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2). I have made the point about the spatiotemporal limitation of infallibility, Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck adds to that the topical dimension - that even if, in principle, there exists this divinely instituted authority having the charism of infallibility, in practice, if it has not chosen to exercise that charism on particular questions, then we are bereft of its guidance on those questions until such time as it is moved to do so (and I certainly do not have the clout to influence what topics the Pope chooses to infallibly teach on, and I doubt you do either). As an example of this, he cites the fact that the Catholic Biblical Canon was not settled until after Trent - the Council of Trent chose not to definitively exclude such books as 3 Maccabees, even though it could have done so if it had so chosen (in fact, is there any infallible teaching that 3 Maccabees is not canonical?). So even if we have this infallible See of Peter, for over 1500 years of its existence, it chose not to exercise that infallibility with regard to one of the most foundational questions of the Christian religion, of what is and is not Scripture. Even if this is theoretically compatible with the existence of this charism, it is a severe limitation on it in practice.

Cleenewerck raises another good point: one of Fr. Harrison’s arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy is that the Eastern Orthodox criteria for what councils to accept as Ecumenical cannot be operationalized without circularity. But then, as Cleenewerck points out, there is no list of infallible papal statements (only a list of criteria which may apply to an unspecified number of proclamations). So, in a way, we are back to the mountains of erudition which for centuries have filled libraries with religious controversy which Harrison bemoaned, only now it is a mountain of papal pronouncements, only some of which are infallible, and some very abstract criteria for deciding which papal pronouncements are infallible and which are not, and a mountain of erudition over how those criteria are to applied to those pronouncements (the later a mountain to which Harrison himself has contributed). Harrison tried to save himself from his metaphorical mountain, but he has only shifted it elsewhere.

The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility faces various practical historical hurdles: to give just one example, Pope Honorius, condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for his involvement in the heresy of Monothelitism, a condemnation at least partially confirmed by his successor Pope Leo II. Now of course, the advocates of papal infallibility claim all these problems can be solved, through finessing exactly which papal acts are infallible and which are not; but a critic may well reply, that it is such a complex historical and theological problem, that it is of the same order of magnitude as the Protestant’s arguments about who has the correct interpretation of Scripture, or the Eastern Orthodox argument about why to accept some Councils as Ecumenical but not others.

So I have mentioned three ways in which the charism of infallibility that Harrison mentioned is limited: temporally, spatially, and topically. A fourth way then, is that even when the infallible authority is spatially and temporally accessible to you, and communicating on the topic of your concern, you cannot necessarily trust that communication to be infallible, for it is only guaranteed to be infallible if it meets certain criteria, and the correct application of these criteria is a question on which people far more erudite than most of us could ever dream of being have spilled much ink. Since one lacks an infallible means of determining whether the criteria for infallibility have actually been met in many particular cases, theoretical papal infallibility becomes practical fallibility.

And the practical usefulness of infallibility is limited in a fifth way: as well as spatial and temporal barriers to accessing the infallible authority, there are also social and cultural barriers. Harrison’s article shows some familiarity with these, whether it be the challenges of his Protestant formation that identified the Pope with the Antichrist, or his experience of a Greek Orthodox Church in Sydney, Australia in 1971 that was not equipped to cope with non-ethnic Greek inquirers.

So Fr. Harrison is searching for certainty, and having failed to find it in the Scripture of the Protestants or the Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox, he thinks he has found it on the solid rock on Papal Infallibility, but maybe that rock is ultimately as deceptive as the former were? The quest for certainty is a never-ending quest, and to live life, at some point we have to call our journey to an end and take a “leap of faith”; it seems to me that Harrison has simply reached one place and decided to leap from there, while Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have chosen to leap from elsewhere instead.

Regards
Zack

 

[Randy_Carson]

I posted this last month in another thread, but I’m re-posting here because of its relevance to the OP’s most recent post (but not the OP’s OP which was about Apostolic Succession and not Universal Jurisdiction. But whatever.).

In my quest to understand what divides Catholics and Orthodox, I came across an article written by Fr. Brian Harrison entitled “Why I Did Not Convert to Eastern Orthodox” in which Fr. Harrison attempts to define precisely the Orthodox understanding of the infallibility of the Church. That’s a western thing, I guess.

Fr. Harrison writes:

"I shall argue that Eastern Orthodoxy’s account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and so cannot be true.

"…In order to justify their continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status of that council. For over and above the fulfillment of those conditions, it is also necessary (so they have told us in recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West—not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy—to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith.

"…if we remember that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy…we can formulate … the Eastern Orthodox proposition … so as to unpack the word infallible, spelling out its meaning and function:

Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

“The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity—the tautology—that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty, but the proffered solution to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover. We are being told, ‘To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine’”!

See full article here: catholic.com/magazine/art…tern-orthodoxy​

Now, in the interest of being “fair and balanced”, Fr. Harrison’s article received a response from an Orthodox priest who went through Fr. Harrison’s article point by point in significant detail. Concerning the words bolded above, Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck wrote:

May[be] this would be a good time to express the Orthodox proposition in one paragraph. It cannot be so short as to be reduced to a slogan but needs to be workable. True doctrine is revealed in Holy Scripture and this is discerned by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the people of God, which is those who participate in the life of the Church. When a controversy occurs, the truth is discerned by a network or community, the wider and deeper (historically) the better. Once a Council takes place (e.g. Nicea in 325) it may take many years (or centuries) for the common union of Churches to function as a network of sensors that will harmonize and stabilize. [emphasis added] This is why the Orthodox often spoke of the five senses (five patriarchates) of Christendom as reflecting such a mechanism. One may ask then if it was wise for the Latin West to have dogmatic ‘ecumenical Councils’ without the sensus fidelium of the ancient Greek-speaking Churches.

See full article here: orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2

Fr. Cleenewerck acknowledges that it may take centuries for the Orthodox to determine whether they are willing to accept a Council’s teaching.

Does this strike anyone else as being a completely unworkable approach to the guidance of the Church? We’re supposed to wait around for a century or two before we the people have decided whether to accept the teaching of a Church council?

I think Jesus made better provision for us than that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But, I think there are three more key elements to the Catholic view, beyond just Jesus appointing Peter to a special position:

1. 
   *]that this special position was not just one of primacy of honour or primus inter pares, but involved a substantive authority which the other Apostles lacked (without this element, you essentially end up with the Eastern Orthodox position)
   *]that it was the intention of Jesus that this office, rather than being purely personal to Peter, would be passed on by him to his successors
   *]that while Peter as Bishop had concurrent successors (the Bishops of Antioch, the Bishops of Rome, possibly others), only the line of the Bishops of Rome succeeded Peter as Prince of the Apostles
   
   Now, I don’t believe that any of these three elements can be clearly demonstrated by Scripture alone. Do people agree or disagree with that?

1. 
   I disagree. Since you asked.
   

   So if one cannot demonstrate them with Scripture, can one demonstrate them by Tradition? Can someone sketch how such a demonstration would proceed? I assume it would be based on a study of the Church Fathers, especially the Apostolic Fathers.

   Early Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession
   
   The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
   
   Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).
   
   The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
   
   The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
   
   Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,
   
   “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
   
   [For the early Fathers,] “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).
   
   [Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be] “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does Christ’s Church Have Apostolic Succession?
By Kenneth J. Howell
sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=36&topic_id=32042&viewmode=thread&order=0

OBJECTOR: Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe in the idea of apostolic succession? I find no evidence in the Bible for such an idea.

CATHOLIC: Yes, the Catholic Church does believe that the New Testament teaches the concept of apostolic succession, and it is not the only church today that espouses such a doctrine. For example, the Orthodox churches believe in apostolic succession, as do some forms of Episcopalianism and Lutheranism. But tell me first what you understand by this term.

OBJECTOR: Apostolic succession, as I understand it, is the idea that bishops today are successors or descendants of the apostles whom Jesus appointed to go into all the world and preach the gospel. It supposes that the original apostles ordained men as bishops, who in turn ordained others, and that this process continues today.

CATHOLIC: You have the basic idea down correctly, although I would refrain from using the word descendants, because the bishops, who are successors of the apostles, are not physical descendants of the apostles. They are and were men chosen from among the members of the Church to lead the flock as shepherds. These bishops are the primary pastors of the Church.

Priests (presbyters), who are ordained by the bishops, are their assistants in ministry. They have valid orders because they are connected to the original apostles through their bishops’ succession. In a secondary sense, they too have apostolic succession. This implies that the local Church is not the individual parish but the diocese of which the bishop is pastor.

Why is this idea objectionable?

OBJECTOR: The hierarchical structure that you outline is not in the Bible. Jesus gave us his teachings through the apostles. They handed on that teaching to the next generation, but they themselves died off toward the end of the first century. The only “apostolic succession” in the Bible is a handing on of the truth that Jesus taught. For example, Paul says, “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Cor. 11:23). And Jude speaks about “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” in Jude 3. These are the truths contained in the New Testament.

CATHOLIC: We agree that the apostolic ministry handed on the teachings of Christ. Paul as a faithful servant taught the truth of Jesus Christ, but we Catholics contend that what was passed on was not teaching only. He and the other apostles passed on the office of shepherd for the Church. The function of a bishop is to teach Christ’s gospel and shepherd the Church of a local diocese. This was intended by Christ and faithfully transmitted by the original apostles.

OBJECTOR: Unwarranted additions like this crop up from time to time in the Catholic Church, but they are not in Scripture.

CATHOLIC: Let me see if I understand you. You believe that Jesus passed on his teachings to the apostles and then they passed them on to successive generations of Christians? If so, why couldn’t Jesus also have passed on duties or office to the apostles?

OBJECTOR: He appointed the apostles as the foundation of the Church, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:20, but he did not mean for the office of apostle to continue after their deaths. There is simply no evidence in the New Testament to suggest that the office of the apostle was meant to be continued.

CATHOLIC: Apostolic succession means that the authority of the apostles was passed on to the early bishops of the Church. You say this is not biblical? I presume that you mean that the early Church had no bishops that were considered successors of the apostles.

OBJECTOR: That would be one consequence my position. There were pastors in the early Church, of course, but they were not bishops and definitely were not considered as authoritative as the apostles.

CATHOLIC: I have evidence that that isn’t true. One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known some of the apostles themselves, as Antioch was a center of missionary activity frequented by Paul in Acts 11:26–30 and 13:1–3. Ignatius says, “It is fitting in every way . . . that you be knit together in a unified submission, subject to the bishop and presbytery that you may be completely sanctified” (Letter to Ephesians 2:2). Again he says of the Church, “Jesus Christ . . . is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who are appointed in every land, are the will of Jesus Christ. So it is proper for you to be in harmony with the will of the bishop” (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, “It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself” (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the “will of God” (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

OBJECTOR: But Ignatius may be expressing only his own view, not one widely shared among the early leaders of the Church. And further, Ignatius is not Scripture.

CATHOLIC: The idea that Ignatius expressed only his own views is common among modern readers. Today, people tend to read these ancient views atomistically and individualistically. But that is not how ancient Church leaders functioned. They almost always sought to express the faith held in common rather than their own views. You see the importance of this continuity in St. Irenaeus of Lyons (second century): “We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time” (Against Heresies 3.1). And in the next section, Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: “But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us” (ibid., 3.2).

OBJECTOR: These early leaders, while venerable, are not the same as Scripture.

CATHOLIC: But they are expressing a tradition that we see in Scripture. In Paul’s teaching, we hear him saying, “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul envisions four generations of succession here: (1) Paul, (2) Timothy, (3) others taught by Timothy, and (4) others taught by Timothy’s hearers.

OBJECTOR: But that verse just confirms my point. Paul is telling Timothy to teach what he heard, not to ordain others.

CATHOLIC: You’re placing an either/or where there should be a both/and. Yes, Paul is telling Timothy to transmit the teaching he has given to him, but he also is saying that this teaching should be committed to faithful men. Both the teaching and the men are important. And it is clear from Titus 1:5 that Paul wanted Timothy and Titus to ordain other men as presbyters (priests) and bishops.

OBJECTOR: But this does not mean that these men were going to have the same authority as Paul the apostle.

CATHOLIC: In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul teaches that there is continuity between himself and successive generations. This was envisioned by Jesus himself when he told his original apostles, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). That same authority is expressed in Matthew 10:1: “He called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity.” These texts suggest that Jesus gave his authority to the apostles—the same authority that he had from the Father. What good would that authority be for the successive generations of the Church if it was not passed on, as 2 Timothy 2:2 seems to suggest?

OBJECTOR: We agree that Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, but we disagree that it was passed on to others. Or, maybe I should say that the authority lies in the teaching, not in the office.

CATHOLIC: I find that contradicts Acts 1:15–26. There we read about the election of Matthias as Judas’s successor. If you read this passage carefully, you will see that it shows that there was an apostolic college that had to be passed on through ordination. The whole point of the election is that there was a position (or office) vacated by Judas. In verse 16, Peter considers Judas’s betrayal as a fulfillment of Old Testament prediction. And he also quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 109:8 (Psalm 108:8 in the Septuagint numbering) to show that filling the office was foreseen in Scripture. Verse 20 reads, “His office let another take.” The word translated “office” is episkope, which in New Testament language means “episcopal office” (see 1 Tim. 3:1).

OBJECTOR: This is all very interesting, but all it shows is that Judas’s office had to be filled, not that the apostolic office was passed on after the original apostles died. If you look at Acts 1:21–22, you will see that the man to be chosen had to be an eyewitness to Jesus’ Resurrection. That can’t be said of “the successors of apostles.”

CATHOLIC: Obviously! That requirement could not last forever, but the passage shows that the office of overseer had to be filled. If we didn’t have other indicators in the New Testament about the office of bishop, your point would be valid. But when we put Acts 1:15–26 in conjunction with the instructions in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus about ordaining men to the office of bishop (i.e., episkope), we must conclude that the office of bishop was intended to continue after the apostles’ deaths.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apostolic Succession Through the Laying on of Hands Proved from Scripture

How was Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Notice that multiple Bishops were present at the ordination of Timothy and that Paul was apparently among them. This practice of having multiple Bishops involved in the ordination of a new Bishop continues in the Catholic Church today to ensure the validity of the Apostolic Succession.

Later, Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

Titus 1:5-7
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless.

Paul also cautions Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Randy,

Thanks…after your great posts, there really isn’t anything else that needs to be said on this one. Great job.

God bless

 

[StraitGateSheep]

Hello,

Respects to all.

We must be alert to Jesus directing,
whether it is Peter, Paul or any other Servant of Christ.

Jesus is the HEAD means something.

False Teachers were supposed to arrive after Paul.

The LORD was supposed to be denied.

The Doctrine was only given to men who are faithful to it.

The Doctrine remains unchanged until Christ, who gave the Doctrine, returns.

The best to all.

 

[ZackMartin]

I’d like to point you to St. Francis’ work, The Catholic Controversy, Part II, Article 6, Chapter 9, which is available here: archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain#page/276/mode/1up

Now of course some of his arguments you may have already considered. I hope you will read and consider the rest. For example, he begins by arguing that the Church had a leadership role in the beginning, and concludes that this must continue; when another person brought that up, you said the argument was insufficiently proved. I hope you will see if he does not provide more sufficient evidence to prove that argument, along with several others that I don’t think you have considered yet.

Allow me to restate his argument from the start of that chapter as follows:

1. 
   *] If God has appointed a particular structure for the governance of the Church militant, he must have done so knowing in his providential wisdom it was better for the Church militant than the alternatives
   *] If some structure was best suited for the Church militant in the Apostolic period, it will be no less suited in later periods
   *] Therefore, God must intend the same plan of governance which applied in the earliest Church to apply in its later periods also
   *] Jesus appointed for the church in the time of the Apostles the particular governmental structure in which Peter was monarchical ruler of the Church militant
   *] Therefore, God must intend the Church militant to have a monarchical ruling structure, as it had during the life of Peter, with the monarch as whosoever succeeds to Peter’s monarchical office
   
   Having considered this argument, I think it is valid, but is it sound? I cannot think of any possible objection to the premise (1), so I will grant that as true. Premise (2) does not seem as certain, but given that I cannot think of any good reason to suppose it false, I will admit it is probably true (my doubt is that my inability to think of a good reason does not exclude the possibility of a good reason nonetheless existing). But when it comes to premise (3), I remain unconvinced that this premise is true - suppose that Jesus appointed Peter to a primacy of honour only, to be primus inter pares of the Apostles; then his special position then would not be constitutional in character, and then we need not expect it be replicated into the future.
   
   At the start of chapter 1 of that article (p. 237), de Sales draws parallels between Peter and Abraham. He argues that “When Our Lord imposes a name upon men he always bestows some particular grace according to the name which he gives them”, citing the examples of Abraham, Sarah and Israel. He furthers the comparison by juxtaposing Matthew 16:18 with Isaiah 51:1-2. But I question whether this comparison really supports his contentions, given that Abraham was not the first incumbent of some office that God founded, an office which had successors; his significance was his natural progeny. By the same token, this gives us no reason to believe that Jesus appointed Peter to some office, as opposed to an esteemed yet inherently personal position. Insofar as there were many generations of believers produced through the personal ministry of Peter, he could be said to have a spiritual progeny comparable to the natural progeny of Abraham.
   
   de Sales argues (p. 238) that by Isaiah 51:1-2 , “this name of rock very properly refers to paternal authority”. That is a questionable claim. The prophecy is addressed to those who lived long after Abraham’s time, but who acknowledged Abraham as their ancestor. As such, Abraham personally could not have any paternal authority over them; but he was a lasting influence upon them, since biologically they owed their existence to them, and his memory was an inspiration to them. As such, I think “rock” here refers more to “lasting influence” than “parental authority”, and therefore, if as de Sales contends, we should use Isaiah 51:1-2 in reading Matthew 16:18, this suggests that Peter is the rock because of the lasting influence he would have on the faith, rather than as possessing any special authority not common to the other apostles.
   
   Regards
   Zack

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

Thanks…after your great posts, there really isn’t anything else that needs to be said on this one. Great job.

God bless

:tiphat:

 

[Novocastrian]

Andronicus & Junius are Apostles according to the Apostle Paul – and possibly were Apostles before him.

I’m sure you’re aware of the problem in the MSS here, right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sure you’re aware of the problem in the MSS here, right?

Please explain for those listening at home.

 

[pocohombre]

Tertullian (On Modesty ch21) “If because the Lord has said to Peter, upon this rock will I build my church, to thee I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom,or whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord…I will give thee the keys, not to the church” Though he became or was a Montanist during this writing, it does show the controversy of papal succession was there during his time, and I would say down thru the ages, to today and this thread.

 

[pocohombre]

Apostolic Succession Through the Laying on of Hands Proved from Scripture

How was Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Notice that multiple Bishops were present at the ordination of Timothy and that Paul was apparently among them. This practice of having multiple Bishops involved in the ordination of a new Bishop continues in the Catholic Church today to ensure the validity of the Apostolic Succession.

Later, Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

Titus 1:5-7
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless.

Paul also cautions Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

Agreed but with distinctions between the symbolic meaning and the effectual meaning of laying on of hands, and has anyone discussed how St. Paul seems to use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Agreed but with distinctions between the symbolic meaning and the effectual meaning of laying on of hands, and has anyone discussed how St. Paul seems to use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably ?

Funny you should ask!

Bishop, Priest and Deacon
catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[cguerber]

A classic case of cherry picking’ the scriptures. What Paul was saying is better understood if taken in context [as usual]. Here is 2 Gal 1-10. Please note the emboldened part:

"**1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. **3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage –
5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;
7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do

Peter, James and John, after hearing Paul’s presentation of what he was preaching added nothing to it. As verse 7 states, **"7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), ** because they realized Paul’s preaching was inspired by “(… he who worked through Peter…)” an obvious reference to the Holy Spirit. Paul is again asserting his Apostleship to the original eleven and they are acknowledging it.

It’s really amazing to me that people would say that I am ‘cherry picking’ verses! The verse, when read in context from the beginning of the chapter 2 through verse 10, leaves nothing to the imagination. It says what it says.

Then to think that an entire religious system is built around one verse Matt 16:18. But I’m cherry picking? My prayers go out to the lost.

God Bless,
CG

 

[rfournier103]

It’s really amazing to me that people would say that I am ‘cherry picking’ verses! The verse, when read in context from the beginning of the chapter 2 through verse 10, leaves nothing to the imagination. It says what it says.

Then to think that an entire religious system is built around one verse Matt 16:18. But I’m cherry picking? My prayers go out to the lost.

God Bless,
CG

Lost? I don’t think so… I compiled a pretty nice post for you (#39) and apparently you must have missed it. To say that Jesus’s Universal Church is built on one verse it completely ridiculous. You should also check out post # 33, as well. I cited nothing but Biblical evidence, and you have nothing to say?

 

[ezeekl]

Tertullian (On Modesty ch21) “If because the Lord has said to Peter, upon this rock will I build my church, to thee I have given the keys of the heavenly kingdom,or whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord…I will give thee the keys, not to the church” Though he became or was a Montanist during this writing, it does show the controversy of papal succession was there during his time, and I would say down thru the ages, to today and this thread.

Both Tertullian and Hyppolytus were antagonists of Pope Callistus. Both of them had already slipped into schism (Hippolytus) and heresy (Tertullian) when Callistus became Pope (218-223AD). Oddly enough Hippolytus and Tertullian were poles apart in their accusations against Pope Callistus. Tertullian’s ideas in “On Modesty” were based upon his Montanist views. Basically Pope Callistus had issued a decree stating that those who sinned by adultery or fornication could be granted Communion after confessing their sins and due penance. Tertullian argued that there were certain sins that were unpardonable by the church and these included idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, fraud and false witness, which he equated with apostasy. The Montanists closed the door of the Church to almost every sin. They said that God, not being able to save the world by Moses and the Prophets, took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and in Christ, His Son, preached and died for us. And because He could not accomplish the salvation of the world by this second method, the Holy Spirit descended upon Montanus, and his prophetesses, Prisca, and Maximilla, giving them the plenitude which St. Paul did not possess. The Montanists also believed in baptizing the dead. Nice people those Montanists, huh?

The best that could be said for Tertullian is that he lived for about 68-73 years. For the first 40 he was a pagan and the last 21 he was a Montanist. That leaves only 7-12 years in the middle that he was a christian. I don’t know any protestant who would embrace his Montanist theology that he espoused when he wrote, On Modesty. Protestant bible scholars have totally rejected the legitimacy of his accusations against Pope Callistus. Why then, you would even want to side with someone with the Montanist theology of Tertullian is a good question.