Papacy and Apostolic Authority - Notes

Class date: 01/21/18

In the OT, when God established His covenant with Israel, he also established a living, continuing authority in the Mosaic priesthood. This authority did not end when the OT was written down, but rather continued to safeguard and interpret the Sacred Scriptures.

Similarly, when Christ established His Church, what St. Paul calls the "New Israel," He established a living authority to continue to teach, govern, and sanctify in His name. This Church is called Apostolic because it began with the 12 Apostles and continues with their successors. Its purpose is to preserve and authentically interpret the Revelation of Jesus Christ, maintaining it in its fullness and purity until the end of time. This same authority determined the canon of Scripture.

We focus on the Papacy as it is the clearest expression of Apostolic authority both in Scripture and History, as well as the most contentious aspect of it.

In class, we walked through Matthew 16:13-20 together with the parallel passage of Isaiah 22:19-22. Bearing in mind that the Church (Kingdom of God) is the fulfilment of the Davidic kingdom, reading them together shows what Jesus was doing:

1. Appointing Peter as Steward or Prime Minister of His Kingdom
2. giving him authority to act on His behalf
3. making him a spiritual father to His people
4. setting up an office in the Church similar to that of the Steward in the Davidic kingdom

See the handout for these Biblical texts.

Later, Jesus commands Peter to shepherd His flock. His wording makes it clear that the flock belongs to Christ Himself, the Good Shepherd, but that he is appointing Peter to "feed" and "tend" His flock (John 21:15-17).

Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus singles out Peter for special treatment as well, for example, praying for him specifically so that his faith won't fail and so that he can then strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:31-32).

The Council of Jerusalem, as recounted in Acts 15, also offers some wonderful insights into both the Papacy (note how his speech ends the debate, for example) as well as Apostolic Authority in general (Paul and Barnabas bring the dispute to the "apostles and elders" to decide the issue authoritatively).

Historical evidences we considered included:

1. 1. The First letter of Clement (Jurgens 27, 28a)
   2. Irenaeus (Jurgens 210) – Christians must be united with the Church of Rome
   3. Roman Emperors killed the Popes in hopes of destroying Christianity

Summary / recap

1. We focus on papal authority since it has strong scriptural support, and is easy to trace historically.
2. Jesus chose Peter to be: rock, steward, shepherd
3. In Bible esp. Gospels and Acts: Peter clearly chief apostle
   
   1. spokesman for apostles
   2. apostles = “Peter and his companions”
   3. always heads list of Apostles (read Matthew 10:2-4)
   4. is it a coincidence that Peter is always first, Judas last?
   5. mentioned 191 times (> all others combined!), next John (48)
   6. at all the important “firsts”

Objections

Objection 1: (Protestant) “In the Greek text of the NT, Matthew 16:18 uses two different words for 'rock'. The word used for Peter himself is 'petros', but the one used for the rock on which Christ will build His church is 'petra.' 'Petros' means small stone, while 'petra' means a massive rock. Therefore, the petra (or massive rock) on which the church is built cannot be Peter (the small stone). Instead, it refers to Peter's profession of faith, or to Jesus Himself.”

1. Does this alternate reading make sense grammatically? (No.)
   1. Consider parallel construction and the words “and” and “this”.
   2. “And I tell you, here is a truck, and on this truck I will load my luggage ...”
2. More imp., Jesus did not speak in Greek, but in Aramaic,
   1. using the word “Kepha” in both places –
   2. see this in Bible: read John 1:42, 1 Cor 1:12, Gal 1:18
   3. there are 6 more verses naming Peter as “Kephas” testifying to Jesus speaking in Aramaic
3. Why then is there a difference in the words petra / petros?
   1. In Greek, unlike English, nouns have gender. Petra is feminine and so can't be a man's name. It'd be sort of like naming a man "Sue". Saying “Petros” makes it into an acceptable man's name.

Objection 2: (Orthodox) “The authority given to Peter is also given to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. Therefore, Peter was only an Apostle and Bishop like the others, and not in a position of primacy.”

1. Read both passages (Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:18)
2. Is there a difference between the authority given to Peter and that given to the apostles as a group? (What is Peter given that the others are not?)
3. binding & loosing = “excommunication / readmittance” (rabbinic), “authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions” (CCC 553)
4. Some also claim: power of keys = binding and loosing. Reasonable?
   1. keys are used to open and shut, not bind and loose (e.g. Rev. 3:7)
   2. Peter is given the “keys to the kingdom” in addition to bind/loose, so he also has power to make authoritative decisions on faith and morals.
   3. as we saw in Isaiah 22, the “keys” indicate a much broader power to govern the kingdom, in this case the kingdom of God, the church

   4. (the steward / master of the palace “had immediate access to the royal throne. All officials reported to him, all important documents required his seal, all matters of state came under his scrutiny. He governed in the name of the king, and acted for him when the king was absent.” source, many OT refs)

Objection 3: “OK, I'll accept that Jesus picked Peter to be his representative on earth, to get the church off the ground and make sure it got established. But I don't believe that He meant for Peter's powers to be passed on to successors. There's no evidence that Jesus meant it to be successive!”

1. We saw that Eliakim was appointed as a successor, replacing Shebna in the office of steward. That office lasts as long as the kingdom. Since the kingdom of heaven, the church, is to last until the end of time, so must Peter's office as steward.
2. context and imagery show that Peter's ministry is successive in nature source
   1. “First of all, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, a timeless and everlasting image. That’s why the image of the rock was chosen. That’s how rocks are. They’re there to stay.”
   2. Then in Matthew 16, how long will the gates of hell not prevail against His church? (forever) So “Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have an eternal dimension. He holds the keys to the Kingdom of God and the gates of hell will never prevail against it.”
   3. “Finally, the image of the shepherd, ... is an eternal one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd.
   4. “If the rock, the steward, and the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still have been eternal?”

Objection 4: “There have been many sinful popes; some were great sinners. Even Peter had to be rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11-14), so how can you say that the Popes are infallible?”

1. What does infallible mean? (CCC 890-1)
2. Protestants often confuse infallible with impeccable
3. How does infallibility work? If the Pope were infallible in math, ....
4. Read Gal 2:11-14 ... So how would you answer this objection?

Objection 5: “The pope is just a man. How can he be infallible?”

1. Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom,” and promised to ratify his decisions in Heaven. How could He do this if He wasn't also going to protect him from teaching false doctrine in his office as Pope? (Also true for Apostles as a group.1)
2. Also, in the entire history of the Church, there are perhaps 2 or 3 alleged instances of a true failure in infallibility: those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius. (Occ. Paul V/ Urban VIII – Galileo) None of these actually holds up to scrutiny, but isn't that amazing in itself? Just a handful? Especially when you consider many weren't saints by any stretch of the imagination.
3. Vigilius is actually a striking example for infallibility. He accepted a bribe from Empress Theodora to teach her favored heresy of monophysitism when he became Pope, after the Byzantines deposed Pope Silverius. But he did not, and instead supported the orthodox doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon.
4. Consider: The human authors of Scripture were just men. How can they be infallible?