Why do Catholics Have a Pope? (A Protestant explains the papacy) [Ecumenical]

Crosswalk ^ | Sarah Jennings

[NYer]

Pope: From the Greek word papas, a term of endearment meaning "papa" or "daddy."

With the recent, historic visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the U.S., many Christians may be wondering what exactly Catholics believe about the robed figure with the German accent and his line of predecessors. Why do Catholics have a Pope? Do Catholics worship him? Is his authority political, spiritual, or is he just a figurehead?

While I had a basic understanding of the Catholic papacy before his visit, I didn't fully grasp it. So, in an effort to better understand this central figure in Christendom and to help Christians more effectively dialogue, I dove into some heady reading materials from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources. Hopefully, my explanation here will offer some clarity on what Catholics really believe.

First, a summary: For Catholics, the Pope is more than a ceremonial leader. The Pope is considered the spiritual successor to the Apostle Peter. As successor to the "Chair of Peter," he is the Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church, God's steward ordained to authoritatively teach, unify, and protect God's people, keeping them free from error and deception (CCC 882, 890).

Of his many official titles, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church made up of the college of Bishops). He holds the final word on matters of faith and morals (known as "papal infallibility"). In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (937): The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls' (CD 2)."

There's a lot of strong wording here, but before we dive into some of the details, it's important to clarify that Catholics, in fact, do not worship the Pope or see him as a replacement of Christ or the Heavenly Father. From the Catholic perspective, the office of the papacy affirms Christ's Kingship and the Church's confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide believers. So, to fully understand the relationship Catholics have with the man they call both "Papa" and "Supreme Pontiff," let's look at a source all Christians have in common: Scripture.

Matthew 16: 13-19

While Catholic doctrine pulls from many Scriptures when defining Church authority, Matthew 16:13-19 is one of the most important. Indeed, Catholic teachings point to Matthew 16: 18 as the moment when Christ officially instituted Peter as the first Pope, so it's worth spending the bulk of our time here.

The scene opens with Jesus and the Twelve in the region of Caesarea Philippi – an area where ancient pagan worship of the Greek god Pan – the god of Spring and shepherds – once flourished (Ray 1999, 32-33). It was a dramatic place located on the side of a mountain with a sheer rock wall overshadowing the town with Pan's namesake, Paneas. Adding to the already stunning landscape, a temple to the Roman Caesar Augustus stood at the wall's highest point. The scene is ripe with symbolism for Catholics. Catholic apologist Stephen Ray points out, "By choosing this location for the appointment, Jesus clearly shows that he is setting up his divine kingdom in opposition to the worldly kingdom of the Roman Caesars, who claimed divinity for themselves" (1999, 32).

When Jesus came to the region of Ceasarea Philippi, he asked his disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?' he asked. "Who do you say I am?'

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The Catholic Church sees three important points here:

1. The Primacy of Simon Bar-Jonah above the other apostles demonstrated through his divinely-inspired response to Jesus.
2. The establishment of Simon Bar-Jonah, renamed "Peter," as the Rock from which Christ expressed intention to build His Church.
3. The handing over of the keys to the kingdom with the authority to "loose" and "bind."

Simon's divinely-inspired response. While our ears may have become numb to these passages over the centuries, this moment was, no doubt, as dramatic as the surrounding landscape – one on which Protestants and Catholics alike hinge their faith. Jesus' earthly ministry had made waves among the Jews and Gentiles. The apostles here recount how, in awe of Jesus' teaching and miracles, many surmised he must be an Old Testament prophet come back from the dead. But the truth about Jesus' identity was even more astonishing than the rumors, so amazing that even His closest followers had yet to make the connection. When Jesus turns to His chosen twelve to identify Him, Simon Bar-Jonah ("son of Jonah") speaks first among all – a pattern of leadership the Catholic Church teaches can be found throughout the New Testament (CCC 880). In this defining moment, Simon asserts Jesus is not merely a prophet but the Messiah, God Incarnate. The Apostle's astounding profession of faith – directly inspired by the Heavenly Father – leads into Christ's words that for Catholics have had tangible implications to this very day.

The renaming of Simon. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

When a person in the Bible is renamed, it is a sign of God's intention to work in a special way through that individual. Abram became the father of nations after being renamed "Abraham," and Sarai the mother after being renamed "Sarah." Other pivotal renamings in Biblical history include Jacob becoming "Israel" and Saul becoming "Paul."

In regards to Catholic doctrine, the implication of Simon's new name is easiest to understand when going back to Jesus' native language, Aramaic -- the language scholars believe the original words were spoken (Ray 1999, 34). Unlike modern English and New Testament Greek, the Aramaic word for "Peter" and the word "rock" are identical: Kepha. So this verse, when spoken, would have sounded something like this:

And I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha), and on this rock (kepha) I will build my church…

Catholic doctrine asserts that linguistically, Christ links the person and position of Peter – not Himself or a general profession of faith – to the founding of His Church here (CCC 881). While both Christ and the Apostles are referred to as "rocks" (kepha) and "small stones" (Greek, petros) in other areas of Scripture, Catholic teaching points to Peter as the only person in the Bible given the proper name "Kepha," later spelled "Cephas"(Ray 1999, 35).

While some Christians might see the assertion that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church as an affront to Christ's Headship and status as the true Rock, Catholics take a different view. To better understand why, let's move to the next Scripture, involving the keys to the kingdom.

The keys to the kingdom

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If you've ever seen the official Papal seal, you'll notice a set of golden keys included in it. Catholic teaching puts this verse in context with Isaiah 22: 22, where God tells Isaiah to go to King Hezekiah's steward, Shebna, and inform him of God's intention to replace him with Eliakim. In regards to the new steward, Eliakim, God says: I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

In Old Testament times, the steward of the palace was the king's right-hand man, the second-in-command. When the king was away, the royal steward was keeper of the keys to the kingdom, ruling in the king's stead. While he looked after the affairs of the kingdom as the king instructed, he never replaced the king but awaited his return. When the present steward died (or in this case, when the Almighty intervened), the office was filled by another.

The office of the Papacy works in the same manner. Catholics believe Christ, to ensure the unity and health of His flock, gave Peter governing authority over His Church by handing over the keys to His Kingdom. Like the ancient "key keepers," Catholics do not believe the Pope is the new king but instead a steward awaiting the King's return. Even the Pope's title "Father" imitates the role and title of the steward of Judah, also called "father." Until Christ's second coming, the keys will be passed on to each successor to the Papal office (Ray 1999, 29-40; CCC 857-860).

Now, what do the terms "binding" and "loosing" refer to? These words sounded strange to my modern ears, so I looked for some historical context. Apparently, the terms were common in Rabbinic canon-law, representing the legislative and judicial powers held by a Rabbi (Ray 1999, 40). In this context, Catholics view Peter's key-keeping status as one that makes him "Supreme Pastor," with final authority over what is permitted and what is denied in matters of doctrine and spiritual discipline.

How does Papal Infallibility work?

The issue of religious authority brings up an often misunderstood doctrine of Catholic teaching: Papal infallibility. We see that Catholics believe the Pope has great authority in matters of the faith, but this doesn't mean that Catholics believe every word the Pope says comes straight from the Heavenly Father like Peter's first pronouncement.

Papal infallibility refers to the belief that while all Christians have personal access to the Holy Spirit in prayer, Christ promised a unique protection over the Apostles’ teachings, ensuring they would preach without error (John 16: 12-15). In order for a papal teaching to be considered free of error or "infallible," the Pope must a) be speaking on a matter of faith and morals (not on his recent vacation plans) and b) make it clear he is speaking from the "Chair of Peter" and that what he is about to say is binding. Back to the concept of guardianship, the Catholic Church teaches that infallible statements are for affirming what has always been true and is not a method of creating new beliefs. (CCC 86, 888-891) Official statements of infallibility are rare today – the last one was made in 1950, long before Pope Benedict XVI.

An important clarification: Papal Infallibility refers to doctrine being protected from error, not the man holding the Papal office being free of imperfection or sin. Catholics point to Peter's sinfulness as an example of failings in a Pope, and John Paul II was known to confess his sins weekly.

Servant of the Servants of God

One last "key" element of Catholic teaching on the Papacy is worth mentioning. As is typical with the Christian faith, a great paradox exists that endears Catholics further to their "Papa." Three times after Christ's resurrection, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, and in response to each of Peter's professions of love, Jesus instructed him to feed and care for His sheep (John 21: 15-17). Catholics believe that in imitation of Christ, Peter's successor is a shepherd called to embrace the biblical model of servant-leadership, earning him the official title "Servant of the Servants of God." The sacrifices made of Pontiffs are often so great, that it is not uncommon for Popes, including the current Pope, to accept their appointment out of a sense of obedience instead of personal desire. So the office, while powerful, is meant to be authoritative in nature, not authoritarian like a dictatorship.

[CTrent1564]

First off, let me state that the author of this paper/piece did an outstanding job in presenting the case for why the Catholic Church has a Pope/Bishop of Rome.

Also, it is true that “Humanae Vitae” in of itself may not be an infallible document, thus it would not be raised to the level of a teaching from the “Sacred Magesterium” or what Cardinal Avery Dulles has referred to as Level 1 teachings which require “full assent of the will, heart and intellect” These teachings would of course be the ones in the Creed and moral teachings expounded in the 10 commandments.

On the other hand, I think “Humanae Vitae” would be teaching to be held, and would fall under the “Ordinary Magesterium”, so while the document itself my not have been stated “ex cathedra”, I think the teaching is related to a Divine Truth, which is the meaning of marriage and human sexuality. I would encourage everyone to go back and read the document, remember it was published in 1968, and look at how prophetic the document has become. In essence, once you distort the meaning of sexuality which is to be ordered to the good of a man/woman for unitive and procreative purposes, then sex becomes something as an end for itself and thus marriage, or the meaning of marriage becomes what society at the time thinks it is. Hmmmm, recent California court case anybody. Anyway, if anyone wants to read Humanae Vitae, here it is. I have also linked Pope John Paul II’s Evangelisum Vitae

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

[Tax-chick]

Good afternoon! (I not sure that was actually appropriate to an ecumenical thread :-).

[annalex]

While both Christ and the Apostles are referred to as "rocks" (kepha) and "small stones" (Greek, petros) in other areas of Scripture

Eh, that's inaccurate, at least if the author has 1 Peter 2:5 in mind. The word there is "lithoi", not "petres".

In fact, "petros" is simply the word for rock "petra" in masculine form. The connotation that "petros" is SMALL rock does not exist in Koine Greek -- all the examples of that are from the classic period. Liddell, Scott

[andysandmikesmom]

With these new categories of religious threads, I am not sure either....but your remark put a smile on my face...

The RM has very clearly and adequately explained the different rules for the various threads, and done really an excellent job...I guess it must be a real nightmare to moderate these threads...

In any case, I suppose it will just be a matter of feeling our way around these threads...

I posted a couple of responses on another thread, earlier today, and I am not sure there either, if what I posted was acceptable on that thread or not...time will tell...

I guess we will get used to this in time...

And Religion Moderator, I dont envy your job, but thanks for being so patient with everyone...

[Tax-chick]

I think this rule: Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended. makes Post 33 inappropriate to the thread. However, my response was simply a snark, which isn't mentioned in the rules ...

[RabidBartender]

It feels weird (and somewhat refreshing) to read a Catholic debate thread without seeing the same old nasty insults against the Church by the usual suspects. Thank you for the new Ecumenical category.

And NYer, thank you for your years of posting these educational articles.

[A.A. Cunningham]

[Religion Moderator]

I shall keep my comments for another time and place with people who believe that intellectually disagreeing with supporting reasoning, is not a personal affront.

The "open" threads on the Religion Forum may be your "cup of tea:"

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.

Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

[Religion Moderator]

Thank you!

[zerosix]

I only posted as I did to answer the "Catholic bashing" statement.

I believe that one can and should strongly question, disagree and discuss points on religion (especially for me as I am getting a degree in Biblical Christianity) but many take offense when none is intended (in my opinion only) because they lack actual facts to back up their beliefs.

That having been said, I'm delighted with a lively debate --- and have been accused in having an armadillo hide, where almost all areas are concerned.

That's how we actually learn things - get expert in backing up our principles, beliefs with FACTS not merely long held traditions (many handed down by generations in our families, or even teachers' opinions.)

[loboinok]

1 Peter 3:15 Bump

[NYer]

And NYer, thank you for your years of posting these educational articles.

You are most welcome! Thank you for the acknowledgement. It is truly humbling.

[Mad Dawg]

Again, unfortunately, for many of that faith, intellectual disagreement is not permitted but taken as a verbal assault.

Equally unfortunately, indeed, possibly MORE unfortunately, many of other faiths, many of many faiths, don't seem to know how to articulate an objection to a line of thought without making it a slur, either against a person or against his faith community.

Further, many CLAIM (and indeed may think their claim is true) to be attacking a Catholic belief, when they are in fact attacking something Catholics do not in fact believe.

And it gets fuzzier when, say, a Protestant says we "worship" Mary and we, or most of us, sincerely think we do NOT pay her divine honors or respect. In other words, from our POV they attack what they think is something we do or believe and when we deny it, they, in effect, say, "Oh Yes you do," or accuse us of using elastic dictionaries or or , saints defend us, "parsing", as though paying attention to the meanings of one's words were a bad thing.

And once the atmosphere is poisoned with this kind of thing (and there's plenty for both sides to be ashamed of) an argument which might be entirely legitimate, is perceived in the context and the heat of battle to be a slur.

It doesn't cost extra to be polite. As soon as I figure out how, I'll share the knowledge.

[Tax-chick]

It doesn't cost extra to be polite. As soon as I figure out how, I'll share the knowledge.

FReepmail me if you want Nuclear Niceness lessons. I'll charge you the same thing my insurance company charges for my 17-year-old to drive :-).

[Rome2000]

Catholics and the Popes were around for 1500 years before the reformation and will be around when many of the sects spawned by it are long gone.

Wonder what Luther would think of Jim Bakker and the Rev Wright.

[Mad Dawg]

I'll charge you the same thing my insurance company charges for my 17-year-old to drive :-).

Nah. I'll stay rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. It's cheaper.

[tiki]

I shall keep my comments for another time and place with people who believe that intellectually disagreeing with supporting reasoning, is not a personal affront.

JMHO, rather than tell Catholics how wrong they are, take it to God, pray that they will see the error of their ways. He’s the one with the power.

There have been many arguments against Catholicism on FR, believe me, many, many, all it does is strengthen the faith of Catholics because they have to know and defend their faith.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, that's what I believe as well.

In the meantime, though, we have to consider that every Protestant who has a legitimate beef against us, or even just a plausible beef, is a kind of rebuke to us — a divine rebuke.

It's hard confronting one's own sinfulness, and it bugs me that I am not such a beacon of Love that I do not draw more people to what I have experienced as real, well, happiness I suppose is the word, as a Catholic.

I think we fail in our mission, and thinking that I begin to understand the penitential practices of our forebears in the Faith.

[tiki]

That would be highway robbery! I, for one, will have to pass on the classes.

[Tax-chick]

Oh, well. I guess I’ll have to see about a night shift at Wal-mart, instead!