Apostolic Succession and the Papacy

[12th Doctor]

Another obvious bone of contention between many Christians.  I'm kinda running out of steam for tonight, so I am just throwing this one out there for others to comment on for now.

[J. J.]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

[MSUfan]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

[12th Doctor]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

To expand and create some argument, what would you say about the notion of Peter's Primacy, and how that translates down through time?

[bullmoose88]

Doing the Sola Scriptura thing (and I admit I'm probably not the best person to do this)...where in the bible does it say that Peter is to reign supreme over the church...I interpret the rock part as mainly, Peter as payback for denying me you get the work of building the church and while people will take orders from you to help establish the church you are not necessarily the head honcho...

More importantly, I don't see the bible as giving authority, even if one conceeds that Peter was given supreme authority, to any successor to peter...in other words...the grant of authority was a one time only thing.

[J. J.]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

To expand and create some argument, what would you say about the notion of Peter's Primacy, and how that translates down through time?

I will disagree that just being the Rock on which the Church is built upon grants a greater spiritual gift to Peter's titular successors than to the titular successors of the other Apostles.

[12th Doctor]

I interpret the rock part as mainly, Peter as payback for denying me you get the work of building the church and while people will take orders from you to help establish the church you are not necessarily the head honcho...

I am honestly not quite sure I get your meaning here.

[12th Doctor]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

To expand and create some argument, what would you say about the notion of Peter's Primacy, and how that translates down through time?

I will disagree that just being the Rock on which the Church is built upon grants a greater spiritual gift to Peter's titular successors than to the titular successors of the other Apostles.

I'm sure you are well aware of many of the lesser arguments that are typically made, such as That Peter's name is mentioned more than all the other apostles combined and that his name heads every list of apostles in the Bible, and that the Apostles are twice refered to as "Peter and his companions" and he is portrayed in Acts as being the first of the Twelve to do many things, so I will just gloss over those.

Do you feel that when Jesus and the authors of scripture say something, that it tends to mean something more than what is just being said, in other words, it has real connection to something else found in scripture?

[12th Doctor]

In otherwords, what is your feeling on the context of what is said?

[J. J.]

I feel that today, the bishops have received a spiritual give, that has been given by Christ to the Apostles.

I will note that Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

To expand and create some argument, what would you say about the notion of Peter's Primacy, and how that translates down through time?

I will disagree that just being the Rock on which the Church is built upon grants a greater spiritual gift to Peter's titular successors than to the titular successors of the other Apostles.

I'm sure you are well aware of many of the lesser arguments that are typically made, such as That Peter's name is mentioned more than all the other apostles combined and that his name heads every list of apostles in the Bible, and that the Apostles are twice refered to as "Peter and his companions" and he is portrayed in Acts as being the first of the Twelve to do many things, so I will just gloss over those.

I'm pretty sure Peter did not chose the successor to the vacancy created by Judas.    I also did not see him truly claiming any Primacy over the other 11.

Do you feel that when Jesus and the authors of scripture say something, that it tends to mean something more than what is just being said, in other words, it has real connection to something else found in scripture?

I tend to feel that Paul's words had a Paul's thoughts in them, though they might have been divinely inspired.  I give Jesus's words primacy.

[12th Doctor]

I'm pretty sure Peter did not chose the successor to the vacancy created by Judas.    I also did not see him truly claiming any Primacy over the other 11.

No, he did not single-handedly pick Judas' replacement, you are correct about that, but in Acts 1 he clearly is the leader of meeting which did elect Matthias.

I tend to feel that Paul's words had a Paul's thoughts in them, though they might have been divinely inspired.  I give Jesus's words primacy.

Okay, well then lets look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 16

17
    Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
    And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
    I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now, had Jesus intended this to be a real pronouncement of power to be held by one man?

Well, these are not the first time these words occur is scripture.  The word "key" only appears twice in the OT.  The first time has no theological significance, it is referring merely to the object, but as for the second...

There was once a figure in OT Israel who was the Chief Steward of the House of David.  This man had enormous power in the Kingdom and acted basically as the person who attended to all the minor affairs of the Kingdom, but also acted as the ruler while the King was away. These men wore keys on their vestments as a symbol of their authority. There was once a man who held this position named Shebna.  Shebna had proven himself to be utterly unworthy of holding the post and God commanded that he be replaced by one named Eliakim.

We are told (Isiah 22:20-24)

20
    On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
    I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
    I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
23
    I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
24
    On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
    On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The language is so similar as to be unmistakable.  Jesus, as the new David, wanted Peter to be his Chief Steward, to look after the Kingdom and exercise authority while he was gone.  But Jesus was gonna be gone a while, and this position of Steward was one that was passed on, just as the Papacy is passed on.

[J. J.]

I'm pretty sure Peter did not chose the successor to the vacancy created by Judas.    I also did not see him truly claiming any Primacy over the other 11.

No, he did not single-handedly pick Judas' replacement, you are correct about that, but in Acts 1 he clearly is the leader of meeting which did elect Matthias.

Peter spoke.  They[/] prayed  They cast lots.

I tend to feel that Paul's words had a Paul's thoughts in them, though they might have been divinely inspired.  I give Jesus's words primacy.

Okay, well then lets look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 16

17
    Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
    And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
    I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

But yet, as just shown, Peter did not make these choices.

Well, these are not the first time these words occur is scripture.  The word "key" only appears twice in the OT.  The first time has no theological significance, it is referring merely to the object, but as for the second...

There was once a figure in OT Israel who was the Chief Steward of the House of David.  This man had enormous power in the Kingdom and acted basically as the person who attended to all the minor affairs of the Kingdom, but also acted as the ruler while the King was away. These men wore keys on their vestments as a symbol of their authority. There was once a man who held this position named Shebna.  Shebna had proven himself to be utterly unworthy of holding the post and God commanded that he be replaced by one named Eliakim.

We are told (Isiah 22:20-24)
24
    On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
    On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are using this analogy, it certainly sounds hereditary.  I think that will create a bit of a problem with the current Papal practices.

[12th Doctor]

But yet, as just shown, Peter did not make these choices.

Peter made other choices, through the influence of the Spirit (which is the point), granted, he didn't make this choice in particular, but actually, if you think about it, lack of decisive action is still a choice, just as Popes in the future would often choose not to act on certain issues.  We know that Peter led the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost, he received the first converts, he he performed the first miracle after Pentecost, he inflicted the first punishment, he excommunicated Simon Magnus; the first heretic, he received the revelation to admit the gentiles, he led the first council of Jerusalem (much as many Popes in the future would choose to led, but not dominate councils), he pronounced the first dogmatic decisions, he is the one who Paul wanted to see as the leader of the Twelve when after his conversion.

Well, these are not the first time these words occur is scripture.  The word "key" only appears twice in the OT.  The first time has no theological significance, it is referring merely to the object, but as for the second...

There was once a figure in OT Israel who was the Chief Steward of the House of David.  This man had enormous power in the Kingdom and acted basically as the person who attended to all the minor affairs of the Kingdom, but also acted as the ruler while the King was away. These men wore keys on their vestments as a symbol of their authority. There was once a man who held this position named Shebna.  Shebna had proven himself to be utterly unworthy of holding the post and God commanded that he be replaced by one named Eliakim.

We are told (Isiah 22:20-24)
24
    On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
    On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a sure spot shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are using this analogy, it certainly sounds hereditary.  I think that will create a bit of a problem with the current Papal practices.


[/quote]

Obviously, it not exactly the same thing, because, unlike the Chief Steward, Peter is also a priest, but the connection is clear.

Indeed, Peter performs all the functions of a "High Priest" as I just mentioned.

[12th Doctor]

And I think it is also clear, when looking at the broader context that I provided, that Jesus is acknowledging that "Peter's Confession" is a very special revelation, that was given to Peter for a very special purpose.

[J. J.]

But yet, as just shown, Peter did not make these choices.

Peter made other choices, through the influence of the Spirit (which is the point), granted, he didn't make this choice in particular, but actually, if you think about it, lack of decisive action is still a choice, just as Popes in the future would often choose not to act on certain issues.  We know that Peter led the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost, he received the first converts, he he performed the first miracle after Pentecost, he inflicted the first punishment, he excommunicated Simon Magnus; the first heretic, he received the revelation to admit the gentiles, he led the first council of Jerusalem (much as many Popes in the future would choose to led, but not dominate councils), he pronounced the first dogmatic decisions, he is the one who Paul wanted to see as the leader of the Twelve when after his conversion.

None of those things imply leadership.

Obviously, it not exactly the same thing, because, unlike the Chief Steward, Peter is also a priest, but the connection is clear.

Indeed, Peter performs all the functions of a "High Priest" as I just mentioned.

I believe it is a quite inappropriate analogy, though one that members of Jesus's family tried to make.

[12th Doctor]

I hate to say this, because you know I respect you, but to me this sounds like you are in denial.  The facts would seem to strongly suggest a very special role for Peter.  At the very least, the other Twelve deferred to him, which is a sign in and of itself.

As for your second point, again, the connection seems to smack one in the face, the wording is quite obvious.  Is it more realistic to think that Jesus simply worded it the way he did just because, or that he had an idea in mind?

[J. J.]

I hate to say this, because you know I respect you, but to me this sounds like you are in denial.  The facts would seem to strongly suggest a very special role for Peter.  At the very least, the other Twelve deferred to him, which is a sign in and of itself.

I don't disagree that there is deference; I do disagree that the is leadership.  Notice how I referred to Apostolic Succession, a spiritual gift.

As for your second point, again, the connection seems to smack one in the face, the wording is quite obvious.  Is it more realistic to think that Jesus simply worded it the way he did just because, or that he had an idea in mind?

Note what Jesus said in Acts 1:8:  "But you will receive power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you... ."  Now, skipping forward to Acts 2: 3-4:  Divided tongues, as of fire appeared and a tongue rested on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them that ability."

Praise Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

[J. J.]

Super, perhaps I should ask this question:  What guides the conclave when a new Pope is elected?  Not rhetorical.

[12th Doctor]

Super, perhaps I should ask this question:  What guides the conclave when a new Pope is elected?  Not rhetorical.

The Holy Spirit

[12th Doctor]

I hate to say this, because you know I respect you, but to me this sounds like you are in denial.  The facts would seem to strongly suggest a very special role for Peter.  At the very least, the other Twelve deferred to him, which is a sign in and of itself.

I don't disagree that there is deference; I do disagree that the is leadership.  Notice how I referred to Apostolic Succession, a spiritual gift.

As for your second point, again, the connection seems to smack one in the face, the wording is quite obvious.  Is it more realistic to think that Jesus simply worded it the way he did just because, or that he had an idea in mind?

Note what Jesus said in Acts 1:8:  "But you will receive power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you... ."  Now, skipping forward to Acts 2: 3-4:  Divided tongues, as of fire appeared and a tongue rested on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them that ability."

Praise Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

But stating that they all have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a gift of revelation, which I certainly believe, is not to state that there is not one man who is more gifted than the other, a leader by design.

I certainly agree with your points about the Spirit.  And I believe that that deference does make the difference, because, all having been given the gifts of the spirit, they all could have gone their own way, but they choose to stay with Peter and to defer to Peter.  To me, that makes this statement all the more powerful.  They recognized that Peter had something special, and in a group of men who are all special, that is saying something.

[12th Doctor]

As for your point about the hereditary nature of the office of Chief Steward, and that somehow making this idea murky, would you agree that there is a connection between the priesthood of the OT and the NT?  Of course there is.  Its analogous.  But the priests of the OT were Levities only, and it was also totally hereditary, so are you going to say that we can't compare these two things, because of that?  Can we not have priests, because priesthood is not hereditary?

[J. J.]

I hate to say this, because you know I respect you, but to me this sounds like you are in denial.  The facts would seem to strongly suggest a very special role for Peter.  At the very least, the other Twelve deferred to him, which is a sign in and of itself.

I don't disagree that there is deference; I do disagree that the is leadership.  Notice how I referred to Apostolic Succession, a spiritual gift.

As for your second point, again, the connection seems to smack one in the face, the wording is quite obvious.  Is it more realistic to think that Jesus simply worded it the way he did just because, or that he had an idea in mind?

Note what Jesus said in Acts 1:8:  "But you will receive power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you... ."  Now, skipping forward to Acts 2: 3-4:  Divided tongues, as of fire appeared and a tongue rested on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them that ability."

Praise Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

But stating that they all have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a gift of revelation, which I certainly believe, is not to state that there is not one man who is more gifted than the other, a leader by design.

I certainly agree with your points about the Spirit.  And I believe that that deference does make the difference, because, all having been given the gifts of the spirit, they all could have gone their own way, but they choose to stay with Peter and to defer to Peter.  To me, that makes this statement all the more powerful.  They recognized that Peter had something special, and in a group of men who are all special, that is saying something.

It doesn't say "leadership."  I look to example of Pentecost and see that Peter was granted a gift, but Peter alone was not granted that gift.  I will also point out that Peter didn't stay with them.

I asked you the question about the guiding of the conclave for that purpose.  I believe that gift is still giving and it gives in those occasions.  The Church continues to be a vessel for this gift for future generations.

Even if the Pope isn't the "Jesus established leader," he still bears this tremendous gift.

In terms of "leadership," and ancient institutions, consider this.  The Queen of England holds a "leadership" position in an ancient (though about 1050 years newer) institution.  Why does she hold that position?  Because an ancestor won the Battle of Hastings.  Why does the Pope hold his position?  Because this gift has been granted to him.  I see any claim of leadership as being secondary to that.

[12th Doctor]

I hate to say this, because you know I respect you, but to me this sounds like you are in denial.  The facts would seem to strongly suggest a very special role for Peter.  At the very least, the other Twelve deferred to him, which is a sign in and of itself.

I don't disagree that there is deference; I do disagree that the is leadership.  Notice how I referred to Apostolic Succession, a spiritual gift.

As for your second point, again, the connection seems to smack one in the face, the wording is quite obvious.  Is it more realistic to think that Jesus simply worded it the way he did just because, or that he had an idea in mind?

Note what Jesus said in Acts 1:8:  "But you will receive power  when the Holy Spirit has come upon you... ."  Now, skipping forward to Acts 2: 3-4:  Divided tongues, as of fire appeared and a tongue rested on each of them.  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them that ability."

Praise Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

But stating that they all have the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and a gift of revelation, which I certainly believe, is not to state that there is not one man who is more gifted than the other, a leader by design.

I certainly agree with your points about the Spirit.  And I believe that that deference does make the difference, because, all having been given the gifts of the spirit, they all could have gone their own way, but they choose to stay with Peter and to defer to Peter.  To me, that makes this statement all the more powerful.  They recognized that Peter had something special, and in a group of men who are all special, that is saying something.

It doesn't say "leadership."  I look to example of Pentecost and see that Peter was granted a gift, but Peter alone was not granted that gift.  I will also point out that Peter didn't stay with them.

I asked you the question about the guiding of the conclave for that purpose.  I believe that gift is still giving and it gives in those occasions.  The Church continues to be a vessel for this gift for future generations.

Even if the Pope isn't the "Jesus established leader," he still bears this tremendous gift.

In terms of "leadership," and ancient institutions, consider this.  The Queen of England holds a "leadership" position in an ancient (though about 1050 years newer) institution.  Why does she hold that position?  Because an ancestor won the Battle of Hastings.  Why does the Pope hold his position?  Because this gift has been granted to him.  I see any claim of leadership as being secondary to that.

I think we are getting caught up over terms here. When I said "leadership" all I meant was a special position, clearly, any special consideration the Pope might be given is granted to him by God.  The Pope himself does not maintain an insight any more special that of anyone else, but he is granted that insight by God.  The other's thought there was something special about Peter, and this link between the words used by Jesus to describe Peter, and the words used in the OT would seem to tells us what that thing is.

Of course the Spirit spoke to them all, he speaks to everyone.  But even in the Sanhedrin there was one guy who was believed to have a special revelation, and, indeed, the Bible tells us that this was the case:

This is from John 11

 45
    Now many of the Jews who had come to Mary and seen what he had done began to believe in him.
46
    But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
47
    So the chief priests and the Pharisees convened the Sanhedrin and said, "What are we going to do? This man is performing many signs.
48
    If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation."
49
    But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing,
50
    nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish."
-----------------------------------------------------
Now, obviously, Caiaphas himself was not perfect, nor was he the most pious guy, but this is right teaching, but then, almost as an aside, John adds this:

-----------------------------------------------------
51
    He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
52
    and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
-----------------------------------------------------

The scripture is very clear that there was something about being the High Priest that granted him this revelation, but otherwise, as near as we can tell, he was just like everyone else, aside from wearing a breast plate the signified his authority.

One thing we are told the Messiah will do is reform the Sanhedrin.  If this is true, and we presume it is, then we need a high priest.  Someone who has a revelation, granted by God, which is just that much more special than the others.  Jesus, it would seem, was establishing this role for Jesus and his (spiritual) successors.

[J. J.]

I think we are getting caught up over terms here. When I said "leadership" all I meant was a special position, clearly, any special consideration the Pope might be given is granted to him by God.  The Pope himself does not maintain an insight any more special that of anyone else, but he is granted that insight by God. 

Going back to Paul experience on the road to Damascus, I would not call that "grant" exclusive.  I could through Julian of Norwich and a few hundred other saints into the mix, but I won't.

51
    He did not say this on his own, but since he was high priest for that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,
52
    and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the dispersed children of God.
-----------------------------------------------------

The scripture is very clear that there was something about being the High Priest that granted him this revelation, but otherwise, as near as we can tell, he was just like everyone else, aside from wearing a breast plate the signified his authority.

One thing we are told the Messiah will do is reform the Sanhedrin.  If this is true, and we presume it is, then we need a high priest.  Someone who has a revelation, granted by God, which is just that much more special than the others.  Jesus, it would seem, was establishing this role for Jesus and his (spiritual) successors.

I'm not sure that reform is one of those thing that the Messiah, but with the example above, not exclusive either.  It seems to be broad based, if Caiaphas was truly being prophetic and not planning something.