P
PJM
Guest
YOUR VERY WELCOME
I’m a trained [and now retired] Catholic Catechist so I LOVE questions
God Blessyou my friend!
Patrick
- Status
I’m a trained [and now retired] Catholic Catechist so I LOVE questions
God Blessyou my friend!
Patrick
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good evening Patrick - I hope all is well with you today. Firstly, I want to thank you for all of the information you’ve sent. I’m not sure that I have gained a proper understanding of the non-Catholic argument on this matter from any of this. If it’s agreeable with you, maybe we can look at a few points at a time. I was thinking that maybe we could start with the first scriptural reference you sent, which was the passage from Luke 22 quoted above.
I am not a bible scholar, but I readily recall the rest of this passage wherein Jesus foretold of Peter’s denials. Admittedly, I was unfamiliar with the part you posted. But I was most interested in the word “confirm” in the passage “and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." That caught my eye, because the word confirm does indeed imply the power to confer, which has a very strong connotation of a formal structure of some sort. I wondered how this passage could be seen by those outside of the Church as an argument against the authority of the Church. So, I went to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website to see if I could find anything on it, as I reasoned that they might have a keen interest in the passage, and as luck would have it, it was there. However, the wording was somewhat different in some significant ways. What they have posted is from The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, which says “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Rather than to reinforce the idea of a formal structure, the wording here suggests more of a support role in regards to Peter’s brethren. When taken in the larger context it seems to me to say that Jesus is telling Peter that he is going to fall flat on his face as a follower of Christ by denying him three times, but through this failure Peter would find himself in a position to understand the shortcomings of others and thereby strengthen them through his example of having overcome his own failures. In serving as an example that all people can overcome their failings, Peter could thereby give strength and conviction to his brethren in their times of failure or tribulation.
Having given it a good deal of thought, I do not see how this passage could be used by Protestants to challenge Apostolic Succession, however, I don’t see anything in it that a Catholic like myself would use to support it. Is this passage actually used by the Church to support Apostolic Succession, and if so, why are we using wording in The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition that is hard to tie to that line of reasoning?
I apologize for all the questions. Again, I am trying to understand Protestant ideas on this and am finding trouble knowing our own at this point. I’ll probably have some questions on the other points after we work through this one.
Many thanks for your patience,
Gary
E
eddie_too
Guest
if apostolic succession and papal infallibility are errors of the faith, how is a christian to know what Jesus really taught us?
the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers” concept does not seem to have produced or maintained the definitive teachings of Jesus Christ or there would not be over 35,000 different protestant sects proclaiming over 35,000 different interpretations of the bible.
believe the teaching that speaks to you best is a principle that essentially says we do not know the real truth, so just go by how you feel.
by the way, it has been the constant teaching of the Church that priests cannot marry. i do not know of any citations that support the idea that priests can marry.
on the other hand, it is equally clear from history that married men can be ordained. afterall, the apostle peter had a mother-in-law and Jesus ordained him.
finally, the bible post-dates the faith and Church that became public on the first pentecost sunday.
the Church created the bible. the bible did not create the Church.
so it is what the Church possesses that determines truth since the Church had the truth before the bible was written.
the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers” concept does not seem to have produced or maintained the definitive teachings of Jesus Christ or there would not be over 35,000 different protestant sects proclaiming over 35,000 different interpretations of the bible.
believe the teaching that speaks to you best is a principle that essentially says we do not know the real truth, so just go by how you feel.
by the way, it has been the constant teaching of the Church that priests cannot marry. i do not know of any citations that support the idea that priests can marry.
on the other hand, it is equally clear from history that married men can be ordained. afterall, the apostle peter had a mother-in-law and Jesus ordained him.
finally, the bible post-dates the faith and Church that became public on the first pentecost sunday.
the Church created the bible. the bible did not create the Church.
so it is what the Church possesses that determines truth since the Church had the truth before the bible was written.
The model of ecumenical councils, where ALL the bishops were involved, and not just one bishop who happens to be the head of one see.
And every one is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.
Please note that the Great Schism which divided the Church, happened long before the Reformation.
On this we agree.
Before and since the Schism? What about the Eastern Catholics that do allow priests to marry, as I understand it?
An unnecessary dichotomy. First, all of the OT was already in place by Pentecost, so the statement that the Bible post-dates Pentecost isn’t entirely true. Secondly, Christ established the Church, and we know about it because of scripture. From a non-Catholic perspective, it is unhelpful to disregard the necessity of the Church, and its teaching role. From a Catholic perspective, I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the Church serves scripture (I’m sure someone has the quote).
The Church is not more important than scripture, or the other way around. We need both.
Jon
E
eddie_too
Guest
jon,
i believe the orthodox restrict priest from marrying, but they do ordain married men. that means that should the wife of a priest die, the priest is not allowed to re-marry.
in fact, the easter rites of the Roman Catholic Church also ordain married men. they do not however allow ordained men to marry.
this is also what the RCC does when it allows married ministers from other christian sects to serve as catholic priests.
in fact, even permanent deacons in the north american catholic church if they are married when made deacon are not allowed to re-marry if their wife should die.
i am open to correction on these points, but to the best of my knowledge they are correct.
i believe the orthodox restrict priest from marrying, but they do ordain married men. that means that should the wife of a priest die, the priest is not allowed to re-marry.
in fact, the easter rites of the Roman Catholic Church also ordain married men. they do not however allow ordained men to marry.
this is also what the RCC does when it allows married ministers from other christian sects to serve as catholic priests.
in fact, even permanent deacons in the north american catholic church if they are married when made deacon are not allowed to re-marry if their wife should die.
i am open to correction on these points, but to the best of my knowledge they are correct.
E
eddie_too
Guest
jon,
it is true that the over 35,000 protestantchristian sects trace their roots to the RCC. however, none of them profess the Real Presence or the sacramental priesthood.
again, i am working from memory, but historically, i believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence was not disputed until calvin; and, the doctrine of the sacramental priesthood was not disputed until luther.
it is true that the over 35,000 protestantchristian sects trace their roots to the RCC. however, none of them profess the Real Presence or the sacramental priesthood.
again, i am working from memory, but historically, i believe that the doctrine of the Real Presence was not disputed until calvin; and, the doctrine of the sacramental priesthood was not disputed until luther.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We don’t build our understanding around a single verse or passage; rather, ALL of scripture is used to develop the full picture. Watch how Luke and John are tied together:
Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.
In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?
Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.
While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.
Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others. This was powerfully echoed in Jesus’ final time on earth as He walked with Peter along the seashore in John’s Gospel.
P
PJM
Guest
I think two points need to be clarified. 1. Any “catholic bible” is better than any non-catholic bible because the Bible IS a Catholic book. The entire NT being authored by Catholics. That said there are “good-better & best” versions of it. The RSV [IMO] being “better”. The Douay and Vulgate being “best.”
I quoted the Douay. Here’s the Vulgate: V#32: “ego autem rogavi pro te ut non deficiat fides tua et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuos” So What I shared is the Older, fuller and more accurate translation.
Understanding that EVERYTHING [emphasis not shouting when I use caps] in the bible is there in conforming to God’s Will. The “denial” sets up it’s OFFSET to emphasis the FACT that Peter is “the rock” [Jesus the Cornerstone Eph. 2: 20-23]. READ Jn. 21: 13-20
And it is clear that “confirm IS the better translation”
The second point is this. Protestants are between a “rock and NO-PLACE” when it come to the CC, and it’s bull’s-eye target; Peter. Either the Bible is wrong [KJB included] or Jesus lied or Jesus is NOT “perfect”: Mt. 16:18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. I am always amazed of the selective ATTACK from these verses. “PETER CAN”T be ‘the rock” because Christ is” is the arrowhead of the attack. BUT WHAT ABOUT
“I will build MT church” [singular]
“The Gates of hell SHALL NOT [ever] succeed against her”
Cf. “I WILL give to YOU all my key’s to the gate of heaven”
The FACT is that when the ENTIRE bible is used; we Catholics hold very SOLID positions.
Protestants “MUST” absolutely speaking deny; destroy, fabricate, ignore or otherwise alter what the bible; KJ’s included teaches. They MUST do this because there is NOT a single passage or teaching that supports God EVER; NOT one time ever approving of more than:
One true God
Only One true sets of Faith beliefs [OT & NT]
Only One chosen people: OT= the Hebrew nation; the NT, today’s CC [Eph. 4:4-7]
In order to explain and justify their positions they MUST discredit and deny
Catholism’s. it’s the ONLY option available to them in using the bible.
As to the “implied” structure. It’s MORE THAN IMPLIED. It follows OT practice and Tradition of the Highpriest structure which Christ IMPROVED and expanded. God does not reinvent “the structure”; he only further improves, enhances and empowers it.
READ: Mt. 10:1-8 & “Jn. 17: 18 “As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.”; Jn. 20: 21 “ He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” THESE MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY: Christ, our “Perfect God” is giving to the Apostles THROUGH Peter, and then to today’s CC; His Actual Godly Powers and Authority. Mk. 14:15-16; Mt. 28: 16-20
The “difficulty” you SEEM to be having is NOT what the bible say’s; RATHER IMO, what the ENTIRE bible say’s. Culling verses is HOW protestants retain some degree of credibility; NOT found when using the ENTIRE bible correctly.
God Bless and THANKS for asking,
Patrick
Many thanks for your patience,
Gary
P
PJM
Guest
CONTINUED FROM POST #102
PART 2
Post #102 part 2
REPLY: #2
The issue is a bit more convoluted than finding the term “succession” in the bible. Like the terms “bible, protestant, catholic” and so on they are NOT going to be found. Still their reality can’t be denied.
READ Mt. 10: 1-8. Note in verses 5-8 the precise instruction to AVOID the gentiles.
“These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils”
The passage I quoted from Luke 22:32-32 is an indication of Succession when one ties it into what Christ Commanded in Mt. 10:5-7; and then compares it what Christ CHANGES it to in Mt. 28: 1-20 [also in Mk. 16: 14-15]
Mt. 28:16-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”
The New EXPANDED mandate points out the following:
Instead of “only the Jews”; **it is NOW thee ENTIRE WORLD! ** That can ONLY be accomplished by Succession.
Further this follows the Tradition of having a Highpriest from at-least the times of Moses; with Aaron, through the time of the New One Faith in One-Church Founding by Christ. Exodus 28: 1-4. [Actually goes back to Abraham].
God did NOT reinvent a Faith authority structure; Christ Expanded it from OT practice, and empowered it.
So again, it’s the totality of the Teaching, the complete message and the Devine Will that must be used.
Hope this clarifies it for you my friend?
God Bless you Gary,
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
Sorry to differ with such an astute Poster and Friend, BUT
READ word by word:
Mt. 16:15-19
Mk. 16:14-15
Mt. 28:16-20
Who dear friend did Christ put in charge:shrug:
M
MartinJordan
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
M
MartinJordan
Guest
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
Good evening Patrick and Randy: Thank you both for all the time and effort you put into your responses. I thought that the idea put fort by Randy and echoed by Patrick of the collective corpus of the writings in which we as Catholics see indications of an intent for succession is a very sensible idea, rather than resting on any one as the basis for a position on the matter in and of itself. That makes a lot of sense. However, I am not sure that some of the passages we are referring to qualify as points that could sufficiently be included as part of an aggregate truth.
That said, as a Catholic, I am satisfied that because we can name every Bishop of Rome all the way back to St. Peter, we have firmly established the idea of Apostolic succession. I do not see a counter argument to that on any terms. However, I would expect that a committed Protestant would simply reply that the idea is that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus, not through the Bishop of Rome, therefore, my best argument leads us back to where we started, because any scriptural references I might use can be interpreted in a number of ways when we consider that anyone who is not Catholic is free to read into them what they will.
As for the points we have discussed, they are really lost on me, because I have always been a Catholic and always will be. That is my mindset because that is how I was raised. I would be hard to rewire into something else, even if there were no basis in fact for Apostolic Succession. Catholicism resonates in my bones so to speak. I suspect that for the most part, many Protestants are the same way. What I am trying to gain here is an understanding of their argument on the matter, and I think I am a long way from having heard it. This is where I am wondering if you can help me, because I haven’t seen any Protestants posit anything like that here on the thread to any detail. I am not looking to refute anyone’s views or promote my own, although as a Catholic this would be a most favorable environment in which to do that. I am just looking to understand the other point of view better.
Thanks again for your help and I do enjoy exchanging with the two of you. I am very open to more discussion.
Gary
That said, as a Catholic, I am satisfied that because we can name every Bishop of Rome all the way back to St. Peter, we have firmly established the idea of Apostolic succession. I do not see a counter argument to that on any terms. However, I would expect that a committed Protestant would simply reply that the idea is that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus, not through the Bishop of Rome, therefore, my best argument leads us back to where we started, because any scriptural references I might use can be interpreted in a number of ways when we consider that anyone who is not Catholic is free to read into them what they will.
As for the points we have discussed, they are really lost on me, because I have always been a Catholic and always will be. That is my mindset because that is how I was raised. I would be hard to rewire into something else, even if there were no basis in fact for Apostolic Succession. Catholicism resonates in my bones so to speak. I suspect that for the most part, many Protestants are the same way. What I am trying to gain here is an understanding of their argument on the matter, and I think I am a long way from having heard it. This is where I am wondering if you can help me, because I haven’t seen any Protestants posit anything like that here on the thread to any detail. I am not looking to refute anyone’s views or promote my own, although as a Catholic this would be a most favorable environment in which to do that. I am just looking to understand the other point of view better.
Thanks again for your help and I do enjoy exchanging with the two of you. I am very open to more discussion.
Gary
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
I forgot to mention that the two of you are a wealth of information!
P
pocohombre
Guest
Yes and no. A new testament to those he had other testaments with -the Jews.The new is grafted on to the old. We have spiritual roots to David,Moses,Abraham to Eve.
Yes,new dispensation ,the church age the body of Christ.
Yes, but infallibilty is not a biblical word ot an nt. God’s word is God’s word.
Yes
P
pocohombre
Guest
Hi Gary. Just got on. Reading posts "backwards. Liked your post. You seemed honest with your quest. I often say if I were Catholic, I would interpret scripture, early fathers etc., from the Catholic view also. It is to the “bone”. But we know why, or who makes it possible to go thru the eye of the needle. All things are possible… I’ll have to read your posts and see the level of understanding you seek. It is rare to find someone comfortable ans secure enough to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Hopefully you will be able to know, even understand the rebuttals, responses, reasonings of protestants/orthodox, as some of us do yours. Not agree, but simply know and understand.
- Status