Peter's Successor

[richbansha]

I have heard much about the fact that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is Peter’s successor. I have heard all about the fact that Peter, the Church’s first leader, died and was buried in Rome, so Linus acquired his office and all subsiquent Pope’s acquired it too.

So what? Why does all of this make any difference at all? Isn’t the fact that the Pope is selected by the Holy Spirit sufficient to confer the special apostolic powers upon the Pope? If so, then Occam’s razor makes the rest of it irrelevent. Why do we bother to put ourselves through the nonsense of explaining Papal authority in terms of successive Bishops of Rome?

 

[Della]

richbansha:

I have heard much about the fact that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is Peter’s successor. I have heard all about the fact that Peter, the Church’s first leader, died and was buried in Rome, so Linus acquired his office and all subsiquent Pope’s acquired it too.

So what? Why does all of this make any difference at all? Isn’t the fact that the Pope is selected by the Holy Spirit sufficient to confer the special apostolic powers upon the Pope? If so, then Occam’s razor makes the rest of it irrelevent. Why do we bother to put ourselves through the nonsense of explaining Papal authority in terms of successive Bishops of Rome?

The selection of a new pope isn’t an infallible decision of the Holy Spirit’s but is an election by his peers. Therefore, no man elected to the office is “personally” selected by God, but rather takes on the office as a fallible human being just like the rest of us. The office of pope bears with it the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, of course.

The reason we answer questions about succession is two-fold. One, it is because we have had some truly bad popes–popes who led lives of grave sin and can hardly be held up as models of sanctity. So, it is important to cite that even these bad popes never proclaimed any errors ex cathedra, in spite of their lack of personal holiness.

And secondly, there are those who question the validity of the succession of popes in order to try to prove the Church does not have the charism of invincibility that Christ promised his Church (the gates of hell would not prevail against it). If they can prove that, they think, they can prove that the Church went apostate at some point of their choosing and so justify their own denomination’s split with Rome, even though their denomination may have split from itself several times over since then.

 

[richbansha]

The selection of a new pope isn’t an infallible decision of the Holy Spirit’s but is an election by his peers.

As I understand the conclave process, the first thing the cardinals do is invoke the Holy Spirit. Also, if the election is truly an election by his peers, then every baptized man would have a vote because every baptized man is eligible for election and therefore a peer.* I didn’t get a vote but since I would have voted for Benedict anyway, it is beside the point.*

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that the dogma is false. It is not. All I am saying is that it is unnecessary to appeal to it. Even when we try to reclaim the apostates and schismatics, I am of the opinion, that the gospel and catholic theology is enough to persuade anyone who is open to the truth. We have no real need to cloud the message with trivia that they cannot or do not accept to begin with.

 

[Della]

richbansha:

As I understand the conclave process, the first thing the cardinals do is invoke the Holy Spirit. Also, if the election is truly an election by his peers, then every baptized man would have a vote because every baptized man is eligible for election and therefore a peer.* I didn’t get a vote but since I would have voted for Benedict anyway, it is beside the point.*

Invoking the Holy Spirit isn’t quite the same thing as saying he personally selects the next pope, though, is it? And, considering that any baptized man could be elected pope, you’re absolutely right that all baptized persons could have a vote, but I think it best we stick to the system we have for the sake of simplicity. Yes?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that the dogma is false. It is not. All I am saying is that it is unnecessary to appeal to it. Even when we try to reclaim the apostates and schismatics, I am of the opinion, that the gospel and catholic theology is enough to persuade anyone who is open to the truth. We have no real need to cloud the message with trivia that they cannot or do not accept to begin with.

Well, different people get hung up on different things, don’t they? For some people infallibility is everything. C. S. Lewis couldn’t “pope” because he couldn’t bring himself to believe that the succession of popes had never proclaimed any errors and that they couldn’t do so in the future. I guess it all depends on what each person needs to know to be able to see their way clear to “cross the Tiber.”

 

[StubbleSpark]

There is also a danger in watering down messages to make them palatable to newcomers. This is a problem in some, more cultish faiths where they put on a very familiar face to lure you in and then, two or three years after you have converted, BAM! you find out they worship a completely different type of “trinity”.

The other danger would be that people of other denominations who are more schooled in Catholic theology will be on the lookout for any visible sign that we may be “changing” a long-held truth. Some Protestants still say that Catholics no longer believe in Hell simply because it is not taught enough from the pulpit. Others would be quick to insinuate “Hey, they tell potential converts ‘x’ but what they don’t want you to know is juicy secret ‘y’. Aren’t Catholics so sinister and sneaky?”

I will admit that I once overwhelmed a person I was trying to convert with all I could say and teach about the Church but I still feel it is better to err on the side of fullness.