Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
Funny. When I was in that same position I found it disturbing that God didn't do anything my co-religionists promised.
PugetSoundSoldier
Your post, I think is raising 2 questions. 1) Did St. Paul becoming the “Apostle to the Gentiles” break Apostolic Succession and 2) Was St. Paul and Apostle. I will try to tackle the notion of Apostolic Succession first, and then address the office of Apostle and how St. Paul was indeed an Apostle. I apologize for the length, but I did try to answer your questions and objections honestly and sincerely.
First, Apostolic Succession is one of the marks of the Church, as expressed in the Nicene Creed. It is one of the major theological marks as to how the Catholic Church understands the “nature of the Church.” As I noted in a previous post, The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Church (i.e. its ecclesiology) is linked to its Theology about God. The Holy Trinity reveals the nature of God, which is God is a God of perfect communion and love and relationship. The Father eternally generates the Son and the Son returns of the love of the Father and the bond of love is the Holy Spirit. The second person of the Trinity, Christ, became incarnate (i.e. Christ has a fully human and divine nature) and founded a Church (Mt 16) which St. Paul describes as the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3: 15). The Church is described by St. Paul as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 12-14), the Bride of Christ (Eph 5: 26-27) and by St. Peter as the People of God (1 Pet 2: 9-10). Since Christ has one Body, and One Bride, and one people, and since God is a God of perfect communion (Holy Trinity), the Church then is ontologically also one.
Hence, the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the nature of the Church is tied to its theology of God, and its theology (Christology) about Christ and thus the Church is “Christ’s” instrument for salvation for all people.
The Churches faith comes from Christ, to the Apostles, down to us today via “apostolic succession.” Thus, from the Catholic perspective, to be Church proper, requires Apostolic Succession, which leads to valid Holy Orders (Bishops, etc) an thus a valid Holy Eucharist. As St. Ignatius (107 AD) indicated “where there is the Eucharist there is Christ” and hence the Church. In addition, the Catholic Church sees that Christ appointed St. Peter with a special role in the early Church (Mt 16), which is also indicated in two other Petrine texts found in St. Luke and St. John’s Gospel, where Christ tells St. Peter that he prayed especially for him to strengthen his brethren, and for St. Peter to “feed Christ’s Lambs”, respectively. As a result, the Church of Rome and its Bishop has a Primacy among the Churches.
The Patristic sources and Tradition, as later codified in the canons of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D., and Chalcedon, 451 AD, is consistent with this claim. For example, St. Clement of Rome, 3rd successor from St. Peter, wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth in circa 90 AD to address a schism that had occurred in that Church. Please note that Clement is writing from the “Church of Rome” to the “Church of Corinth” in the Eastern Roman empire. As I noted earlier, St. Ignatius of Antioch, in around 107 AD wrote of the Church of Rome indicating that it “Presides in Love” among the Churches and states “not as Peter and Paul do I command you”, etc.
In 144 AD, the first named Gnostic Heretic, Marcion, came from the Eastern Roman empire to Rome and stated that the Church should not use the Old Testament, and adopt only St. Luke’s Gospel and certain epistles of St. Paul. When he was told that this not part of the Apostolic Tradition, Marcion hardened his position and he eventually would be excommunicated by “the Church of Rome in 144 AD” when St. Pius I was Bishop of Rome. Please note, had Marcion’s view won out, the New Testament would not look like it does today. This is the second major example, after St. Clements intervention with the Church of Corinth, where the Bishop of Rome exercised the primacy to protect apostolic tradition.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, in 170AD, wrote against the Gnostic heretics and stated that because the Church of Rome can trace its origins back to St.’s Peter and Paul,, that it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. I think this quote is perhaps the strongest with respect to both ST. Peter and St. Paul being in Rome. Again, for full disclosure, this quote is taken from Fr. Jurgens “The Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 1” published by Liturgical press in 1970 (a Catholic translation). Still, the translations of protestant patristic scholars (i.e. Lightfoot) are consistent with Fr. Jurgen’s translation.
St: Irenaeus writes:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (inter A.D. 180/199)
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius, and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter A.D. 180/199]
So, please note the Fathers link the Church of Rome’s primacy to both St. Peter and St. Paul and the notion of apostolic succession flows from the theology of Apostle [which both Peter and Paul were].
Second, I will discuss the office of Apostle. The word apostle means “one who is sent” and as Pope Benedict explains in his book “Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for A Fundamental Theology” (pp. 273-284), Catholic doctrine understands the office of Apostle in reference to Christ. It is clear in the Gospels that Apostleship is an institution established by Christ and is referred to as a calling (c.f. Mark 3:13-19) and the apostles share in Christ mission and can make Christ’s kingdom present by signs and healings (c.f. Mt 10: 7-9). The ministry of the Apostles is also described as one of preaching that men should repent (c.f. Mk 6:12-13) involved in healing, exorcism, preaching (c.f. Luke 9:1-6) and in Matthew, rather than specific missionary commands, we see a conferral of authority (c.f. Mt 10:1).
The Gospels also note that the Church community should listen to the Apostles and if Christ were preaching through them which presents a theology that links the closeness of the Apostles mission with Christ as we read “anyone who listens to you, listens to me and anyone who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me” (c.f. Lk: 10:16; Mt 10:40). Once again, the word “send” or “being sent”, which is what Apostle means. If we understand Christ in relation to the Father as being sent by the Father (c.f. John 3:17), then the office of Apostle has an Christological reference point. As Pope Benedict points out, Christ is, by nature, the One sent by the Father, whose whole Being consists of being sent and who, as pure Mediator, has no other relationship to the Father than that of being his complete repraesentiao among men, thus the concept of mission in the end of St. John’s Gospel where we read “As the Father sent me, so I am sending you” (c.f. John 20:21) helps us link the interpretation as Jesus as “Apostle”, i.e. the one sent by the Father, and now Christ in sending the Apostles indicates that Apostleship is an office instituted by Christ. As Pope Benedict further notes, “If Mission means representation of him who sends and is consequently, mediation to him who sends it, it cannot be doubted that this central office of the evolving Church qualifies as a ministry of mediation
After the Ascension, the Gospels (Mt 28: 16-20) and Acts of the Apostles (c.f. Acts 1:15-26) clearly indicate that the ministry of the Apostles did not end with Christ Ascension as they are commanded to make disciples of all nations (c.f. Mt 29:19). It is also clear that others besides the original twelve could by brought into the Apostolic Ministry, as documented in Acts 1: 15-26. This concept is important with respect to St. Paul. We see Christ himself asking Saul “why are you persecuting me…I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (c.f. Acts 9:4-6) [interesting theological point, Christ links persecution of the Church as persecuting him, and thus the Church is one and the same with Christ]. Thus, St. Paul’s conversion was a work of God’s Grace through the Holy Spirit, not Ananias. Still, St. Paul went to the Church at Antioch, were he was ordained and sent on his mission as we read “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then completing their fasting and praying, they laid hands on them and sent them off” (c.f. Acts 13:3-4). Please note that Barnabas was brought into the Apostolic ministry after he donated tons of money and goods, which would later be used for missionary activity (c.f. Acts 4:36-37). It would be Barnabas who would introduce St. Paul to the Apostles (c.f. Acts 9:27). Thus, one can draw the connection of Christ to the original Apostles, and now Barnabas and Paul, who later in acts would be referred to as Apostles (c.f. Acts 14:4). So the Apostles now include the original 11 Apostles, plus Matthias, who would exercise the leadership ministry and Barnabas and St. Paul, who focused on missionary apostolic efforts.
St. Paul himself identifies himself as an Apostle (c.f. Romans 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1) and indicates that he received his office of Apostle from God (c.f. Gal 1:1). St. Paul also describes his ministry as priestly as he states “But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God” (c.f. Romans 15:15-16). He also calls his Apostolic ministry as being a “ministry of reconciliation” (c.f. 2 Cor 5: 18) as we read “so we are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though God were appealing through us, and the appeal that we make in Christ’s name is be reconciled to God” (c.f. 2 Cor 5:20)
From these texts, along with the Gospels which commanded the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist (c.f. Mt 26: 26-30; Mk 14:22-28; Luke 22: 14-20; 1 Cor 11:23-30) forgive sins [i.e. administer the sacrament, as God forgives sins] in his name (c.f. John 20: 21-23; 2 Cor 5: 18-20), anoint the sick [James 5:14-15] we can see a connection between Apostolic Ministry and Priestly ministry. The link between Apostles and Priestly ministry is documented in the NT. For example, in Acts 20: 18-35, Pope Benedict notes (p. 278) that Paul’s address is an outline of Apostolic succession as St. Paul is transferring authority and pastoral responsibility to the presbyters, who then become successors of the Apostles and as St. Paul notes, the office of presbyter is an institution of the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). St. Peter, in his first epistle, writes “So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord over those assigned to you.” (c.f. 1 Peter 5:1-4). As Pope Benedict points out (p.279), this text calls St. Peter, who is an Apostle, a fellow presbyter, and thus the office of Apostle and presbyter are linked to each other. Thus, in a similar fashion to St. Paul in Acts 20, this text points to a transfer of theology of Apostleship to the presbyterate.
So in closing, we see in the New Testament itself a basic outline of apostolic succession, which was confirmed, and more fully developed, in the post-Apostolic Church by all the Church Fathers and Creeds of the Church. We also see that St. Paul was in fact an Apostle, who was a part of the apostolic community, i.e. the reconstituted 12 apostles noted in Acts 1.
Regards and hope this helps.
Excellent post! Very informative. Thank you.
Three times I have asked you the same question...
twice asked before you asked the first question of me.
I’m not insinuating that you’re deliberately doing an end run around it, perhaps you’ve just missed it.
I’m not at enmity with you or your faith, I’d simply like to know your (the Catholic) view on this simple question:
What is it that forgives sin?
Mr Rogers:
I apologize, I did not see your question till I had responded to PugetSoundSoldier [see post 442]. St. Paul does refer to St.Peter, along with James and John as pillars (c.f Gal 2:9) and of course, he corrected Peter for not engaging in community life with the gentiles, after Peter had received a vision from God that what God has made clean, do not call unclean (see Acts 10). So it was St. Peter who afer seeing that God wanted to bring the gentiles into the Church, along with the other apostles, who commissioned Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the gentiles. Of course, Peter was engaging in the sin of ethnic bigotry, and St. Paul correctly corrected him, although this was not a doctrinal dispute, but a pastoral correction. St. Paul does note that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth (c.f. 1 Tim 3:15 and that it is built on the foundation of the apostles (c.f. Eph 3: 19-22).
So St. Paul calling St. Peter a pillar is consistent with all the Apostles sharing in Christ mission and the Church being Apostolic.
Amen, driftdiver.
They don’t believe the Bible is the only authority. Their man made traditions are.
LOL. That’s one of his little tricks.
Actually, the Crusades did little to stop the spread of Islam into Europe. Charles Martel in the West and Vlad Dracul in the East were far more effective.
Exactly.
Neither do you; the difference is we admit it.
EXCEPT!
That is not what St Paul says.
"6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
His terminology makes it very clear that while there were SOME who considered James, Peter, and John to be pillars - "who seemed to be something" - Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did NOT.
I spent 25 years in the hierarchy known as the US military. I assure you, these are NOT the words of someone who considered Peter to be first among equals, let alone superior in any way. While some were looking at these 3 as something higher or more authoritative, Paul did not.
Peter was engaging in the sin of ethnic bigotry, and St. Paul correctly corrected him, although this was not a doctrinal dispute, but a pastoral correction.
No sir. This was most decidedly a DOCTRINAL issue - one so critical that Paul uses it as an example leading up to his conclusion, "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
Nor, as some have suggested, was Peter only setting a bad example. For Paul told him, "why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Not ask, or allow - but COMPEL.
Also, we read: "certain men came from James...he withdrew...fearing those who were of the circumcision."
Again, I'm a military man. A 4-star General does not fear a delegation from a 2-star General. The reverse is true.
They sure do. Some constantly say our interpretation isn’t a valid one but, of course, their magesterium’s is. Arrogant.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Wow. Great video.
When he doesn’t have an answer, he’ll just repeat your words back to you or some nonsense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.