By What Authority?

Intro

Welcome back for another “Monday With Answers!” I realize I didn’t have a post last week. I hope you don’t mind that I may miss a “Monday With Answers” post here or there, especially now that I am starting classes again. For the time being, classes will take priority… they help keep food on the table.

To make up for a break last week, I wanted to take up a question that would cover roughly two Monday’s worth of material (or, maybe three or four). SO… buckle your seatbelts and hold on for a ride. Or, grab a cup of coffee and settle into a comfy couch; this one may take a read or two.

By What Authority?

You may want to review the last couple of questions, because this is another one that will build off of the last. If you remember from last week, I asked the following question: “By what authority?”
The context of this question is by what authority was your church established? More specifically, this question was directed at what authority Luther had to establish his own separate – and in his eyes, “restored” – church? For now, I will turn the question around and direct it toward myself: By what authority was the Catholic Church established, and by what authority does it have to continue to teach today?

The first part of the explanation is a historical account that is recorded by reliable sources, which do not solely rely on revered writings of a Christian: A man named Jesus was born of Mary two millennia ago. This man was a Jewish rabbi, and had a following that potentially threatened both the Roman power in the region and the Jewish hierarchy.

While Jesus said many things that cause some people of today to simply claim that he was a good teacher – things like “love your enemy,” and “blessed are the poor of spirit,” etc. – he also said things that upset a lot of the Rabbis of his time. One claim that Jesus made in particular was: “Amen, amen, I say to you before Abraham was, I AM!”

There are two things in this claim that is peculiar: 1) Jesus was about 30 years old when he said this, and Abraham DIED over 50 years before then; and 2) the phrase “I AM” that Jesus used was two fold in meaning, it is a meaning of existence (in this case, a claim that Jesus was/is alive even before Abraham was), and – more importantly – it was a word that was only used in reference to God. That word was the Jewish name for God, and was only allowed to be said by the high-priest only at certain times of the year. In this one phrase, Jesus – a man of 30 – claimed that he was alive before a man who died 50 years prior, claimed that he was THE high priest, and claimed that he was God.

To the Jews that heard this, they knew exactly what Jesus claimed, and to them, he just committed the worst crime which was punishable by death: blasphemy. To anybody that hears this today, a rational person would conclude that he is clinically insane and most likely dangerous. The most insane thing he said (multiple times: Mat 17:23, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:34, Luk 9:22, Luk 18:33, Luk 24:7, Luk 24:46) was that he will be killed, and he will raise himself to life again three days later.

Then, the unthinkable happened: even secular historical accounts teach that this man, named Jesus, was turned over by the Jewish high-council to Roman authorities to be killed for claiming himself to be God and the King of the Jews. After a trial under the rule of Pontius Pilot, he was crucified, and came back to life three days later.

Given that it is not natural – and nearly unbelievable if there were no “third-party” witnesses – that a person will become fully alive again after a violent death, I must conclude that God definitely had a hand in this. If God had a hand in this, and this has only happened once in history, it is not illogical to assume that this man – Jesus – had at the very least found favor with God, and that what he taught is worthy to learn. He taught that he was God incarnate, and he taught with the full authority of God’s spoken word: The Divine Logos.

So, according to Jesus’ teachings, what should his followers consider authoritative, especially in regards to his church?

If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. – Matthew 18:15-20 (DRB)

We see from this that there is value and some measure of authority on the personal level when guided by the Holy Spirit. However, when there is conflict or a disagreement that still remains, even with a group of witnesses, the final arbiter in the dispute is the Church. When someone refuses to assent to the authority of Christ’s church, Jesus says to let him be as a heathen and publican because the Church’s authority is Jesus’ own through His “Father who is in heaven.”

We will explore a little more on this passage a little later, but first:

The Church

While St Paul’s writings explains thoroughly the concept that we all make up Christ’s Church as a “Mystical Body,” is there a select group – or leaders – within this church conferred with specific authority to teach? If so, who are they?

The first layer is simple enough to learn from scripture, but in this case scripture is still being handled as merely historical references at the moment. I am simply recognizing the reality that to many non-Catholics outside historical references would not be held in high as a regard as Sacred Scripture: it is a common ground we can both work with at the moment to illustrate some major concepts. This first layer is that Jesus had his closest disciples that answered His call from the beginning and followed Him through his Passion, Death and Resurrection. These twelve Apostles are named throughout scripture, but there is one account in particular that I want to present because it illustrates initial answers to the above questions:

And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities. And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give.

…

And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

…

And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it. He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. – Matthew 10: 1-8; 13-15; 38-40 (DRB)

In this passage Jesus commissioned the twelve Apostles, and freely gave them some impressive powers. Among these powers given to them was the authority to proclaim Jesus’ message. To teach what Jesus wanted the world to know. Those houses that accepted what the Apostles offered knew peace, and those houses that rejected what they offered are passed a serious judgment by Christ. Why? Because those that heard the Apostles, heard Jesus’ words. Those who received the Apostles, received Christ. Those who received Christ, received God the Father who sent his only begotten Son. These were not “powers” that the Apostles had on their own accord, these powers were conferred on them by the authority of Christ.

A formal illustration of this conferring of power and authority can be seen in the following passage:

Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will 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 whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. – Matthew 16:15-19 (DRB)

Here, Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter. Name changes do not happen often in Scripture, but when they do it signifies something very important. This will be a great topic to explore for another post, but for now I want to stay on track best as I can. When Jesus changes Simon’s name, He says that He will build His church on Peter.

There is significant debate on whether Jesus meant that His church would be built on Peter or on Peter’s confession, and those who have some familiarity with Catholic/Protestant teachings would be able to figure out pretty easily who argues for what. That said, this argument or “debate” is merely quibbling when compared to the greater concept of what is going on here, especially with what happens next: Jesus says that the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven will be given to Peter. Following that, Jesus says that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever Peter loosens on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The keys that were given to Peter represent something significant. They represent a temporal authority regarding an office to be held given specifically to Peter in the manner that was talked about in Isaias 22: 17-22

Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a cock is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,

And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. (DRB)

While the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were given specifically to Peter, the power of binding and loosing were shared among all the Apostles as we read about in Matthew 18:18 above.

(Yes, we are finally coming full circle… but we still got a little bit to go)

Remember that the context of 18:18 was how followers of Christ should handle transgressions and disagreements. Ultimately, unresolved disputes – even after having witnesses – should be taken to the Church. These concepts were played out in Acts 5: 1-12 with the presence of Peter:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

And the young men rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much. And Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. Immediately she fell down before his feet, and gave up the ghost. And the young men coming in, found her dead: and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.

And there came great fear upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things. And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. – Acts 5:1-12 (DRB)

All of this played out in front of Peter. The offense was not known about until he questioned Ananias and Saphira separately. Except, in this unique case death fell on the two after Peter passed judgment on them. The “take it to the Church” reference does not make sense here unless we understand that Peter acts (passed Judgment) with the authority of Christ’s Church, and their untimely death brought about by God illustrates the point. The end of this passage again illustrates that while Peter held a significant position, the same power and authority was exercised by the other Apostles. In other words, the apostles act with specific authority in governing the Church.

Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 1-30)

We have seen the Apostles exercise individual authority in the name of Christ while governing the Church. Are there other ways in which Christ’s church is run? What if the Apostles themselves have disagreements between each other… AND they are the church authority! How are issues resolved then?

And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question. They therefore being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name.

…

Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:

Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle. – Acts 15: 1-14, 22-30 (DRB)

This is the first documented case where the early Church leaders held a significant disagreement of doctrine. This passage in Acts outlines how the Church resolves the issue: “The Apostles and the Ancients assembled to consider the matter.” This act is what is called the Council of Jerusalem, and is where the Church authorities gathered to settle the issue of whether or not the Gentiles needed to first accept the Law of Moses first before accepting the Law of Christ. Needless to say, it was no trivial matter, and notice what the outcome of the council was when the issue was settled? There was no group that broke off because they didn’t agree with the final answer in order to start their own “church” that is closer to Christ’s ‘true church’. No. After the decision, ALL of the church was of one accord.

There is another significant concept with this passage: the Apostles commissioned people to speak on their behalf, with their authority. Furthermore, the Apostles wrote down their proclamation in order to be read as an epistle. This epistle carried the same authority that the men who were commissioned to announce the Council’s proclamation, and they were authoritative because of the Apostles and ancients who decided the matter.

As doctrinal matters developed and disputes began to surface, the Church continued throughout history to hold councils to settle the matter. The most recent church council held was Vatican II.

Did the Authority End With the Apostles?

Once again, we are circling back to a passage mentioned earlier. This time to the passage that listed the twelve Apostles. Included on this list was a man who betrayed Jesus: Judas Iscariot. After Judas betrayed Jesus, he committed suicide. This was a man who carried an office (a bishopric) of authority among Jesus’ group. Remember this as a backdrop to the following passage:

In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. – Acts 1: 15-26 (DRB)

The first thing that Peter does after Jesus’ ascension is to fill the office that was left vacant by Judas’ death. This is another guiding principle regarding authority in Christ’s Church: That those originally given authority by Christ hold an office (Bishopric), that can – and is – replaced by a successor who retains the full authority of the original “office-holder.” Even with such an egregious sin as Judas’, Matthias is recognized with the full untarnished authority as the others.

Can this same authority be conferred to others outside the original twelve?

And in those days, the number of the disciples increasing, there arose a murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews, for that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve calling together the multitude of the disciples, said: It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.

These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them. And the word of the Lord increased; and the number of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly: a great multitude also of the priests obeyed the faith. – Acts 6: 1-7 (DRB)

The answer is: yes. As the members of the Church grows, so to do those who are conferred with the authority of the Church through the “laying on of the hands” or “imposition of hands” which is a reference to ordination. In fact, St Paul was eventually welcomed as an equal to the twelve:

Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Stait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth. (And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.) But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name. And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. – Acts 9: 10-20 (DRB)

Paul, who was directly chosen by God on the way to Damascus, only become a minister for Christ after the imposition of hands. Only after being ordained was Paul filled with the Holy Spirit and ministry begins. This same patter of conferring authority can be seen in several places: Acts 13:3, 14:23, 15:22-27 to name a few.

Is that to say that anyone who is conferred the authority of the office (bishopric) is de-facto an “Apostle?” Not necessarily. The term “Apostle” in the proper sense has certain qualifiers that St. Peter talks about when looking for a replacement for Judas. One of the qualifiers was that for one to be considered an Apostle, they had to have been present at Jesus ministry from the beginning. The Apostles did have a special charism, and the close of all new public revelation came with the death of the last Apostle. The office and the authority to teach what has been handed to us still continues.

Now that we see that this authority extends beyond just the twelve, is this authority given to just anyone, and can anyone confer it to whomever they please?

But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also; and being baptized, he adhered to Philip. And being astonished, wondered to see the signs and exceeding great miracles which were done. Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.

For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Do penance therefore for this thy wickedness; and pray to God, that perhaps this thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee. For I see thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity. Then Simon answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord, that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me. – Acts 8:12-24 (DRB)

We see here that Simon saw the Holy Spirit come down when Peter laid hands on the new followers of Christ. He wanted this power, and offered Peter money to buy this power for himself so he could also lay hands. Peter responds with a harsh condemnation, and refuses Simon that gift.

Successors of St. Peter

Given that this authority has been demonstrated, that the authority of an office can and has been transferred, that the authority can be conferred beyond the original twelve, and that not just anyone can be conferred/confer of themselves, anyone who claims authority today must be able to demonstrate a line of succession – by laying of hands – of authority back to any of the original twelve. Here is an unbroken list of successors of St. Peter all the way down to the current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
206. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

One Last Easter Egg

Finally, we come to a close with one last Easter egg:

What about the Authority of Scripture?

This entire post made references to Sacred Scripture, but the whole time these references were merely used as historical references. What about any authority that Sacred Scriptures have? Do they have any authority beyond “merely” historical references?

Well, yes, Sacred Scripture does have the same Authority of Christ as mentioned in many scriptural references – in particular the reference to the Council of Jerusalem mentioned above. However, this authority is not demonstrated by Scripture itself.

In other words, we don’t start with the premise that Sacred Scripture is Sacred first, then use it to demonstrate its Sacredness. That is nothing but a circular argument.

Remember the common theme that has kept this extremely long blog together:

History tells us that God became man, and that He built a church with His authority.

Now the last link in the chain:

All the books of the bible (Old and New Testament listing) were affirmed in the Ecumenical Council (a council of the whole Church) of Florence in 1442, which affirmed the decisions of local councils dating back to the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). This was re-affirmed, yet again, in the Council of Trent (1545) as yet another seal of approval that the list of books we have in the Bible are to be considered Sacred Scripture.

So, ultimately, the Church proclaimed which books should be in the bible by a council similar to the Council of Jerusalem referenced above. This council is authoritative because the Church has the Authority of Christ. The Bible is authoritative by nature of the Church that compiled it.

Thus, affirming the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of the Bible is to affirm those qualities of the Catholic Church which is Christ’s Church.

Did you see that one coming?

I appreciate you hanging with me on this long journey. I hope it was edifying.

This single post is probably enough to generate questions for the foreseeable future. Please ask away.

In the mean time, I may recycle this and a couple others for a few weeks in one way or another given that the length of this is equivalent to about 7 of my normal "Monday With Answers” post. This will give me a chance to hammer out schoolwork for the time being.

Thanks Again!

God Love You!

Why So Many Denominations?

Thanks for coming back for Mondays With Answers!  This week’s question topically follows on heels of last week’s question, and I think it is a good progression given that the answer is closely related to some of the issues introduced last week. This week, we explore:

Why are there so many Christian denominations?

Much like last week had a deceptively simple answer that needed to be developed, this week also has an answer too simple to stand alone.

In short, at the heart of this question is a question of authority. The reason why there are so many Christian denominations is because at the heart of each new denomination that was started there was a reaction to a question of authority.

“Ahh,  but wait…” you say, “What of Luther? Didn’t he break away from the Catholic Church because of the extra-biblical practices of the Catholic Church? You know, the whole ‘selling indulgences’ and clerical abuses bit?”

Indeed he did. However, what makes Luther different than, say, St. Benedict of the 5-6th Century, St. Gregory the Great of the 6-7th Century, or even St Gregory VII of the 11th Century, who each experienced their own forms of abuses of their own times? What is the difference between him and a whole host of “reformers” that preceded him; men such as Ximenes de Cisneros, John Colet, John Fisher, Gasparo Contarini and even Erasmus of Rotterdam. How about St. Ignatius of Loyola who’s work was in the heart of the Protestant revolt? We will explore that in a little bit.

If you haven’t in a while, read through Luther’s 95 Thesis. It is a relatively quick read.

Isn’t it interesting that the substance of Luther’s 95 Thesis actually presumes the authority of the Papacy and, by extension, the clergy while at the same time presupposes the validity of many of the Catholic practices not found in modern-day Protestantism? To those who say that Luther changed and later developed his views that are different than what the Catholic church teaches, again I say I agree. In fact, I agree to such an extent that the degree to which Luther’s views diverged so much from the church that he no longer recognized the validity of the Catholic Church or authority of the Pope is the point of which Luther ceased to be part of the ancient church and found himself part of a new, and in his view “restored,” church. Which takes us back to the heart of the issue: by what authority? Whatever answer to that question you have defines the rational for whatever group you may find yourself, and the question itself explains why – at least in that brief time with just Luther – there were two different ‘denominations’.

What of Henry VIII?… Need I explain?  The question of authority seems self evident given Henry crowning himself the prince of the Church of England when he wouldn’t be issued a decree of divorce by the Church Universal.

And John Calvin? His Christianae Religionis Instituitio – better known as Institute,  and to borrow from Hilaire Belloc’s words – produced a “church, a creed, a discipline, which could be set over against what had been for all these centuries (and what still is) the native church, creed, and discipline of Christian civilization.” In other words, Calvin created a framework from which the Protestant worldview can have recourse to authority. This is a framework that currently exists today even if tenets of Calvinist thoughts aren’t devoutly followed.

Each split ceased to recognize the authority of the parent group, and often the very justifications for such a split was used to justify further splinters still.

The issues leading to the Protestant revolt, and the circumstances during, are complicated. In fact, it can be argued that the conditions that allowed for a prolonged and persistent revolution was an inability of many of the church leadership to recognize their faults and with humility work to resolve the legitimate issues that were brought up. Hilaire Belloc (quoted above) gives an excellent cursory review of this period in his work How the Reformation Happened.

So, this brings us back to St. Ignatius et al. What sets them apart from Luther, Henry VIII, and John Calvin? Each one of them recognized something wrong with the Christian Church – from Ignatius to Calvin, and Gregory to Luther. Each one of them fought hard to reform and correct the injustices. What sets Ignatius et al. apart from Luther et al. is that St. Gregory’s reforms didn’t result in a new “church” or new “denomination.” St. Ignatius et al. worked within the Catholic church to accomplish the reforms that were needed – much like Luther originally set out to do. Ultimately what sets Luther et al apart from the former is that each ceased to recognize the authority of the parent church and set out on their own authority to “restore” what they thought should be the church.

Each succeeding denomination hinges its establishment on this question of authority.

I hope you find these Mondays with Answers worthwhile! Please, if you have any questions, feel free to post comments.

God Love You!

Why Different Bible Versions?

My goal for this blog is to have regular posts (obviously). Understanding the reality of life, that means that there will be a number of posts that may not seem substantial in nature. Having said that, some questions about the Catholic faith - or Christianity in general – require a little bit more of a substantial response. Also, some questions may require time to research a thorough – if short – answer.

The solution: A Monday With Answers.

Throughout the week, I will be taking/collecting questions. Or, as is the case for now with a nascent blog, I will be actively seeking out questions. Hopefully these first few “Mondays with Answers” will be relevant (maybe even practical) questions.

This week’s question: Why are there so many different versions of the Bible and what makes one more accurate than the others?

This is a question I found perusing the internet. When I started thinking about it a little more, I think this is a common question that a lot of people don’t realize that they have. How many people have really stopped to think about why some bibles read differently than others?  This is not to question anybody’s devotion to God or faithfulness to Sacred Scriptures. This is really just a question on the mechanics of what makes one version different than another.

The bottom-line answer: the differences have to do with translations.

This post won't go through all the different versions exhaustively. Instead, out of brevity, I will hit on the broad (general) differences. There will be principles brought up, though, that will more than likely be an explanation that applies to specific differences that may not be covered. If you have a question about a specific difference that wasn't covered feel free to ask. Please keep in mind that this isn't intended to be an academic dissertation so some liberty will be taken to try to keep this as brief as possible.

First, there is a general difference between a Catholic Bible and most Protestant Bibles. Catholic scriptures are the exact same in substance as what you will find in Protestant Scriptures. They are essentially of the same sources.  That said, the Catholic Bible has a larger Old Testament with 7 more books called the Deuterocanonical books which Protestants know as “Apocryphal” books. I understand I may have introduced a few words that aren’t necessarily in everyday use, so here is a quick background:

NewAdvent.org: The Greek kanon means primarily a reed, or measuring-rod: by a natural figure it was employed by ancient writers both profane and religious to denote a rule or standard.

So the word canon refers to a “regulated and defined collection” typically used in the context of theological or official “church” writings.  New Advent continues:

The terms protocanonical and deuterocanonical, of frequent usage among Catholic theologians and exegetes, require a word of caution. … It would be wrong to infer from them that the Church successively possessed two distinct Biblical Canons. Only in a partial and restricted way may we speak of a first and second Canon. Protocanonical (protos, "first") is a conventional word denoting those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants. The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters, but which long ago gained a secure footing in the Bible of the Catholic Church, though those of the Old Testament are classed by Protestants as the "Apocrypha". These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel.

The derivation of the word Apocrypha comes from the Greek word apokryphos, which means “hidden.”  In this context Protestants use it to refer to “non-canonical” books.  Catholics use a different term because “apocrypha” has a historical use of that term that goes back beyond the Protestant Reformation. To read more on this use of the word click here. This is another article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and is a thorough albeit a little difficult read.

The point of contention between the Catholic and Protestant listing of the Old Testament works has its roots with Luther early in the beginning of the Protestant revolt, and his relegating (among other New Testament books) the listed 7 books to an appendix in his translation of the bible.

Luther’s intent with his translation of the bible was to translate directly from Hebrew. At the time, the bible standard was what is known as the Latin Vulgate which was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a renown scripture scholar of his time (4th Century), and coined the following quote regarding Scripture: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Jerome was commissioned to do essentially what Luther set out to do: to create an accurate translation of scriptures as close to the source as possible.

Only, Jerome was dealing with a different problem. The issue that the Church was dealing with in the 4th century was that the Latin scriptures that they had were handwritten copies of copies of copies of...(well, you get my point). By the 4th century the Latin texts that they DID have varied from one another, and were to the point of being unreliable from possible additions and/or mistakes by copyists. Jerome had at his disposal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament that were even considered ancient at HIS time. Jerome cross-referenced his work between these sources that he had available to him.

Notice that a new element entered this post: Greek? I thought we were dealing with Hebrew. How is a Greek translation even considered close to an “original” source?

Okay before we go there, a quick inventory of Scripture Translations that we have talked about: Hebrew OT, Greek NT, Latin Vulgate, Luther Bible (German).

Enter: Septuagint.

NewAdvent.org: The Septuagint version was the Bible of the Greek-speaking, or Hellenist, Jews, whose intellectual and literary centre was Alexandria. The oldest extant copies date from the fourth and fifth centuries of our era, and were therefore made by Christian hands; nevertheless scholars generally admit that these faithfully represent the Old Testament as it was current among the Hellenist or Alexandrian Jews in the age immediately preceding Christ.

The Septuagint (LXX translation) is a Greek translation of OT scriptures that dates back to 300 B.C.  Before Christ, the Septuagint was accepted and recognized as a legitimate text by Jews in all the Greek-speaking countries, and helped spread the idea/expectation of a Messias to the Gentiles.

Simplistically, Luther did not refer to the legitimacy of the Septuagint because, at the time, there were no ancient Hebrew manuscripts that could support the additional books that were included in the Greek version. And, because there were no Hebrew manuscripts, it couldn't be considered as "authoritative" as the protocanonical books. Since then, in the 1950's, the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery found manuscripts dating as early as 408 B.C. that have the Greek books in question in Hebrew.

Clearly, there is a lot of debate (that even continues to this day) as to whether the "extra" books should be included in the bible or not.  The spirit of this post is not intended to advocate one over the other so much as it is to explain what those differences are and where they come from. That said, I will not try to hide which one I favor (and given the context of the Blog, I don't think it would take much to figure it out).

Beyond the major difference (7 "extra" books or not), there are still differences. You can even find differences between Bibles that number the same books. Some read relatively easily, some seem clunky...  while others read like they are antiquated, in old English.  The latter is pretty easy to explain, in that they are translations that hold true to the time they were originally translated (i.e. 1611 KJV, or Douay Rheims Bible).

But what about those that read "clunky" vs. those that ready colloquially? At the heart of that question is the philosophy that goes into the translation: "formal equivalence" vs. "dynamic equivalence." Formal equivalence translations try to give a translation that is as literal to the original text as possible. Dynamic equivalence translations give the translator more liberty in the translation to make a more readable translation -- so long as the meaning of the text is preserved.

Each has its disadvantages, and each has its uses.

Finally, to the last question: "what makes one version more accurate than the other?"

Ultimately, we have different versions of the Bible because of different translations... which means an evaluation of accuracy is contingent on interpretation. Personally, this answer is not satisfying enough. In other words, without an appeal to an outside authority, no one can subjectively and definitively say that "this" is the most accurate as opposed to "that" one. I don't say that the 7 "extra" books should be included in the bible because of the NT references, the history of translations, the closeness to Hebrew, etc. in and of itself. Those arguments help, but in the end... I think as such because God became man, gave man authority - guided by the Holy Spirit -  to build His church, and His Church determined as much.

Call me simple-minded... ;)  Maybe that will be a question for next week!

God Love You!


A good audio on the Bible:
EWTN's The Journey Home: The Canon of Scripture

LiveJournal Tags: Bible History,Bible,translations