Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (Mormons, priests)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dude, I have quotes from 25 Protestant scholars who say you're wrong.
This is what you want to believe because you are not a Catholic, but all the wishful thinking in the world can't change the facts of Greek grammar and the underlying Aramaic.
I understand you've been taught this all your life, but you've been lied to by people who had an agenda or misled by folks who were themselves badly misinformed.
Now, are there other verses that point to all the apostles or you and me as rocks or stones? You bet.
BUT NOT MATTHEW 16:18.
So, unless (and even if) you have a PhD. in Greek, give it up.
Jesus, the builder, promised to build His Church on Peter, the rock.
Actually, he didn't, as the words do not translate equally across the board.
But you keep ignoring that fact by merely repeating, yourself.
But most of you posters should shy away from that...the truth can be unsettling.
Part 6 is even more devastating and contains in part:
Among the chorus of voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: “After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter” (Caragounis 1).
Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter’s confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
"That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well." (Kasper 48-49)
+++
See folks? The battle is over, and everyone except the ignorant masses know it.
That's why we continue to try to get the word out.
"Read this book if you have ever wondered why the Catholic Church specifically claims to be Roman? It would seem that the Church of Jesus Christ would be centered in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews, since Christ died and rose again in Jerusalem."
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us." (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])
John Chrysostom (Lived 347 AD to 407 AD.)
“At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here [Antioch] for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known” (To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 [A.D. 400], in NPNF1,I:298).
Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try these cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the city of Rome" (Epistle to Eutyches 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Chrysologus wrote those words nearly 400 years after Peter's death, yet he says that Peter lives. Thus was the reverence he had for the successor of Peter who was the bishop of Rome.
It is well worth noting that all but one of the people your quote come after Emperor Constantine elevates Rome on his own authority. Constantine had good reason to want to promote the Bishop of the capital of the Empire. When you are trying to make a state religion, combining political and divine power into the same location is only logical. And having a greater sense of centralized authority and order would have led most Christians to accept the Bishop of Rome's presumed successorship to Peter quite readily. Ironically, it is the authority of the Roman Emperor that would frequently and consistently supersede all other authority in the Church for the next several centuries and not the authority of the Roman Pope.
It seems quite telling that a big part of the argument between Constantinople and Rome leading up to the Great Schism was over a document known as the Donation of Constantine. The document was later found to be a complete forgery, but at the time Pope Leo IX believed it to be authentic.
This forgery (the Donation of Constantine) contains Constantine professing his Christian faith, recounts him seeking a cure for his apparent leprosy and recounts him being baptized by Pope Sylvester I. In gratitude, he determined to bestow on the "see of Peter" (Rome) "power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honour imperial", and "supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth". This was the basis upon which Leo XI was claiming supreme authority over the whole Church: Based on the authority of Emperor Constantine. Unfortunately for Leo IX, Constantine never had any authority from God to bestow such power in the first place. And the document was a complete forgery anyways and most of the claims of said document were fabrications to make the Bishop of Rome seem more important. For example, Pope Sylvester I was already dead when Emperor Constantine was baptized ... by an Arian Christian no less.
It is no coincidence at all that the bishops of the two capital cities of the Roman Empire became the two foremost contenders vying for supremacy over all other bishops. When political power and religious power became one and the same thing, it was just a matter of time. But political power and authority from God are not and never have been the same thing.
The only person you're quoting that comes well before Constantine is Irenaeus of Lyons. My reading of the quote leads me to believe that Irenaeus is telling us about the succession of bishops in Rome and nothing more. I fail to see where "handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" should be construed to mean anything more than saying that Linus was made Bishop of Rome. He does seem quite complimentary of Bishop Clement which is very nice of him. By all accounts, Clement was a very capable bishop. At no point does Irenaeus say, "Linus was designated as successor to Peter to rule over the entire Church." At no point does he say that that of Clement either.
When I say that Apostolic Succession seems to pulled out of thin air, I'm not saying that the apostles and other disciples of Christ didn't ordain anybody. They did. But the presumption made by those claiming Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with whether a deacon is a deacon or a priest is a priest or a bishop is a bishop. The claim is that after the apostles had all died off, the full authority of the apostles in its entirety was suddenly inherited by the collective body of the bishops. Pardon me for being skeptical, but when and how did that happen exactly?
As to Peter passing his keys to any successor, there are two options:
A.) The keys just magically and mysteriously left St Peter's dead corpse and landed in the proverbial pocket of Bishop Linus (or somebody else perhaps?) ... a fact of which Linus and his successors were entirely oblivious. A couple centuries later, they suddenly start to realize, "Hey wait a minute. We just realized that we're supposed to be in charge! Attention everybody! From now on you have to do what we tell you to cuz God said so!" for some mysterious reason ....
--OR--
B.) At some point in time, Peter did in fact designate a specific successor, investing them with the same keys of authority he had held ... but this mysterious successor promptly forgot all about it. And the line of successors is once again completely oblivious to the fact that they're in charge until they suddenly and mysterious remember it a few centuries later.
Whether Augustine or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny believe that Peter made the Bishop of Rome his successor 300 years after the fact is irrelevant. They weren't there so how would they know? If the Bishop of Rome and the Emperor both say it's so often enough, insistently enough and over a long period of time, people are going to start buying into the concept. And therein lies the problem: If the Bishop of Rome was ever designated to be the successor of Peter, nobody is explaining to me how that actually happened. Surely it must at least require Peter to do something that is completely unique to Rome and Rome alone. Otherwise, anybody ordained under the hands of St Peter is equally authoritative as the Pope -- and even possibly more authoritative. No Bishop of Rome was ever ordained bishop by Peter himself. Other bishops actually were.
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Amen! Catholics love those verses as we do all 73 books of the Bible.
However, what you cannot handle, apparently, is the idea that in Matthew 16:18, your lord and savior, Jesus Christ, named Peter the rock upon which the Church would be built.
Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
When I say that Apostolic Succession seems to pulled out of thin air, I'm not saying that the apostles and other disciples of Christ didn't ordain anybody. They did. But the presumption made by those claiming Apostolic Succession has nothing to do with whether a deacon is a deacon or a priest is a priest or a bishop is a bishop. The claim is that after the apostles had all died off, the full authority of the apostles in its entirety was suddenly inherited by the collective body of the bishops. Pardon me for being skeptical, but when and how did that happen exactly?
Like this:
The chain of apostolic succession, of course, started with the apostles themselves. But apostles stopped being commissioned in the first century, and so apostolic succession continues with the bishops, the successors of the apostles.
At times there has been confusion regarding the precise relationship between bishops and apostles, as well as the historical origin of the office of bishop, so it's useful to explore these subjects.
Apostolic Succession Begins
Christ conferred upon his apostles the original task of shepherding the earthly Church in his absence. As the Church grew, the apostles themselves appointed different kinds of ministers to assist them.
Among the apostles there were two groups. The first consisted of the Twelve, who witnessed the whole of Christ's earthly ministry from his baptism to his Ascension (Acts 1:21-26). The second group of apostles, including Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), was not bound by this condition. Thus Paul had seen and been commissioned as an apostle by the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:1), though he had not been a disciple of Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 9, 1 Cor. 15:8).
Christ could have continued to appear to individuals and appoint them as apostles throughout the Church age. However, he chose not to do so, and so the apostles passed from the scene.
The fact that this group has not continued is a Christian teaching, though not found in the New Testament, that is universally honored among Christians, including Protestants (except for certain radical Pentecostals). Thus it can be used as a counterexample with those advocating sola scriptura.
As the apostles died, the task of shepherding the Church fell by default upon the highest-ranking ministers appointed by them. This group is known today as the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles as the highest shepherds of the earthly Church.
Due to bishops' role as the successors of the apostles, possession of a valid episcopacy is necessary for a church to claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession thus involves in the bishops serving as successors to the apostles, not serving as apostles. The bishops are not simply a continuation of the office of apostle; they received the governance of the Church when that office ceased.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 04-18-2014 at 07:09 PM..
CRCarson, obviously you are not familiar with the forum rule that say's red is reserved for moderation only. You are not allowed to post in red on this forum.
Just thought you should know before all of your post get deleted for doing so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Eternal City: Rome & the Origins of Catholic Christianity
