Questions Regarding Papacy and Other Assumptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter toe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

toe

Guest
EDIT: Sorry, mods, if this isn’t in the right place!

Hi there,

I was raised Catholic, but my family was one of those “Easter/Christmas only” types of church-goers. Recently I’ve wanted to get more serious in my faith. In trying to better understand the Church, though, there are a few problems I’ve been unable to figure out on my own. Some of these questions have sort of been asked in other ways in other threads and on other forums, but I haven’t been able to find exactly what I’m looking for… So, I guess I’ll just list my questions below. If you have anything to contribute, please do!

Does the Church specifically view the naming of a new Pope as a true “passing on” of Peter’s keys? That is, do we believe all Popes since Peter have had the exact same power/authority as Peter? If not, why?

Can anyone point me to evidence of Peter’s desire to continue papal authority through other people after his death? This alleged inclination is extra-Biblical, so there must be some pretty convincing literature on it, right? The Wiki article on papal selection states the following:
Although the election of bishops in other early Christian communities is often described in contemporary sources, the earliest Roman sources date from 400, claiming that Peter himself appointed Linus, Anacletus, and Clement—in that order—as his successors.[2] The early official lists of Bishops of Rome are considered problematic by scholars because of their bias towards enhancing papal authority and anachronistically imposing continuity; for example, the earliest, the Liber Pontificalis, dating probably from 354, is notoriously unreliable for the first two centuries.[2]
Click to expand...
This makes it seem like we don’t have much to go on regarding what Peter did to pass on the responsibilities given to him by Jesus. Why do we trust something that claims he even did such a thing if it wasn’t written until 400 years after the fact? The second part indicates that, in addition to being written so late, these sources might be of suspicious origins because of political matters. Is my skepticism regarding the origins of extra-Biblical literature/claims fair?

On the behavior of current Popes-- Do we have evidence that Peter only sometimes chose to invoke the official decision of the Holy Spirit in his words (speak infallibly)? If not, why are we okay with this system now? I suppose it makes sense to me, but it seems arbitrary, and besides, I don’t count here. Is this how Jesus intended for it to work with Peter?

Lastly, how are we sure that the current activities of the papal conclave (the electing of a new Pope) are how Christ wants His gift to Peter to be passed on? When Popes of past generations made decisions as to how the papal conclave would operate, were they speaking infallibly? If not, why?

Sorry for having so many questions in one place. I realize that many of you probably don’t have the historical sources I’m looking for. Feel free to contribute to the discussion anyway! As you can probably tell, my issues are basically stemming from my problem with a division I see in faith. In my mind, there is Biblical faith, then there is extra-Biblical faith. If you, as a Catholic, don’t have a firm answer on the questions I’m asking, share with me how you overcome/justify your extra-Biblical faith!
 
toe said:
EDIT: Sorry, mods, if this isn’t in the right place!

Hi there,

I was raised Catholic, but my family was one of those “Easter/Christmas only” types of church-goers. Recently I’ve wanted to get more serious in my faith. In trying to better understand the Church, though, there are a few problems I’ve been unable to figure out on my own. Some of these questions have sort of been asked in other ways in other threads and on other forums, but I haven’t been able to find exactly what I’m looking for… So, I guess I’ll just list my questions below. If you have anything to contribute, please do!

Does the Church specifically view the naming of a new Pope as a true “passing on” of Peter’s keys? That is, do we believe all Popes since Peter have had the exact same power/authority as Peter? If not, why?

Can anyone point me to evidence of Peter’s desire to continue papal authority through other people after his death? This alleged inclination is extra-Biblical, so there must be some pretty convincing literature on it, right? The Wiki article on papal selection states the following:

This makes it seem like we don’t have much to go on regarding what Peter did to pass on the responsibilities given to him by Jesus. Why do we trust something that claims he even did such a thing if it wasn’t written until 400 years after the fact? The second part indicates that, in addition to being written so late, these sources might be of suspicious origins because of political matters. Is my skepticism regarding the origins of extra-Biblical literature/claims fair?

On the behavior of current Popes-- Do we have evidence that Peter only sometimes chose to invoke the official decision of the Holy Spirit in his words (speak infallibly)? If not, why are we okay with this system now? I suppose it makes sense to me, but it seems arbitrary, and besides, I don’t count here. Is this how Jesus intended for it to work with Peter?

Lastly, how are we sure that the current activities of the papal conclave (the electing of a new Pope) are how Christ wants His gift to Peter to be passed on? When Popes of past generations made decisions as to how the papal conclave would operate, were they speaking infallibly? If not, why?

Sorry for having so many questions in one place. I realize that many of you probably don’t have the historical sources I’m looking for. Feel free to contribute to the discussion anyway! As you can probably tell, my issues are basically stemming from my problem with a division I see in faith. In my mind, there is Biblical faith, then there is extra-Biblical faith. If you, as a Catholic, don’t have a firm answer on the questions I’m asking, share with me how you overcome/justify your extra-Biblical faith!
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility, I think, only applies to things spoken ex cathedra. I may be wrong about this though.
 
toe said:
EDIT: Sorry, mods, if this isn’t in the right place!

Hi there,

I was raised Catholic, but my family was one of those “Easter/Christmas only” types of church-goers. Recently I’ve wanted to get more serious in my faith. In trying to better understand the Church, though, there are a few problems I’ve been unable to figure out on my own. Some of these questions have sort of been asked in other ways in other threads and on other forums, but I haven’t been able to find exactly what I’m looking for… So, I guess I’ll just list my questions below. If you have anything to contribute, please do!

Does the Church specifically view the naming of a new Pope as a true “passing on” of Peter’s keys? That is, do we believe all Popes since Peter have had the exact same power/authority as Peter? If not, why?

Can anyone point me to evidence of Peter’s desire to continue papal authority through other people after his death? This alleged inclination is extra-Biblical, so there must be some pretty convincing literature on it, right? The Wiki article on papal selection states the following:

This makes it seem like we don’t have much to go on regarding what Peter did to pass on the responsibilities given to him by Jesus. Why do we trust something that claims he even did such a thing if it wasn’t written until 400 years after the fact? The second part indicates that, in addition to being written so late, these sources might be of suspicious origins because of political matters. Is my skepticism regarding the origins of extra-Biblical literature/claims fair?

On the behavior of current Popes-- Do we have evidence that Peter only sometimes chose to invoke the official decision of the Holy Spirit in his words (speak infallibly)? If not, why are we okay with this system now? I suppose it makes sense to me, but it seems arbitrary, and besides, I don’t count here. Is this how Jesus intended for it to work with Peter?

Lastly, how are we sure that the current activities of the papal conclave (the electing of a new Pope) are how Christ wants His gift to Peter to be passed on? When Popes of past generations made decisions as to how the papal conclave would operate, were they speaking infallibly? If not, why?

Sorry for having so many questions in one place. I realize that many of you probably don’t have the historical sources I’m looking for. Feel free to contribute to the discussion anyway! As you can probably tell, my issues are basically stemming from my problem with a division I see in faith. In my mind, there is Biblical faith, then there is extra-Biblical faith. If you, as a Catholic, don’t have a firm answer on the questions I’m asking, share with me how you overcome/justify your extra-Biblical faith!
Click to expand...
Why should our faith be based solely on the Bible? The Bible as we know it did not exist in the first century. During that time, people were taught to be Christian disciples by the Church. This continues today. If it were not for the Church, there would be no Bible.
 
davidv said:
Why should our faith be based solely on the Bible? The Bible as we know it did not exist in the first century. During that time, people were taught to be Christian disciples by the Church. This continues today. If it were not for the Church, there would be no Bible.
Click to expand...
Can you point me to more thorough reading on this subject?
 
A book you may want to get a hold of may be “Called to Communion,” by Benedict XVI. He talks directly about the succesion of Peter.
 
toe said:
Although the election of bishops in other early Christian communities is often described in contemporary sources, the earliest Roman sources date from 400
Click to expand...
I’m not sure from where they are getting this. Clement of Rome, writing in the first century, speaks of successors of bishops. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. (Clement, Letter to Corinthians, #44, ca 70-90 A.D.)St. Dionysius of Corinth later verified continued submission to Rome in his letter to Pope Soter by referencing the letter written by Clement of Rome: *“Today, therefore, we have kept the holy Lord’s day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall always have to read and be admonished, even as the former letter which was written to us by the ministry of Clement.” (Dionysius to Pope Soter, ca 170 AD)There also was a tradition well before 400 speaking of the episcopate passed to Linus and other successors:[T]he very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul… Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2-3, ca 170 A.D.)

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. (Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, 32, ca 190 A.D.)

For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted. (An unnamed writer writing about the heresy of Artemon ca 230 A.D., believed by some to be Caius of Rome, quoted by Eusebius in Church History 5.28.3)

The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4:21 Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. (Eusebius, Church History, 5.6.1-2, ca 320 A.D.)

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus… (Augustine, Letter 53.1.2, ca 390 A.D.)*And so on… Consistently, Peter is named as the origin of the Roman office of bishop. Sometimes Paul is named also, as those two apostles established the Church there at Rome, yet Peter is always listed first, and those who only name one apostle name Peter.
 
In addition to what MarcoPolo said, if you are looking for early sources, you may be interested in The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. It has many sources, some extremely early, some not.

Also, catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession and catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility may be helpful, and have the advantage of being free. In fact, I suggest browsing the catholic.com/tracts/ section in general for most common-ish issues.

I am not sure about the exact differences between the Papacy the Apostleship of Peter. I’m theorizing (read: guessing) here, so take all this with a grain of salt, but I suspect that the differences are along the same lines as the difference between Apostles and bishops in general (which I found a nice detailed account of, I believe on this site, and now cannot locate), with the caveat that some of the characteristics of Apostles are spread over the bishops as a whole, whereas the similar characteristics of the head of the Apostles would not be spread over multiple people because there is only one person holding the office of successor of head of the Apostles. Or somesuch. I say this because I read somewhere a long time ago (that I seem to remember being trustworthy) that each Apostle individually could have infallibly defined doctrine if he wished (under Peter), and that this survives as the ability of an ecumenical council - the bishops as a whole, under the Pope - to infallibly define doctrine, whereas the ability of Peter to himself, by virtue of his position as head of the Apostles, define doctrines would survive in the Papacy (ex Cathedra statements). But again, I cannot find the source, so don’t put too much weight on this.

The passing on of the responsibility of the Papacy is not a sacrament as is ordination, and so the rules governing how this is done are made by and can be modified by the Church (as distinct from, say, Holy Orders, which is a sacrament that the Church has no power to mess with beyond superficial changes to what the ceremony outwardly looks like). So so long as whatever rules the Church has created at the time of the choosing of a new Pope are followed, he is validly Pope whether these rules look like what they did in Peter’s day or not.

I suspect a Pope theoretically could, assuming he was willing to annoy a lot of people and cast aside large swaths of canon law (which I believe he can actually do), simply appoint his successor, though I am not really sure about that.
 
I think all of your questions can be answered very clearly and laid out very plainly in Steve Ray’s Book: Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome.
 
a good place is always in the Early Church Fathers to look at what they though and wrote down

here is a website that has everything organized but if you can I would suggest "The Fathers Know Best " by Jimmy Akin or “why is that in tradition” by Patrick Madrid!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top