The power to forgive sins and to heal given to the Apostles - Where does it say it was ever meant to be passed on? I am told the laying of hands conveys this.
If a priest today has that ability to forgive sins, would he not have the ability to heal as well?
And if the laying of hands is what allows him to consecrate the Eucharist, why can’t a Deacon who has received the laying of hand do that?
See the Gospel of John, chapter 21.
old.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john21.htm
I won’t quote it all, but paraphrase it.
This is a post-Resurrection event.
Christ asks “Simon, Son of John [bar-Jonah] do you love me?”
Peter responds “yes.”
Christ “Feed my lambs”
This is repeated three times. In other words, it’s very important. Very, very important.
He addresses Peter by his “last name” (the equivalent of the time), son of John (that’s what the bar-Jonah means, that we see in some translations). So, Christ is making Himself clear that He is addressing Peter specifically (not the other disciples–who, in fact, are not even part of the conversation–we know that Christ & Peter are alone by the surrounding verses) and making it clear to the rest of us that he means “this Peter, this son of John” as opposed to just “any” Peter. Think of it this way: we rarely address our own friends by their first-and-last names. The times when we do, we are emphasizing precisely who we’re addressing. Calling him by his full name is a reminder to future generations that He means to speak His words to “this Peter and this Peter alone; this Peter, son of John, not that Peter, son of the potter Adahm”
The event also provides balance between Peter’s previous denials of Christ. On the one hand, Christ is giving Peter the opportunity to right his past wrong, and also (this is important) recognizing that Peter is human–that Christ knows full-well that Peter is not sinless or perfect, but human and has his faults.
Christ (in his Incarnate form) is about to leave this earth, but he does not want to leave his flock without a shepherd, therefore, he appoints Peter to be that Shepherd in Christ’s stead; not just once, but three times.
OK. So far, we “all know this” but what we often miss (and what, I believe goes to the heart of your question) is what comes next. This is what happens immediately after that:
Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
Paraphrase: Christ knows that Peter will die–that Peter will not be on this earth for much longer. Instead, Peter will likewise die on his own cross.
But wait…Christ just appointed Peter to be the Shepherd. Why would He appoint a Shepherd to act in His stead when Christ knows full well that the Shepherd will not be around for much longer? It just doesn’t make any sense. It’s a given that Christ is the Good Shepherd, that He loves His sheep. Why then would the Good Shepherd effectively abandon His sheep by leaving them in the hands of a vice-shepherd who will himself soon be dead? That’s not the act of a “good” shepherd, but a very short-sighted one. Why???
The answer is that because Christ knows and fully intends that Peter will only be the Shepherd for a short time, and then a new Shepherd will take Peter’s place—that’s the next “Peter” (named Linus) all the way down to Francis in the present day.
You asked if this was meant to be passed on? If you read John 21 it becomes clear that Christ had every intention that this should be “passed on”; otherwise, Christ would be abandoning his flock. A Good Shepherd doesn’t do that—He provides for His sheep even after the Ascension, and even after the death of the first Peter on his own cross.
