The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church

This question is for Roman Catholics: where did the Roman Catholic Church get its authority from? Did it get it from saint Peter, saint Paul, the Bible or the Popes?

The Catholic church gets its authority by apostolic succession. However it could be claimed that virtually every Church can claim succession from the apostles through a long line of continuous ordination. Though the Catholics claim theirs is the only authentic one.

This ability to hand authority onward through the popes is some what doubtful, as at times there were more than one pope and at others, some popes were entirely corrupt.

Many churches claim to have succession through the Episcopate such as the Church of England and the Episcopal church in America. This links succession through Bishop to Bishop.
Though in earlier times all Priest were Bishops and what we call priests to day were their assistant clerics. This became necessary when Bishops could no longer cover all the communities they were responsible for. The lesser role of Priest was founded who lacked the Episcopal Authority, and only had the "delegated" authority of their Bishop.

I would maintain that All authority is in God alone. And that the Churches only have such authority as their congregations give them for their necessary organisation.

Unlike Terry, I don't think the evidence works in favor of most churches. Any honest researcher would keep the discussion among what is known as the High Churches [Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Orential Orthodox, Anglican, and some African].

However, he is right in noting it comes from apostolic succession. And by apostolic succession I mean it went from the Apostles themseleves to what is now known as Bishops. I need only bring Eusebius [260 AD] to the stand to show this connection:

All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .
(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)

Here is a website that has a list of Bishops and who they succeeded:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/

Here is some scriptural reference to it:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/9163-apostolic-succession.html

You won't settle this or get clarity on it in one sitting. So we'll go from there.

Quiddity said:

Unlike Terry, I don't think the evidence works in favor of most churches. Any honest researcher would keep the discussion among what is known as the High Churches [Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Orential Orthodox, Anglican, and some African].

However, he is right in noting it comes from apostolic succession. And by apostolic succession I mean it went from the Apostles themseleves to what is now known as Bishops. I need only bring Eusebius [260 AD] to the stand to show this connection:

All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .
(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)

Here is a website that has a list of Bishops and who they succeeded:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7gdmc/aposccs/

Here is some scriptural reference to it:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/9163-apostolic-succession.html

You won't settle this or get clarity on it in one sitting. So we'll go from there.

Click to expand...

The list of bishops you give is at best work in progress and open to further revision, as the end lines lack documentation.

However I willing to believe that that they were all properly consecrated, as were the many break away bishops and their lines that formed other churches.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The list of bishops you give is at best work in progress and open to further revision, as the end lines lack documentation.

However I willing to believe that that they were all properly consecrated, as were the many break away bishops and their lines that formed other churches.

Click to expand...

Hence why I noted that the discussion is widely believed to remain within the high churches. But really, much of early church letters shed plenty of light on what church was around back then.

Quiddity said:

Hence why I noted that the discussion is widely believed to remain within the high churches. But really, much of early church letters shed plenty of light on what church was around back then.

Click to expand...

Many churches were also excluded, not for their lineage but for their beliefs.
The Roman Church is the end line of one particular group.
The Celtic Churches linked from the Coptic line. There are other surviving lines like the Ethiopian Christians. these all were established during the lives of the apostles.
Unlike the orthodox these were never linked to the Church of Rome.

The Celtic Church did not link, till the Synod of whitby in 664, when St. Hilda joined her Celtic Church to that of Rome.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Many churches were also excluded, not for their lineage but for their beliefs.
The Roman Church is the end line of one particular group.
The Celtic Churches linked from the Coptic line. There are other surviving lines like the Ethiopian Christians. these all were established during the lives of the apostles.
Unlike the orthodox these were never linked to the Church of Rome.

The Celtic Church did not link, till the Synod of whitby in 664, when St. Hilda joined her Celtic Church to that of Rome.

Click to expand...

They can all eventually make a link to Rome in some way or another. The entire continent of Africa has it's origin from St. Mark and the Alexandrian See. Were there some breaks in the links? Sure, but it's few and far between and it's definately not the protestant churches of today.

Quiddity said:

They can all eventually make a link to Rome in some way or another. The entire continent of Africa has it's origin from St. Mark and the Alexandrian See. Were there some breaks in the links? Sure, but it's few and far between and it's definately not the protestant churches of today.

Click to expand...

You have that the wrong way round ... They may well link to Mark but not through Rome
They were churches before Rome accepted Christianity.

Most Protestant Churches can link to Rome through later splits. Not that most of them care one way or another.
Some that split from The Anglicans are linking back, it looks like the Methodists are likely to accept Bishops. And there are ever closer links with Lutherans and the Finnish church.

Terrywoodenpic said:

You have that the wrong way round ... They may well link to Mark but not through Rome
They were churches before Rome accepted Christianity.

Most Protestant Churches can link to Rome through later splits. Not that most of them care one way or another.
Some that split from The Anglicans are linking back, it looks like the Methodists are likely to accept Bishops. And there are ever closer links with Lutherans and the Finnish church.

Click to expand...

Chronologically speaking, yes you are correct. However, the See of Peter was established nonetheless. Mark (bishop of Africa), along with all the Apostles had a infant understanding that they must gather and if need be, Peter would speak on the matter. You see a glimpse of this in the book of Acts. In this way, it was connected to Rome as the See follows Peter first, rather then Rome.

Even some of your Anglican brothers have come to have a papal supremacy lite: The following is written by Jon Jacobson (Anglican):

I think a more [SIZE=-1]collegial exercise of papal primacy, in which the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Bishop of Rome's consent is necessary, but not[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]sufficient, for the adoption of binding doctrinal[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]formulations or new ecumenical canons, is a more[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]promising model for Christian unity than the Second[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Millennium model operating at the Vatican. The reason[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]this wouldn't collapse into the sort of theological[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and moral anarchy we see in Anglicanism is that it[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]would be accompanied by an affirmation of the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]infallibility and irreformability of the Patristic[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]consensus and the Ecumenical Councils that have been[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]received by both the Pope (as Patriarch of the West)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and all or nearly all Eastern Patriarchs.[/SIZE]

[source is from this very forum].

Quiddity said:

Chronologically speaking, yes you are correct. However, the See of Peter was established nonetheless. Mark (bishop of Africa), along with all the Apostles had a infant understanding that they must gather and if need be, Peter would speak on the matter. You see a glimpse of this in the book of Acts. In this way, it was connected to Rome as the See follows Peter first, rather then Rome.

Even some of your Anglican brothers have come to have a papal supremacy lite: The following is written by Jon Jacobson (Anglican):

I think a more [SIZE=-1]collegial exercise of papal primacy, in which the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Bishop of Rome's consent is necessary, but not[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]sufficient, for the adoption of binding doctrinal[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]formulations or new ecumenical canons, is a more[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]promising model for Christian unity than the Second[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Millennium model operating at the Vatican. The reason[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]this wouldn't collapse into the sort of theological[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and moral anarchy we see in Anglicanism is that it[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]would be accompanied by an affirmation of the[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]infallibility and irreformability of the Patristic[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]consensus and the Ecumenical Councils that have been[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]received by both the Pope (as Patriarch of the West)[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]and all or nearly all Eastern Patriarchs.[/SIZE]

[source is from this very forum].

Click to expand...

The High Anglican Anglo Catholic Viewpoint is even more rigid than that of Rome. And is slowly tearing itself away from the rest of the communion.
The "Problem" is the very "affirmation of the [SIZE=-1]infallibility and irreformability" of the Roman Church through the process of the "Deposit of Faith".[/SIZE]
The Anglican Church through its Synods is bottom up and fully democratic... Albeit things move very slowly, as All the houses in the synod have to agree. But move they do...and new understandings take their place alongside tradition in the church.

We do not have the equivalent to the Deposit of Faith as we recognise the importance of the possibility of change.

This is not "theological [SIZE=-1]and moral anarchy" as all change must be supported by Theology and due process.[/SIZE] It might be thought anarchic by those holding a losing ticket.

We have two groups becoming somewhat marginalised by the issue of Women Bishops which is now supported by a large majority of the Church of England. They are the small Group of Anglo Catholics who have theological grounds for their opposition (other Anglo Catholics are more attracted by the form of worship rather than theology and are less dogmatic.)
The second group are the Evangelicals, who are far removed from the Theology and ritual of the "Anglos", as they tend to be Bible literalists and take a more Pauline view of women leaders and teachers.

The Pope is not the stumbling block to union. Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is first amongst equals, primate, in th Anglican communion. the Church would accept the Pope as the first amongst equals among the Primates.

As Catholics, we proclaim that the Church is One,Holy, Universal and Apostolic.
We say it's apostolic, which means that it is built in foundation of the twelve apostles of Jesus who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops. Like the apostles, the Church is called to continue to proclaim the fullness of faith to all men (see Catechism of the Catholic Church no 863).

Biblical basis for that are:

Eph 2:20- Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.

John 20:21- Jesus said to them (the apostles), "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me so I sent you."

Matthew 16:20- And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.

The name "Catholic" (derived from the words kata holos which means through out the whole world or universal) also has biblical roots.
Acts 9:31...

ho men oun ekklesia kata holos ho ioudaia, kai galilaia, kai samareia echo eirene oikodomeo kai poreuomai ho phobos ho kurios kai ho paraklesis ho hagios pneuma plethuno


Having that said, the Church got its authority from the apostolic succession, the bible and also, the Sacred Tradition (Mt15:3 and Mk 7:9).

Terrywoodenpic said:

The High Anglican Anglo Catholic Viewpoint is even more rigid than that of Rome. And is slowly tearing itself away from the rest of the communion.
The "Problem" is the very "affirmation of the [SIZE=-1]infallibility and irreformability" of the Roman Church through the process of the "Deposit of Faith".[/SIZE]
The Anglican Church through its Synods is bottom up and fully democratic... Albeit things move very slowly, as All the houses in the synod have to agree. But move they do...and new understandings take their place alongside tradition in the church.

We do not have the equivalent to the Deposit of Faith as we recognise the importance of the possibility of change.

This is not "theological [SIZE=-1]and moral anarchy" as all change must be supported by Theology and due process.[/SIZE] It might be thought anarchic by those holding a losing ticket.

We have two groups becoming somewhat marginalised by the issue of Women Bishops which is now supported by a large majority of the Church of England. They are the small Group of Anglo Catholics who have theological grounds for their opposition (other Anglo Catholics are more attracted by the form of worship rather than theology and are less dogmatic.)
The second group are the Evangelicals, who are far removed from the Theology and ritual of the "Anglos", as they tend to be Bible literalists and take a more Pauline view of women leaders and teachers.

The Pope is not the stumbling block to union. Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is first amongst equals, primate, in th Anglican communion. the Church would accept the Pope as the first amongst equals among the Primates.

Click to expand...

There is much to agree on in what you said but it all depends on what is meant by change......This due process is not without legs or going blind as there are plenty of resources to lead one in the right direction. Women clergy is without a doubt overwhelmingly rejected by the vastness of Christendom. They simply have little to stand on other then progressive thoughts and their bible interpretation, so far as that goes.

There is no easy way to say this but, it's a mess in the Anglican Church right now (has been for sometime now); both in Europe and in their episcopilian cousins in the Americas. As you may be aware, Rome has created a whole new Anglican rite just for all the clergy and thousands of it's members that are flocking to Rome; It's sad to see.

We can agree with a process, but the change and whether it's a contradiction of what was handed down is simply a point of clarification I'd venture to see. Not all change is acceptable. I'm sure you can appreciate that to some degree?

Quiddity said:

There is much to agree on in what you said but it all depends on what is meant by change......This due process is not without legs or going blind as there are plenty of resources to lead one in the right direction. Women clergy is without a doubt overwhelmingly rejected by the vastness of Christendom. They simply have little to stand on other then progressive thoughts and their bible interpretation, so far as that goes.

There is no easy way to say this but, it's a mess in the Anglican Church right now (has been for sometime now); both in Europe and in their episcopilian cousins in the Americas. As you may be aware, Rome has created a whole new Anglican rite just for all the clergy and thousands of it's members that are flocking to Rome; It's sad to see.

We can agree with a process, but the change and whether it's a contradiction of what was handed down is simply a point of clarification I'd venture to see. Not all change is acceptable. I'm sure you can appreciate that to some degree?

Click to expand...

In the UK the vast majority of all Churches accept women priests... it is illogical to have women priests but not women Bishops.

My first contact with a woman priest was in Germany in a Lutheran Church in the early 1950's The Anglicans revived the ordination of Deaconesses much later. over one third of all priest are now women. this is true in Lutheran Calvinism and methodism. which with the Catholics, as the odd ones out, are the main European churches.

Women priests, in the wider church, have now reached a point that is irreversible, and is increasing year on year. in some seminaries Women are now in the majority, and will be expected to be so for ordained priests in the next few years. they now hold posts of all ranks except Bishop (in the UK)

Very few British Anglican priest have taken advantage of the Popes offer, and I know of no British congregation that has done so.

Certainly the fall in numbers of Catholics coming forward for ordination has not been even slightly balanced by ex-Anglican priests, most of which are now nearing retirement.

Terrywoodenpic said:

In the UK the vast majority of all Churches accept women priests... it is illogical to have women priests but not women Bishops.

My first contact with a woman priest was in Germany in a Lutheran Church in the early 1950's The Anglicans revived the ordination of Deaconesses much later. over one third of all priest are now women. this is true in Lutheran Calvinism and methodism. which with the Catholics, as the odd ones out, are the main European churches.

Women priests, in the wider church, have now reached a point that is irreversible, and is increasing year on year. in some seminaries Women are now in the majority, and will be expected to be so for ordained priests in the next few years. they now hold posts of all ranks except Bishop (in the UK)

Very few British Anglican priest have taken advantage of the Popes offer, and I know of no British congregation that has done so.

Certainly the fall in numbers of Catholics coming forward for ordination has not been even slightly balanced by ex-Anglican priests, most of which are now nearing retirement.

Click to expand...

Women in clergy, at any level will never be accepted in the RC. It's not like it's never been tried. There are small groups that have split off because of this issue but it's such a small percent as to even be noticable in the RC.

The fall in numbers of catholics entering seminary has dropped quite a bit in most western countries, but it's growing tremendously in Asian and African countries. Not to mention the rise of protestant converts that are allowed to become priest as well. Then you have the Anglican priests and Bishops that have come over. However, I have no idea if that suffices to fit the needs. We have 4 active priests in our parish alone and it's pretty standard to have 3-4 priests (most in their 40's) per parish so I suppose the numbers haven't completely hit home in some areas.

I'm sure the numbers leaving are small in comparison to how many are staying but I don't know if it's just not hit home to Canterbury because I've been reading news articles for more then a year now of Anglicans in large numbers jumping ship. Maybe it's all the conservatives, but I can't imagine that being less then 10% or so? That's no small number either way.

Quiddity said:

Women in clergy, at any level will never be accepted in the RC. It's not like it's never been tried. There are small groups that have split off because of this issue but it's such a small percent as to even be noticable in the RC.

The fall in numbers of catholics entering seminary has dropped quite a bit in most western countries, but it's growing tremendously in Asian and African countries. Not to mention the rise of protestant converts that are allowed to become priest as well. Then you have the Anglican priests and Bishops that have come over. However, I have no idea if that suffices to fit the needs. We have 4 active priests in our parish alone and it's pretty standard to have 3-4 priests (most in their 40's) per parish so I suppose the numbers haven't completely hit home in some areas.

I'm sure the numbers leaving are small in comparison to how many are staying but I don't know if it's just not hit home to Canterbury because I've been reading news articles for more then a year now of Anglicans in large numbers jumping ship. Maybe it's all the conservatives, but I can't imagine that being less then 10% or so? That's no small number either way.

Click to expand...

Probably the situation in the USA is quite different to the UK.
Here all the Anglican Churches belong to the Church, so while members could move to an existing Catholic church, if they wished, it would not be under the new scheme. A very few Priests have moved over but no Bishops, but the problem then is housing for their families and living costs and future pensions. It is very difficult for them.

To have four priest in a parish, Anglican or Roman, would be out of the question here. Most priests look after more than one parish. or work as a group of parishes.

News papers here make much of the idea that Priest will jump ship in their droves. However the reality is that it is very rare. Even though it would make life easier if some of the more vocal ones did.

Africa certainly has the largest and fastest growing Anglican Community. Though they are neither fish nor foul. they will very likely leave the communion at some stage, but they are equally unlikely to Join the Roman church. They tend to be modern evangelicals with a strong traditional Anglican twist.

**Peeks head in**

Sounds like Victor... smells like Victor.... hmmmm.

Sorry, cool thread! Love your input Terry, very informative.

I am posting this here and as a new thread.........

Some might wonder why The Arch Bishop of Canterbury is standing down later this year. Though for many here in the UK it is not a surprise at all.
He was a reluctant candidate, who has had to lead the Anglican Communion during what might be called the “Sexual Revolution”


At the start of his term , he faced the bedding down of women priests into the fabric of the Church of England, and the ramifications this had both internally and in the wider communion, especially in Africa.


Secondly the ongoing issues of gay clergy, the blessing of gay partnerships, and not least the appointment of a gay bishop in the USA.
All Churches, Protestant and Catholic have always had to deal with the issue of gay members and gay clergy. Gays represent a significant presence in all congregations and must be catered for in one way or another. Over the past few years this has become a priority issue both legally and spiritually. Gay ordination is now an issue that is unlikely to go away.


The issue of women Bishops is now entering its final stage in the Church of England Synods.
Last month virtually an entire week was spent debating the issue.
Three motions were before the Synod … the main motion was called the Manchester motion supported by the Arch Bishops and presented by a lady Arch deacon. Its intent was to add a male Bishop to any dioceses led by a female Bishop, to care for the needs of dissenters. With Powers given to the House of Bishops to come up with a revised resolution ( amending a standing motion for the next synod), for a final vote later in the summer.


Two amendment motions were taken that would reduce the House of bishops authority to only making minor non fundamental changes to the standing motion. ( this had the effect of removing the option of the secondary male Bishop)


The votes were taken and all houses supported the amendments by a wide margin and the Manchester motion was passed as amended also by all houses but somewhat narrowly.


The next day the papers reported the Manchester motion had been passed. Which was true. But failed to mention it was completely emasculated. The Arch Bishops have now failed to get their hoped for motions passed in two consecutive Synods.


I watched a majority of this debate, covered in full by the BBC. The argument for women Bishops hinged on not creating second class Bishops. As the Authority of all Bishops is fundamental to their see. There is no precedent to having that Authority shared or reduced.
The argument to counter this, was based on what would then happen to priests and congregations that would not serve under them. These argument were very poorly given and poorly received.


The final vote on Women Bishops will take place later this summer. The outcome and its world and domestic ramifications will fall to the next Arch Bishop to sort out.


If the next synod fails to get the necessary majority , it will be several years before it would be presented again.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The outcome and its world and domestic ramifications will fall to the next Arch Bishop to sort out.

Click to expand...

:help:

Would hate to be that guy! WOW... gonna be a tough time for that person.

Prayers to your church!

Scott1 said:

:help:

Would hate to be that guy! WOW... gonna be a tough time for that person.

Prayers to your church!

Click to expand...

Yes he was passed a hot potato....
now it is singed he is passing it on.

The Church will be fine ...simplified ....but fine
The church is only important to itself ... the souls will be served anyway.

How Old Is Your Church?
If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.