Question about Catholicism and the Pope

[Kaine for Senate '18]

BTW... I promise to get around to an in depth explanation of papal authority.  My schedule has been busy.

Soulty, can you give us an answer?

[12th Doctor]

BTW... I promise to get around to an in depth explanation of papal authority.  My schedule has been busy.

Soulty, can you give us an answer?

I don't remember the question.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What's the basis of authority for the Pope?  Is it Biblical, tradition, or something else?

[12th Doctor]

What's the basis of authority for the Pope?  Is it Biblical, tradition, or something else?

Oy, vey.  Tell you what, don't let me forget and I will get back to you next week.  I have two papers due.  If we were talking face to face, then I could do it in my sleep, but having to run aroudn and retrieve all the stuff is a bitch when I am trying to get other things done.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What's the basis of authority for the Pope?  Is it Biblical, tradition, or something else?

Oy, vey.  Tell you what, don't let me forget and I will get back to you next week.  I have two papers due.  If we were talking face to face, then I could do it in my sleep, but having to run aroudn and retrieve all the stuff is a bitch when I am trying to get other things done.

No problem

[Kaine for Senate '18]

What's the basis of authority for the Pope?  Is it Biblical, tradition, or something else?

Oy, vey.  Tell you what, don't let me forget and I will get back to you next week.  I have two papers due.  If we were talking face to face, then I could do it in my sleep, but having to run aroudn and retrieve all the stuff is a bitch when I am trying to get other things done.

Soulty?  Has the time come?

[12th Doctor]

What's the basis of authority for the Pope?  Is it Biblical, tradition, or something else?

Oy, vey.  Tell you what, don't let me forget and I will get back to you next week.  I have two papers due.  If we were talking face to face, then I could do it in my sleep, but having to run aroudn and retrieve all the stuff is a bitch when I am trying to get other things done.

Soulty?  Has the time come?

The time is coming.  I am actually re-reading Clement's letter to the Corinthians right now... its part of the argument, and twice as long as Hebrews.  Probably Wednesday night or Thursday, since I have one last paper to do, but I will be getting to this. 

[12th Doctor]

I really meant to tackle this during Thanksgiving, but my step-dad needed help with a grad school paper of his own, so I didn't make time for it.

[12th Doctor]

Tonight

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Tonight

I am looking forward to it

[12th Doctor]

Alright, the long promised, long awaited post(s) has finally arrived.  First, I am going to be repeating a number of things that I have said, spread out throughout the entire history of the forum.  The old arguments are still the best.  But I am going to be adding some new perspective as well, mostly things I never got to before, because of the fractured nature of the arguing process, or my utter lack of ability to build up a case in the face of ill-informed opposition.  While I am going to admit to using outside sources (apparently that is a mortal sin to some on here, as I have been slammed for using Catholic Answers in the past), this is going to be a lot of material that I have collected over the years, and this response as a whole will be purely synthesized, with my own bet information, from several different things I have read and collected over the years, and then fact-checked of my own accord.  Also, allow this to be my final, definitive statement on the issue… debate and questions are welcome, but if this comes up again 6 months from now, I’m just gonna refer whoever to this thread.

----------------------------------

First, we need to talk about what Papal Authority is, and what it is not.  The biggest flashpoint in this discussion is “infallibility”.  Many who are not in the know think this means Catholics believe that the Pope is perfect, sinless, and thus equal to God and “worshipped” as such.  This is not the case; anyone taught preaching this would be branded a heretic.

Papal authority, as such, stems from the position of holding the Petrine Office.  That means that he is the direct, spiritual successor of Peter as the leader of the Apostles and the Universal Church, stemming through Apostolic Succession.  Now, there are three claims I made in there that I will back up: First, the Universal Church (as both body and institution).  Second, Apostolic Succession.  Third, what is known in Catholic talk as “The Primacy of Peter.”

But first, Catholics believe that Jesus promised us an inerrant Church.  As he tells us (and I will source this passage in a second), the gates of Hell will not prevail over His Church.  If the Church were ever to dogmatically teach heresy, then effectively the gates of Hell would have prevailed over it.  Thus, it is the belief of Catholics that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy.  Now the important part, Because the Pope is the only person who can speak for the Universal Church, he is prevented from dogmatically preaching error to the Universal flock.  There is nothing magical, or special about the Pope… it is all the work of the Holy Spirit.

Any statement that applies to the Universal Church (catholic means “universal” in Latin) must be made ex cathedra (from the chair) meaning that, in order to make a dogmatic statement, the Pope must be speaking in his capacity as the leader of the Church, for the Universal Church, to the Universal Church.  In otherwords, statements that are made as opinions of the popes are not infallible, nor are any of the popes’ personal actions considered infallible.  While we naturally want our popes to be good people, the individuals level of holiness has nothing to do with his capacity to speak for the Church, because his “gift” doesn’t stem from him as a man.

----------------------------------

Now, this isn’t the only responsibility of the Pope.  He is also responsible for running the institution that is the Church.  He has a lot of help in this endeavor.

Part of his responsibility is the appointment of Bishops and Cardinals.

A common complaint about the capacity of popes to appoint bishops is that this is not the way it was done in the past.  Traditionally, a bishop would simply emerge with the approval of the priests and Christian representatives of the community, typically by vote in the old days, or often times, they would be appointed by consent of local metropolitans (archbishops).  It is true that in the past, Popes did not commonly (I stress commonly, because there are many notable exceptions)  concern themselves with the direct appointment of bishops outside of Italy.  But this was in large part due to practical reasons.  Communication was extremely slow, and thus the popes commonly left it to the approval of the locals, in some capacity, to have the say in this matter, and his approval, while not explicit was implied.  However, popes could, and often did, explicitly disapprove of certain selections, and we have records to prove that they were listened to when they did.

Example: in the 9th century there was a man named Gerbert.  To make a long story short, Gerbert was elevated to Bishop of Rheims, at that time the Primate See of Gaul (France), the pope at the time vetoed his elevation to the See and appointed his own man instead.  Gerbert didn’t suffer long, though, because after the death of the pope who refused his election, he was, in turn elected Primate of the Universal Church and became Sylvester II, the first French pope.  For his part, Sylvester was one of the few bright spots for the papacy in an era that has been dubbed the “Pornocracy” but that’s another story.

Where do the Cardinals come from?  Well, in the old days, there were 44 of them… 7 deacons to assist in the institutional operations of the church, 28 priests to say mass at the churches in Rome, and then there were 7 suburbicarian bishops who ran the Sees around the city of Rome proper.  7+28+7 is 44.  Even today, all cardinals are made in the title of either “bishop,” “deacon,” or “priest” and in the name of one of the historic churches around Rome, regardless of where they are from or what functions they perform in the church (i.e. Bishops can be and are made in the title of “Cardinal Deacon” it doesn’t matter).

Of course, today there are over 100 Cardinals from all over, and they are responsible for the election of the popes.  The College of Cardinals was expanded in membership, both in numbers and in nationality in the Early Middle Ages, to more fully realize the reality that the Bishop of Rome is universal and for a time from the 10th-15th century, the popes were fairly internationalized.  The system of only allowing Cardinals to vote for a Pope emerged at around the same time, as it was realized that a regularized system needed to be adopted.  Lack of a regular standard (one pope could be elected by acclamation, the next by secret ballot between only the priests and cardinals, the next by only the cardinals) was causing major tension in the Church, though legitimacy was never quite that big of a problem most of the time, ironically, it wasn’t until this system was adopted that the Great Schism took place and the legitimacy of some papal elections was truly brought into question in a widespread way.

----------------------------------

Okay… Why is he called the Pope?  Well, traditionally, important Church figures were called “Patriarchs,” which is Greek for “fathers”.  Even today, the Patriarchs are the heads of the various eastern Churches.  In the West, this term for Church leaders fell out of use for everyone except the Bishops of Rome.  In Italian, this term became “Papa” which, of course, it closer to “daddy” than father and we borrowed this term into English and it became “Pope,” in German “Pabst”, etc.

But doesn’t Jesus himself tell us to call no man “Father”?  Yes, that is what he says in Matthew 23:7, but with this, as with all things, context is king.

In Acts 7:2  Stephen calls the Jewish authorities “fathers” (which is probably why we call our religious authorities the same)
Paul calls Abraham the “Father of us all” in Romans 4:16 and in 1 Corinthians 4:14 he tells them that he became their father in Christ, through the Gospel (at this point, literally meaning only the news of Christ as Messiah) and there is example after example of this.

What Jesus is referring to is the fact that we should put no man on Earth at the level of God (except, of course, Christ, but he is the Son, so….)

[12th Doctor]

A more crafty anti-Catholic attack has to do with how some Protestants and general non-believers contend the Pope really got his authority and centers around another title of the popes, that being “Pontiffex Maximus” or  “Supreme Pontiff”.

Supreme Pontiff was the title of the pagan high priest in Rome.  The term literally means “high bridge builder,” because one of the key duties of the original high priest in Rome was to guard and make repairs to the bridge over the Tiber that allowed access to the city.  When the Roman Emperors began to fancy themselves as gods, they co-opted the term from the priests to use for themselves.  When the empire fell, the Bishops of Rome the term began to be popularly applied to the popes, and is still used to this day.

Many charge that his is proof that Roman Catholicism has pagan origins and that the Pope only owes his authority to having been in the right place, at the right time, to assert his authority as a kind of new emperor figure over the West and that is when the “myth” of Papal Authority was started.

First, it is true that the Popes did take over as rulers of Rome and the surrounding area (but just that area) after the collapse of civil authority, but they simply stepped into a vacuum.  There was no one else to run the services, collect taxes, make sure the people were feed and protected, etc.  And Rome as a center of power from 500 AD-900 AD is simply a joke.  Rome as a city had collapsed, become depopulated, and wielded little influence, certainly not enough to justify people looking to this backwater for leadership.

Second, those who charge a pagan connection with the use of “Supreme Pontiff” are, at the very least, guilty of anachronistic thinking.  The fact is, we are still dealing with a culture, in the 500-800’s, where most people are still speaking Latin.  They simply did not have another term for “High Priest” and so used the term they had, and still have.

Lastly, the popes never attempted to make themselves into emperors.  We in the West are often guilty of thinking that the Western Empire was it, and once that collapsed, there were no more emperors.  That’s wrong.  The Church recognized the emperor is Constantinople as the one, and only, true emperor until well into the 9th century.  The popes and the emperors often bickered, and often cooperated, but it was always understood that the popes domain was spiritual, not temporal.  When Rome was invaded, Justinian sent men to liberate it, and the popes relied on the protection of the Eastern Empire.  This changed in the 8th century, when the Lombards invaded Italy, and the Eastern Empire refused to come to the defense of the papacy, because it was looked in battle with the Turks.  The Pope appealed to Pepin, Mayor of the Palace of Francia, for help in kicking out Lombards.  Pepin agreed to do it, so long as the Pope would agree to support his bid to become king.  The pope agreed, and the deal was done.  The Franks, though not an empire, were now the protectors of the papacy, and when all was said and done, the donated the land around Rome to the popes, so that the popes would have a state of their own.  All indications are that this was not a part of the original deal, but rather something Pepin wanted to do for various reasons.  The popes, for the first time ever, now had a state, over which they had official sovereignty, but were still under the protection of the Franks, and, theoretically, still under the protection of the emperor.

To make a long story short, the power of the Franks grew, and eventually, Pepin’s son, Charles, consolidated the power of the Franks, to make them the most powerful force in Europe.  Many in the Church, and in Rome, were eager to make Charles an emperor in his own right, but there was still an emperor in Constantinople.

Well, that changed when the mother of a the young, but legitimate emperor attempted a coup to take power, but in the process accidentally killed her son, leaving many to believe that the imperial thrown was now vacant.  The Pope took opportunity of the moment to crown Charles as Charlemagne, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire.

The point of me telling you this is to prove that papal authority does not stem from the supposed historical accident of the Popes being in Rome, and thus taking over for the Emperors… there always was an emperor, the church always acknowledged the emperors, and they were so not eager to become emperors, that they immediately crowned a new one when they had the chance.

To Be Continued

[12th Doctor]

Sorry guys, I will give you the rest, the real meat and potatoes, tomorrow... I underestimated how tired I am.

[paul718]

Supersoulty, are you in college?  Grad school?  If so, what are you studying?

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty, are you in college?  Grad school?  If so, what are you studying?

I'm currently at the University of Pittsburgh for a Graduate degree in Urban and Regional Affairs.  Why do you ask?

[paul718]

Supersoulty, are you in college?  Grad school?  If so, what are you studying?

I'm currently at the University of Pittsburgh for a Graduate degree in Urban and Regional Affairs.  Why do you ask?

I'm impressed by your breadth of knowledge of the subject and your ability to succinctly explain it to the forum.  I thought you might be a theology scholar, but you seem very smart nonetheless.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty, are you in college?  Grad school?  If so, what are you studying?

I'm currently at the University of Pittsburgh for a Graduate degree in Urban and Regional Affairs.  Why do you ask?

I'm impressed by your breadth of knowledge of the subject and your ability to succinctly explain it to the forum.  I thought you might be a theology scholar, but you seem very smart nonetheless.

Thank you.

Alright, fellas, I'm sorry, I got a little side tracked last night.  I'll be working on this today, have it for you tonight.  Also going to edit the last one to eliminate all the mistakes I noticed when I read it last night... not factual errors... just small things.

[12th Doctor]

So, when did the papacy begin?  Why do we say that Peter was the first Pope?

Well, most people have heard this story:

Matthew 16:

13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
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."

Alot happens in this passage.  And, while its not the only one I am going to take a look at, I am going to spend some time on it.

Alright, so let’s look at verses 13-17 just for starters.  We see here that this discussion breaks out amongst the disciples about who Jesus is.  While the others are discussing it, and getting it wrong, Simon comes up with something remarkable, “you are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”  And of course he is right.  Burt not only is he correct, but Jesus tells us that this revelation of his has come directly from God.

This discussion doesn’t really have much of a parallel anywhere, except in one part of the scripture and that is over in John.  Now, John has no connection to the Gospel of Matthew, he did not source in anyway, that we know of.  However, he does provide us information of an interesting exchange amongst the Pharisees in Chapter 11.

To set the scene, the Pharisees are arguing about what they ought to do about this Jesus problem of theirs.  And so…

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."
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.

John makes it very explicit that the only reason Caiaphas was able to prophesize in this way was because he was the high priest, so in otherwords, even the Christians acknowledge that there was something special about the position (note, not the man) of high priest of the Sanhedrin that allowed him this kind of inherent revelation.  And indeed, we know that the Jews thought this as well, the high priest wore a breast plate that had stones of many colors that was thought of as, well, a “circuit” really isn’t the term, but it wasn’t merely emblematic either, but the breast plate allowed one to be “ordained” with this ability… I guess a channel for the Spirit, if you will.

Now, this is certainly far from conclusive, but it provides food for thought as we go forward.  And we know that others, both in OT, NT and current times had the power of prophesy, and the Church does not deny this at all, into the modern day (Fatima), but the similarity of these passages is difficult to deny.

Verses 17 and 18 speak for themselves.  There have been a number of odd ways that people have devised to get around them over the years, one of the better ones is that, because the words in Greek for “rock” the object, and “rock” Simon are slightly different, that means that that what Jesus is actually doing is contrasting Simon and the Rock, showing that it is the revelation of his divinity that is really the rock, and that Simon is actually not that significant.  This comes about because the words for “rock” in Greek takes a feminine modifier, while Simon is called what would be the equivalent of “pebble” with the masculine modifier.  Well, this is interesting, except it is simply an accident of language.  In no language, with grammatical gender, would you ever call a man by a feminine verb, and, in fact, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, this sentence would simply be rendered “You are Kephas, and upon this Kephas I will build my Church”… Aramaic has no grammatical gender, so they are the same word. 

And, in fact, in Galatians 2:11-14, which I will revisit later, Paul states, breaking out of Greek and using the Aramaic form by which Simon Peter was really called, that he confronted Kephas.

[12th Doctor]

This is all not even mentioning that the form of the passage is a blessing of Peter.  To believe that Jesus was contrasting Peter and the Rock would be to say that this passage reads something like, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah.  You are really insignificant.  Here are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”  That just doesn’t make sense.

But, then we come to the most interesting, and conclusive, of the segments of this statement, and that is verse 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."

Keys are not mentioned much in scripture.  Here, and in a few places in the NT, and only twice in the entire Old Testament.  All the other places, they usually refer to things that are somewhat insignificant, unless you want to get into some really high level allegories.  They are literally just functional objects.  But one of those two times they are mentioned in the OT is in Isaiah 22.  To set the scene for you, there is a figure in the Kingdom of Israel who is called the Chief Steward of the House of David.  We would think of him as a kinda Prime Minister.  His job is to take care of the basic tasks of running the kingdom, and he essentially functioned as king in the physical absence of the real king.

There was a Chief Steward named Shebna, who had dishonored himself.  And so God states that he is going to cast him out of the land and replace him with Eliakin.

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.

Now, anyone who knows thing number 1 about scripture knows that Jesus, as the Messiah, is the new David.  He came to usher in the new kingdom, and to bring about the formation of His Church.  You have to be in pretty heavy denial to claim that the connection between the passages here is an accident.  Jesus is establishing Peter as the New Chief Steward of the House of the New David.  In the ancient word, keys were always used as a symbol of authority.  So this New Chief Steward has authority over the rest of the New Kingdom, which is Christ’s Church.  The spiritual authority of this New Chief Steward is made apparent by Christ’s specific addition of “Heaven” to this mix.

Now, for time’s sake, I am going to throw a series of passages at you very quickly, and explain them without plastering them up here.  I assure you, go to any of them and they will say exactly what I claim:

Luke 22:23 – Jesus tells us that Satan has particularly targeted Simon Peter, but that Peter’s faith will strengthen the others

John 21:17 – Jesus specifically gives Simon his flock (more on this in a bit)

Mark 16:7 – Angel sent to announce resurrection to Peter, first of the Apostles

Luke 24:34 – Risen Lord first appears to Peter

Acts 1:13-26 – Peter leads the meeting that elects Matthias to replace Judas

Acts 2:14 – Peter led the apostles in preaching at Pentacost

Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performs the first miracle

Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicts the first punishment to members of the flock

Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magus

Acts 10:44-46 – Peter received the revelation to allow Gentiles into the Church

Acts 15:7-19 – Peter led the first council of Jerusalem and pronounces the first dogmatic decision of the Church

Peter’s name heads every single list of the Apostles in the Bible: Matthew 10-1, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13 and the Apostles are referred to as “Peter and his companions” in  Luke 9:32 and Mark 16:7.  In all four gospels, Peter speaks for the rest of the Apostles, Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45 and 12:41 and John 6:69

Finally, Peter’s name occurs exactly 195 times in the Gospels, which is more than all the other Apostles combined.

Now, what of Galatians, which I mentioned earlier?  Well, there is a scene in Galatians 2 that is often pointed out to deny Peter’s authority.  Paul recounts how he traveled to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, to see the leader of the Apostles.  Here, he only mentions having conferred with Kephas (Cephas in some translations, but it means the same thing).  He mentions having seen James, but merely as an afterthought.

After that, he left again, and after having preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, he returned to Jerusalem.  Peter and the other Apostles accepted Gentiles into the Church, but still discouraged mixing between the two communities.  So Paul tells us:

11
And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
12
For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
13
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

And so people point at this and say “aha… Paul corrected Peter.”  And they would be right.  But Peter had already made the Dogmatic decision to allow Gentiles into the Church after his vision.  What was going on here was a personal failing on his part.  The Church makes no claims against those, and never did, as I expressed earlier.

[12th Doctor]

So, I will have plenty of time tomorrow... or I guess later today, actually.  I will get into the Universal Church, Apostolic Succession (including concerns about "why Rome") and finally round everything off with some points about the early Church, including the Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians.

[12th Doctor]

I will complete this tomorrow, fellas.  I had to spend time catsitting tonight and the damn things won't leave me alone.

[Хahar 🤔]

I will complete this tomorrow, fellas.  I had to spend time catsitting tonight and the damn things won't leave me alone.

Ah yes..."sitting on you".

[12th Doctor]

Now we move onto the issue of a Universal Church.  Despite the objections, this is the most easily proved of all the points I am going to make.

First, we know that there is a Church.  Jesus references His Church again, and again, and again. (Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:17-18, etc)  Jesus tells his Apostles to go out and baptize in the name of the Church, etc, etc.

So, about the Universal Church.  The Church is meant to be one.  The metaphor of the “Body of Christ” is used by Paul again and again.  Here are a couple of examples:

Col 1 –

17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18
He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.

Romans 12

4
For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function,
5
so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.
1 Cor 12

12
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.
14
Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15
If a foot should say, "Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16
Or if an ear should say, "Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body," it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18
But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.
19
If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

And the theme of singularity is seen again and again:

Ephesians 4

3
striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace:
4
one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call;
5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Romans 16

17
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.
18
For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

The words of Christ:

John 17

17
Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

Now, remember how I said earlier that I would return to the theme of John 21?  Let’s take a look at it:

14
This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead.
15
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
16
He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
17
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Now, of course, this passage carries the symbolism that Peter had denied Jesus three times, but Jesus is also telling Peter here to be the Shepard to his people.  He doesn’t say this to anyone else.

Now, let’s look at John 10:

11
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
12
A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.
13
This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
14
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
15
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
16
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Now Jesus is the good Shepard, but he won’t be physically around, so he makes Peter the chief Shepard of his flock.  “One Shepard.  One Flock.”

----------------------------------

Now, onto the next topic; Apostolic succession and authority.  People, who will accept the last two points have a lot of trouble accepting this one.  Some, like Bono, deny that the authority of Apostles to preach infallibly did not last past the first generation of Christians.  The reason most people have trouble with this point is because admitting it is tantamount to admitting that Catholicism must be right.

First, the Church is apostolic in nature.  The Apostles, from the beginning, are fundamental to Jesus’ Church.  Most people accept this.

John tells us, in chapter 15, that Jesus chose very specific men to carry out his mission of preaching.  He didn’t just say that anyone can do this, he invested them with his authority to do so.  Now, there were others of his followers outside the circle, but it is clear that there was something special about these 12 guys.

To set the scene, we are now at the Last Supper:

14
You are my friends if you do what I command you.
15
I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.
16
It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you.
17
This I command you: love one another.

Jesus specifically handed his mission off to them (and as an aside, gave them the ability to forgive sins):

19
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."
20
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
21
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
22
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
23
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

And, again, we turn to the Last Supper where, in Luke, Jesus confers the kingdom onto them… incidentally, we get back to a text I referenced earlier, so now you get to see the entire passage in full context:

Chapter 22

28
It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29
and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."

Are there still any doubters?  I’m not finished.

Jesus established the government of his Church.  And this government was intended to last for all time.  How can I say that?  Well, Isaiah… all the way back in the OT… talks of the Messiah, and he says:

Chapter 9

6
His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

Christ’s Church will see no end.  There is no time in history when his Church ceased to be authoritative.

Daniel confirms this point of view:

Chapter 2

44
In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever.


Chapter 7

14
He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.

Paul tells us, in his First Letter to Timothy, Chapter 3:

14
I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

[12th Doctor]

It is the pillar and foundation of truth, because it is guided by the Holy Spirit into truth (John 16:13), and it speaks with the voice of Christ (Luke 10:16).  The Gates of Hell will never triumph against it (remember, this is what he told Peter) for all of eternity, because the Holy Spirit will always be with it (John 14:16) and Christ will always be with us, until the end of days (Matthew 28:19-20) and to assure this, Jesus is like the wise man who built his house on a rock (Matthew 7:24).

Sorry if you didn’t like the running commentary there, but I was getting tired of writing point for point, and I figured you might be getting tired of reading it.

Jesus leaves us an authoritative Church, one that has the power to forgive sins, as I mentioned before, but also to offer sacrifice (the Eucharist, 1 Corinthians 11:23-24), the power to discipline the wayward (Matthew 18:17) and the power to legislate (Matthew 18:18).

----------------------------------

But what good is an eternal Church is it can’t do all these things eternally?

That is where Apostolic Succession comes in.  The basic theory of AS is that God laid his hands on, and ordained his successors (the Twelve) to confer Authority, who then moved out, and laid hands on their successors, and so on and so forth, until modern times (1 Timothy 4:14).  And that his is a special trust, that is not to be granted to just anyone (1 Tim 5:22).

The Catholic Church is organized by three primary offices:  Bishops, Priests and Deacons.  Everyone who is ordained, even the Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome, fits into one of these five offices, and each has different responsibilities.

As I have mentioned before, the NT Church is based heavily off the OT Church.  You had a High Priest, then the Sanhedrin, and then lower level priests all over the land of Israel.  And, as I demonstrated, Jesus was establishing a similar arrangement in the Gospels.

But, we don’t have to guess, indeed, Paul outlines for us the existence and qualifications of each of these offices in his Letters.

1 Timothy 3:

1
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?
6
He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil's punishment.
7
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil's trap.
8
Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain,
9
holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience

1 Timothy 5

17
Presbyters (priests) who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
18
For the scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing," and, "A worker deserves his pay."
19
Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.

The Apostles appointed presbyters in every town they went to (Acts 14:23).  And Paul also tells us this in Titus (1:5).  And in 2 Timothy 2:2, that “what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”  Again, like the laying on of hands, not just anyone.

In fact, we know that the Apostles themselves regarded what they had as an office.  In Acts, one of the first things to take place, as I mentioned before, is the election to replace Judas, headed by Peter.  And so Luke tells us:

20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'
21
Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22
beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23
So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24
Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
26
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Okay, I feel like I am forgetting a major point, but this is the basis for the scriptural teaching of the Church on the Papacy, it origins, what it still means today, and what it ought to do.  Forgive me if any of this sounds discombobulated.  Alas, I am not infallible, but I did my best to put the pieces together.

Next, we will take a look at how this all came into play in the early Church, which many claim, the papacy was not present for.  I’ll get this out ASAP… likely tomorrow.  Sorry for the slow down.

[12th Doctor]

Sorry to put this off again, but when I came back to my friends house to stay with the cats, I actually forgot to bring my materials with me.