The pope does possess all the authority that Peter possessed. That is what Catholics believe. That has nothing to do with whether or not God chooses at various times to reveal something. That takes nothing or adds nothing to the office. The authority resides in Peter’s office, which we call “the chair of Peter.” Though it took time for the church to establish the concrete structure it has today, even the early church understood that Peter’s successor possessed Peter’s authority.
I think you misunderstand the Pope’s authority. Vatican I when defining Papal infallibility specifically said that the Pope cannot reveal new things. There is no indication within the Vatican I documents of your interpretation, (there will not be a need to reveal so God will not reveal). Instead the Pope’s authority is infallibly (via a GC) defined as limited in a way that Peter’s authority was not. Here are two quotes.
First Vatican Council:
For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.
1908 Catholic Encyclopedia “Vatican I”:
Then follows the important tenet that the successors of St. Peter have been promised the Holy Ghost, not for the promulgation of new doctrines, but only for the preservation and interpretation of the Revelation delivered by the Apostles. The Constitution closes with the following words: "Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the Christian Faith,
So, we can see that it is not that the Pope possesses the same ability as Peter and it is latent; rather, the Pope does not possess this ability at all.
Do you now agree?
Also, having read the ECF, it is obvious that Peter’s supposed successors had very little concept of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome that would develop. You do not need to take my word for this, you can read Catholic scholar Robert Eno,
The Rise of the Papacy. In his book he shows numerous instances where the Bishop of Rome does not appear to be prime AND he debunks the favorite of Catholic apologists. I have read
Jesus, Peter, and the Keys (Butler, Dahlgren and Hess), and Eno does a much more thorough job of examining the evidence available to us.
I think the LDS view of this is flawed. First, God revealed things to his prophets at certain
times for
certain reasons, but most of the time revelation was not pouring in, yet there was still a church with authority present. Naturally, everything the bible includes
is by definition revelation, which is why it was recorded in the first place, but most of the time the church went on without recording anything. So to say that a requirement exists for continual revelation is really not an accurate depiction of how things worked in the old or new testaments. He ran (and runs) His Church by first establishing it in a supernatural way and then giving it the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth, as the New Testament says.
Yes, the revelatory ability is latent at times, but the head of God’s church possesses it.
Second, I don’t like the LDS view of the Church as one of many dispensations, as if the previous ones failed or something. That is not accurate. All of God’s dealings with the Old Testament world were a preparation for what would happen at the time of Christ. The Church established at Pentecost was a fulfillment of, not the next version in line of, Israel. First God established a marital covenant with Adam and Eve, then a familial covenant with Noah, then a tribal covenant with Abraham, then a national covenant with Moses, then a national kingdom covenant with David, and finally a worldwide kingdom covenant through Jesus. Salvation history is nothing less than the gradual building up and expanding of God’s family on earth. The worldwide family of God is the Catholic Church, which has the duty of preaching to all nations and adding more “family members.” One out of every six human beings is a baptized Catholic, practicing or not. I don’t see how the Church could get there without the protection of the Holy Spirit. Not bad but still a lot of work to go.
I would never say “God failed.” I think your view above is a good Catholic view which I do not hold.
Christ died, but death did not prevail over Him since He was resurrected.
Christ’s church apostatized, but apostasy did not prevail over her, since she was restored.
That’s a good LDS view IMO.
Charity, TOm
