
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Episode 17 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast answers the question, "Is the pope the head of the church? You can follow along to the outline at Christforus.org.
#theology #Catholicism #pope #papalsupremacy #Lutheran
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope is “The successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church. The pope exercises a primacy of authority as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church; he receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Papacy: “The supreme jurisdiction and ministry of the pope as shepherd of the Whole Church. As successor of St. Peter, and therefore Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, the pope is the perpetual and visible principle of unity in faith and communion in the Church.”
CCC 881 states, “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he called Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the Whole flock (Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17). ‘The office of the binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ (Lumen Gentium* 22) This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
CCC 882 states, “The Pope Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ (Lumen Gentium 23) ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’ (Lumen Gentium 22; cf. Christus Dominus** 2, 9)”
* Lumen Gentium is a document of Vatican II, November 21, 1964, which defines the nature and mission of the Catholic Church.
** Christus Dominus is the Vatican II Council “Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops,” October 28, 1965.
By James A. Corbett from The Papacy: A Brief History
The Primacy of Peter. The first and best source of our knowledge about the origin of the papacy is, of course, the New Testament. From it we learn that the first pope was Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida on the left bank of the Jordan. Until he met Christ, he was called Simon, son of Jona. It was his brother Andrew who brought Simon to Christ. At this very first meeting Christ gave Simon a new name, one full of meaning for the role he was chosen to play. He renamed him Cepha, the Aramaic word for rock. The Greek word for rock is petros, whence the English Peter. The reason for giving him a new name was only made clear on another occasion before the Crucifixion when Christ said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In these simple but momentous words Christ singles out Peter from all the others to be the head of the Church and to have supreme power over it after Christ should have left them. The appointment was confirmed on His third appearance to the disciples after the Resurrection. Then He asked Peter three times whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. To Peter’s affirmative answers Christ replied: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” Peter, then was entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of teaching and caring for the whole body of the faith. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never doubted the primacy which had been given to Peter: when naming the Apostles they always name Peter first.
Peter himself had no doubt of it. As the Apostles assembled in Jerusalem after the Ascension, it was Peter who presided at the election of Matthias to replace Judas. Ten days later when at Pentecost the Apostles received the gift of tongues, it was again Peter who explained to the astounded crowds how Christ had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him. It was Peter who, first of all the Apostles, performed a miracle by restoring a lame man to health, and who told the rulers and elders of Jerusalem by what power he had cured the cripple. It was Peter to whom the vision was given which explained that Christianity was to be for the Gentiles also, and who answered those insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised. “There was much disputing over it until Peter rose and said to them: Brethren, you know well enough how from early days it has been God’s choice that the Gentiles should hear the message of the Gospel from the lips and so learn to believe.”
After a number of years of preaching in the Near East, Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. These two historical facts are no longer seriously questioned by historians of the early Church. There is still, however, strong disagreement as to whether the supreme jurisdiction entrusted by Christ to Peter devolved upon his successors, the bishops of Rome.
The Church teaches, and it has always taught, that the primacy of Peter is held by all the successors of Peter. The popes, like Peter, are the vicars of Christ. Christ founded the Church and remains its true, though invisible, head. The popes, as successors of Peter, are the visible heads of the Church in this world and have the same powers and duties which Christ gave to Peter: to preserve intact the original deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, to teach it with authority and without error to all nations, to be the center of unity with supreme jurisdiction over the Church.
This teaching has been and remains a great stumbling block for those outside the Church. It has led historians to interpretations that differ all the way from complete acceptance to complete rejection. This does not mean that the methods of historical research are faulty, but rather that every historian has a philosophy or theology which will influence his interpretations of the documents he studies.
The Historian is limited in his search for the truth not only by the great loss and destruction of documents of other ages, but by the nature of historical knowledge, its methods and limitations. History is not the only way of knowing. The philosopher and the theologian use different methods to discover truths of a different and even higher order. Their conclusions do not contradict the truths learned by the historian; rather, they complete them and give us a richer and deeper understanding of reality.
The documents which have survived indicate an almost universal acceptance in the early Church of a belief that the Bishop of Rome actually possessed supreme authority. They indicate the continuing presence of a strong tradition in favor of the primacy of Rome.
Actually, the successors of Peter did not claim a primacy, they exercised it. Before the end of the first century, Pope Clement I, who had known Peter and Paul, intervened with gentle firmness in a schism in the church of Corinth: “If some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him through us,” Clement writes, “Let them know, that they will involve themselves in no small transgression.” Although St. John the Apostle was still living at Ephesus and there were other bishops closer to Corinth, it was the Bishop of Rome who exercised the right to settle the dispute. Corinth recognized the right of Rome to intervene by accepting the decision.
The letter of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, which he wrote to the Roman church in 107 while on his way to Rome to be martyred, indicates the special position this eastern bishop recognized Rome as possessing: “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers. I trust that what you have taught and prescribed to others may now be applied to yourselves.”
The pre-eminence of Rome is seen again in the book of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heretics, written towards the end of the second century. In this, desiring to offer a simple means of learning with security what is the true tradition of Christian belief, Irenaeus refers his reader to the tradition of the Bishop of Rome, whose succession from Peter and Paul, he says, all men know. He adds a further reason for the security of the Roman tradition: “With this church, on account of its greater authority, every church must agree.”
When the churches of Asia were in disagreement as to the proper time to celebrate Easter, about the year 190, Pope Victor did not hesitate to intervene and to excommunicate those churches that refused to follow the Roman custom. There was a great controversy and Victor’s severity was blamed. But no one questioned his right to act. Later, in 260, Pope Dionysius condemned the bishop of the great and ancient see of Alexandria in Egypt, and Alexandria accepted the decision.
In this same third century, Cyprian, the Roman lawyer who after his conversion became Bishop of Carthage, was no doubt an independent-minded bishop, yet he recognized Rome as the center of unity of faith. Although he disagreed with Pope Stephen on the question of rebaptizing converts from heresy, he saw clearly the true position of the pope in the Church.
These examples bring out the traditional teaching of the Church and show that even in the early times there was a widespread acceptance of the special, though undefined, position of the Bishop of Rome. The many visits of outstanding Christian leaders to Rome from all over the empire, and numerous letters of Popes, condemning heresy and correcting discipline, indicate the prestige that the papacy enjoyed. Its prominence was recognized, not because the popes of the early centuries had great personal merits comparable to those of Cyprian, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, but because the see of Rome, no matter who held it, was founded by Peter to whom the keys had been entrusted. To be sure, the jurisdiction of the popes was not exercised as often as in later centuries, but exercised it was, even though the Church was outlawed and its heads lived in the very city of the emperors who were determined to destroy Christianity altogether.
The history of the popes of the first three centuries is not well known. Often forced to live in hiding, they were hunted down and martyred like other members of the Church. We have few documents which relate their lives and deeds—only occasional glimpses, sometimes only their names; but always they are acting like men conscious of their supreme authority. The see of Rome is the only one for which we have a complete list of names of the bishops. (James A. Corbett [professor of history, University of Notre Dame], The Papacy: A Brief History, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, 1956. Pages 9-13).
5
66 ratings
Episode 17 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast answers the question, "Is the pope the head of the church? You can follow along to the outline at Christforus.org.
#theology #Catholicism #pope #papalsupremacy #Lutheran
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope is “The successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church. The pope exercises a primacy of authority as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church; he receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Papacy: “The supreme jurisdiction and ministry of the pope as shepherd of the Whole Church. As successor of St. Peter, and therefore Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, the pope is the perpetual and visible principle of unity in faith and communion in the Church.”
CCC 881 states, “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he called Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the Whole flock (Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17). ‘The office of the binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ (Lumen Gentium* 22) This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
CCC 882 states, “The Pope Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ (Lumen Gentium 23) ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’ (Lumen Gentium 22; cf. Christus Dominus** 2, 9)”
* Lumen Gentium is a document of Vatican II, November 21, 1964, which defines the nature and mission of the Catholic Church.
** Christus Dominus is the Vatican II Council “Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops,” October 28, 1965.
By James A. Corbett from The Papacy: A Brief History
The Primacy of Peter. The first and best source of our knowledge about the origin of the papacy is, of course, the New Testament. From it we learn that the first pope was Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida on the left bank of the Jordan. Until he met Christ, he was called Simon, son of Jona. It was his brother Andrew who brought Simon to Christ. At this very first meeting Christ gave Simon a new name, one full of meaning for the role he was chosen to play. He renamed him Cepha, the Aramaic word for rock. The Greek word for rock is petros, whence the English Peter. The reason for giving him a new name was only made clear on another occasion before the Crucifixion when Christ said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In these simple but momentous words Christ singles out Peter from all the others to be the head of the Church and to have supreme power over it after Christ should have left them. The appointment was confirmed on His third appearance to the disciples after the Resurrection. Then He asked Peter three times whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. To Peter’s affirmative answers Christ replied: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” Peter, then was entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of teaching and caring for the whole body of the faith. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never doubted the primacy which had been given to Peter: when naming the Apostles they always name Peter first.
Peter himself had no doubt of it. As the Apostles assembled in Jerusalem after the Ascension, it was Peter who presided at the election of Matthias to replace Judas. Ten days later when at Pentecost the Apostles received the gift of tongues, it was again Peter who explained to the astounded crowds how Christ had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him. It was Peter who, first of all the Apostles, performed a miracle by restoring a lame man to health, and who told the rulers and elders of Jerusalem by what power he had cured the cripple. It was Peter to whom the vision was given which explained that Christianity was to be for the Gentiles also, and who answered those insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised. “There was much disputing over it until Peter rose and said to them: Brethren, you know well enough how from early days it has been God’s choice that the Gentiles should hear the message of the Gospel from the lips and so learn to believe.”
After a number of years of preaching in the Near East, Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. These two historical facts are no longer seriously questioned by historians of the early Church. There is still, however, strong disagreement as to whether the supreme jurisdiction entrusted by Christ to Peter devolved upon his successors, the bishops of Rome.
The Church teaches, and it has always taught, that the primacy of Peter is held by all the successors of Peter. The popes, like Peter, are the vicars of Christ. Christ founded the Church and remains its true, though invisible, head. The popes, as successors of Peter, are the visible heads of the Church in this world and have the same powers and duties which Christ gave to Peter: to preserve intact the original deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, to teach it with authority and without error to all nations, to be the center of unity with supreme jurisdiction over the Church.
This teaching has been and remains a great stumbling block for those outside the Church. It has led historians to interpretations that differ all the way from complete acceptance to complete rejection. This does not mean that the methods of historical research are faulty, but rather that every historian has a philosophy or theology which will influence his interpretations of the documents he studies.
The Historian is limited in his search for the truth not only by the great loss and destruction of documents of other ages, but by the nature of historical knowledge, its methods and limitations. History is not the only way of knowing. The philosopher and the theologian use different methods to discover truths of a different and even higher order. Their conclusions do not contradict the truths learned by the historian; rather, they complete them and give us a richer and deeper understanding of reality.
The documents which have survived indicate an almost universal acceptance in the early Church of a belief that the Bishop of Rome actually possessed supreme authority. They indicate the continuing presence of a strong tradition in favor of the primacy of Rome.
Actually, the successors of Peter did not claim a primacy, they exercised it. Before the end of the first century, Pope Clement I, who had known Peter and Paul, intervened with gentle firmness in a schism in the church of Corinth: “If some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him through us,” Clement writes, “Let them know, that they will involve themselves in no small transgression.” Although St. John the Apostle was still living at Ephesus and there were other bishops closer to Corinth, it was the Bishop of Rome who exercised the right to settle the dispute. Corinth recognized the right of Rome to intervene by accepting the decision.
The letter of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, which he wrote to the Roman church in 107 while on his way to Rome to be martyred, indicates the special position this eastern bishop recognized Rome as possessing: “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers. I trust that what you have taught and prescribed to others may now be applied to yourselves.”
The pre-eminence of Rome is seen again in the book of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heretics, written towards the end of the second century. In this, desiring to offer a simple means of learning with security what is the true tradition of Christian belief, Irenaeus refers his reader to the tradition of the Bishop of Rome, whose succession from Peter and Paul, he says, all men know. He adds a further reason for the security of the Roman tradition: “With this church, on account of its greater authority, every church must agree.”
When the churches of Asia were in disagreement as to the proper time to celebrate Easter, about the year 190, Pope Victor did not hesitate to intervene and to excommunicate those churches that refused to follow the Roman custom. There was a great controversy and Victor’s severity was blamed. But no one questioned his right to act. Later, in 260, Pope Dionysius condemned the bishop of the great and ancient see of Alexandria in Egypt, and Alexandria accepted the decision.
In this same third century, Cyprian, the Roman lawyer who after his conversion became Bishop of Carthage, was no doubt an independent-minded bishop, yet he recognized Rome as the center of unity of faith. Although he disagreed with Pope Stephen on the question of rebaptizing converts from heresy, he saw clearly the true position of the pope in the Church.
These examples bring out the traditional teaching of the Church and show that even in the early times there was a widespread acceptance of the special, though undefined, position of the Bishop of Rome. The many visits of outstanding Christian leaders to Rome from all over the empire, and numerous letters of Popes, condemning heresy and correcting discipline, indicate the prestige that the papacy enjoyed. Its prominence was recognized, not because the popes of the early centuries had great personal merits comparable to those of Cyprian, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, but because the see of Rome, no matter who held it, was founded by Peter to whom the keys had been entrusted. To be sure, the jurisdiction of the popes was not exercised as often as in later centuries, but exercised it was, even though the Church was outlawed and its heads lived in the very city of the emperors who were determined to destroy Christianity altogether.
The history of the popes of the first three centuries is not well known. Often forced to live in hiding, they were hunted down and martyred like other members of the Church. We have few documents which relate their lives and deeds—only occasional glimpses, sometimes only their names; but always they are acting like men conscious of their supreme authority. The see of Rome is the only one for which we have a complete list of names of the bishops. (James A. Corbett [professor of history, University of Notre Dame], The Papacy: A Brief History, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, 1956. Pages 9-13).
1,834 Listeners
8,536 Listeners
274 Listeners
42 Listeners
329 Listeners
39 Listeners
169 Listeners
38 Listeners
812 Listeners
32 Listeners
99 Listeners
24 Listeners
9 Listeners
3 Listeners