St Peter and the Papacy

The Need for Infallible Authority and Succession:

“We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

– Vatican I, Session 4 Chapter 4

There is the eternal question about the fallacy of the Church’s doctrine. This is seems a rather innocuous abstraction, an ethereal consideration, even a mere esoteric embellishment on the real state of the world today and the exigent problems that it faces. But make no mistake, what is at stake here is not some sapless technical debate, rather it is the very heart of the battle of atheism as opposed to belief. If it can be shown, that God is incapable of achieving infallible guidance, then it can also be shown that there is no God to give it. If indeed it can be shown that God is incapable of keeping his promises, then it can more easily be argued that there is no God to keep them. My effort, for most of this essay is to show that we are not so despairingly afflicted

“ The common sense of mankind does but support a conclusion forced upon us by analogical considerations. It feels that the very idea of revelations implies a present informant and guide, and that an infallible one…Surely, either an objective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with means for impressing it’s objectiveness upon the world.

If Christianity be a social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain ideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed…and if these ideas have various aspects and make distinct impressions on different minds…what power will suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflicting conditions but a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgements by a divine and right and recognised wisdom?…Philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion, party, caprice will find no common measure, unless there be some supreme power to control the mind and to control agreement.” -St Cardinal John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1878 ed pp105-107

Some excerpts from Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser’s The Gift of Infallibility, which was read out to the delegates sitting in at Vatican II prior to the promulgation of the doctrine of Infallibility:

“There is contained in the definition the object of infallibility. Infallibility has been proposed in order to guard and unfold the integral deposit of faith…the object of infallibility is doctrine about faith and morals…there is undoubtedly contained the fact that this infallibility extends at least to those things which in themselves constitute the deposit of faith…(p78)…Together with revealed truths, there are…other truths more or less strictly connected. These truths, although they are not revealed in se, are nevertheless required to guard fully, explain properly, and define efficaciously the very deposit of faith. Truths of this type, therefore to which dogmatic facts pertain per se, inasmuch as the deposit of faith is not able to be preserved and expounded without them, these truths, I say, concern the deposit of faith, not indeed of themselves, but as necessary for guarding that deposit of faith…(Matters of morals” included not only what was directly revealed by God, but also the natural law, and the specific, concrete decisions that the Church had to make on moral matters for which “an answer was not found in revelation itself…The Church is infallible not only in those which are revealed per se, but in also in those things which, in some way, cohere with what has been revealed….the condition of human life is so various and multiform that innumerable questions arise about morals for which we find no answer in revelation itself…(Joseph Kleutgen, who sat in on the Council) -footnote by translator (p98)”

“According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church’s magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which the deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded” (Vatican II 2:432)

“Since Christ bestowed on the Church everything indispensable for carrying out the mission entrusted to her, could he hold back from her the gift of certainty about the truths she knows and proclaims? Above all, could He withhold this gift from those who, succeeding Peter and the apostles as shepherds and teachers, inherited therewith a special responsibility for the community of the faithful? Precisely because human beings are fallible, would it be possible for Christ, while desiring to preserve the Church in truth, to leave her shepherds and bishops, and especially Peter and his successors, without the gift by means of which He would assure infallible teaching of the truths of faith and the true principles of morality?” St Pope John Paul II p101

Bishop Gasser continues: “Either God has revealed himself to us, giving us a lasting message of truth, and provided that this truth be preserved secure and certain through an office capable of teaching the truth without error, or he has not revealed himself at all, at least not definitely and once and for all in Christ. “There can be no combination on the basis of truth without an organ of truth”, in St Cardinal Newman’s words. His organ of truth the Catholic Church claims as existing in the teaching function of the bishops united with the successor of St Peter, a teaching office or organ of truth called in recent centuries “the Magisterium”…it functions, therefore, in the order of grace, of charism, and, in particular, of a grace given to some for the benefit of others (gratia gratis data, as the theologians call such manifestations of God’s favour)…It is hard to imagine where the Gospel would be or what state it would have reached us in if, per impossible, it had not been composed, preserved, and commented on within the greater Catholic community- hard to picture the deformation and mutilation it would have suffered both as to text and as to interpretation….history speaks forcefully enough. There have been no counting the number of aberrations that have been based on an appeal to the Gospel, (p102)…Indeed, by this sense of the faith which is stirred up and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, under the leadership of the sacred Magisterium to which it faithfully submits, truly receives not the word of men, but rather the word of God (Th 2:13), clings without error to the faith once handed on to the saints (Jude 3), penetrates it more profoundly by correct judgements and applies it more fully to life” (Lumen Gentium no 12) (p105)…the Church, as a whole is rendered immune from falling away from the faith (p108).

G K Chesterton The Everlasting Man P 143 The Key Second, the shape of a key is in itself a rather fantastic shape. A savage who did not know it was a key would have the greatest difficulty in guessing what it could possibly be. And it is fantastic because it is in a sense arbitrary. A key is not a matter of abstractions; in that sense a key is not a matter of argument. It either fits the lock or it does not. It is useless for men to stand disputing over it, considered by itself; or reconstructing it on pure principles of geometry or decorative art. It is senseless for a man to say he would like a simple key; it would be far more sensible to do his best with a crowbar. And thirdly, as the key is necessarily a thing with a pattern, so this was one having in some ways a rather elaborate pattern. When people complain of the religion being so early complicated with theology and things of the kind, they forget that the world had not only got into a hole, but had got into a whole maze of holes and corners. The problem itself was a complicated problem; it did not in the ordinary sense merely involve anything so simple as sin. It was also full of secrets, of unexplored and unfathomable fallacies, of unconscious mental diseases, of dangers in all directions. If the faith had faced the world only with the platitudes about peace and simplicity some moralists would confine it to, it would not have had the faintest effect on that luxurious and labyrinthine lunatic asylum. What it did do we must now roughly describe; it is enough to say here that there was undoubtedly much about the key that seemed complex, indeed there was only one thing about it that was simple. It opened the door.

–

The Authority of the Keys

Matthew 18:16-19 “¹⁸ Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. ¹⁹ Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.”

Matthew 16:17-19 “¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

John 20:23 “2When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.²³ If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

“Will have been” used in Matthew 16, is a tense very seldom used in Greek, and rarely seen in manuscripts of the age. It is the future perfect.

““Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16): this verse is the only of the three that is not addressed to the 12 but to the 72. But it is a useful reminder of the authority that Jesus can accord such authority to men.

Incredibly this authority of keys and of “opening and shutting” is referred back directly to Jesus!  “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Rev 3:7)

The Primacy of Peter

Matthew 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter…
The Greek word here translated as “first” is “protos”, which the Protestant Blue Letter Bible lexicon defines as: “first in time or place, in any succession of things or persons “first in rank: influence, honour, chief, principal”

The More one reflects one Matthew 16:17-19 and indeed the entire Gospel, the more one is impressed by the implication of the papacy for Peter from it. Jesus begins with and exuberant “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah!..”, He addresses Peter a full seven times in the short passage. None of the other apostles are addressed directly by name by Jesus as much in the Bible, nor does any other apostle speak directly to Jesus in the Bible, for himself or on behalf of the twelve. No disciple approached Jesus, walking, drowning, running, wading as much as Peter.

But it doesn’t end here. Peter’s authority continues in the Acts. Two examples of Peter exercising his primacy over the other twelve: 1)He initiates the election of the successor to Judas by lots, and says that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1. 2) in Acts 2, when he speaks at the Pentecost. 3) In Acts 3, he preaches in the Temple without any authorization form the temple authorities. He puts the whole Sanhedrin on trial when they think that he stands on trial by accusing them of crucifying Jesus. 4) When Ananias lies to Peter about the proceeds of the sale of his home, Peter says that he has not lied to men, but to the Holy Spirit. It is said that at this, a great fear came upon all the disciples. Paul in Galatians 2, challenges him not for his infallibility, but for not obeying his own infallible teaching at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 11! Moses, when the people challenge his authority falls down upon is face as if to say to the people, “do not get distracted by my humanity, for it is actually the power of God that I am given to wield, and this is not to be flouted. Only the prophet could enquiry of God Ascent p232n When Miriam and Aaron challenge his authority, Miriam is afflicted with leprosy.

Remember, Jesus never said that the Papacy had to be based at Rome. He said the worlds that He did to Peter at Caesaria Phillipi. What He did say to Peter was as simple as this: That one man would be Prime Minister of the Church, and with his office would reside the keys to Heaven. It was up to the early Church to realize this teaching. The Church did not need to be Roman, it is Roman. Because that is where Peter was. Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia. Where is Peter, there is the Church.

Isa 22 Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him:… you will be cast down from your station… In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! (…) and I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and

whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”- Matt 16:17-19 “κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος (Petros), καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ (petra) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.”

 “…Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” (…) “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” (…) He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”(…) Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep””. (John 21:15-17)

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you (ὑμᾶς- you plural) like wheat. But I have prayed for you, (σοῦ– all pronouns and verbs here on are in the singular) Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” “Lord,” said Peter, “I am ready to go with You even to prison and to death.” (Luke 22:31-33)

Luke 12: 40-42 “You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?”

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me (…)”(Luke 10:16)

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.” (28)

The office of bishop is referred to in the Bible in Acts 1:20 (KJV), Titus 1:7, 1 Tim3:8, Phil 1:1.

The Development of the Papacy

3 The Papal Supremacy EDC, St. Newman

Ch 4 Sec3

“No Doctrine is defined till it is Violated:

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted.

…It is a common occurrence for a quarrel and a lawsuit to {150} bring out the state of the law, and then the most unexpected results often follow. St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were “of one heart and one soul,” it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws. Christians knew that they must live in unity, and they were in unity; in what that unity consisted, how far they could proceed, as it were, in bending it, and what at length was the point at which it broke, was an irrelevant as well as unwelcome inquiry. Relatives often live together in happy ignorance of their respective rights and properties, till a father or a husband dies; and then they find themselves against their will in separate interests, and on divergent courses, and dare not move without legal advisers

(4) When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated.

It was impeded by persecutions:

(5) Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church (…) “In the first times,” he says, “while the Emperors were pagans, their [the Popes’] pretences were suited to their condition, and could not soar high; they were not then so mad as to pretend to any temporal power, and a pittance of spiritual eminency did content them.” Again: “The state of the most primitive Church did not well admit such an universal sovereignty. For that did consist of small bodies incoherently situated, and scattered about in very distant places, and consequently unfit to be modelled into one political society, or to be governed {153} by one head, especially considering their condition under persecution and poverty. What convenient resort for direction or justice could a few distressed Christians in Egypt, Ethiopia, Parthia, India, Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia, and other parts, have to Rome!”

Again: “Whereas no point avowed by Christians could be so apt to raise offence and jealousy in pagans against our religion as this, which setteth up a power of so vast extent and huge influence; whereas no novelty could be more surprising or startling than the creation of an universal empire over the consciences and religious practices of men (…) If such be the nature of the case, it is impossible, if we may so speak reverently, that an Infinite Wisdom, which sees the end from the beginning, in decreeing the rise of an universal Empire, should not have decreed the development of a sovereign ruler.

Own additions: thus the criticism of the papal supremacy is actuall taking advantage of both the difficult circumstances that the church found itself in in the initial centuries and that it could not extablish universal institution and visible, as well as the love and unity of  the initial church which did nto necessitate this

Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/church.htm

Apostolic Succession

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.”
Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as … Anencletus and Clement to Peter?”
Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’ “
Hegesippus,Memoirs,fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History,4:22(A.D. 180),in NPNF2,I:198-199

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”
Tertullian,Prescription against the Heretics,33(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258

“And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.”
Clement of Alexandria,Who is the rich man that shall be save?,42(A.D. 210),in ANF,II:603

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen,Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244),in FOC,407

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.”
Cyprian,To the Lapsed,1(A.D. 250),in ANF,V:305

“Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination.”
Firmilian,To Cyprian,Epistle 75[74]:16(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:394

“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing… When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria… Linus … was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there … Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome.”
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24,(A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:81

“Lo! In these three successions, as in a mystery and a figure … Under the three pastors,–there were manifold shepherds”
Ephraem,Nisbene Hymns,The Bishops of Nisibis(Jacob, Babu, Valgesh),13,14(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,XIII:180

“[W]hile before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures … For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?”
Athanasius,To Dracontius,Epistle 49(A.D. 355),in NPNF2,IV:558

“[B]elieve as we believe,we , who are, by succesion from the blessed apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes.”
Lucifer of Calaris,On St. Athanasius(A.D. 361),in FOC,274

“[W]e shall not recede from the faith … as once laid it continues even to this say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had, at that period, sprung up.”
Hilary of Poitiers,History Fragment 7(ante A.D. 367),in FOC,273

“[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus … However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement …”
Epiphanius,Panarion,27:6(A.D. 377),in FOC,279

“He[St. Athanasius] is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.”
Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 21:8(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:271

“For they[Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’ “
Ambrose,Concerning Repentance,7:33(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,X:334

“It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels.”
Philastrius of Brescia,On Heresis(ante A.D. 387),in FOC,280

“Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops; but if any one be ordained by one bishop, let him be deprived, both himself and he that ordained him. But if there be a necessity that he have only one to ordain him, because more bishops cannot come together, as in time of persecution, or for such like causes, let him bring the suffrage of permission from more bishops.”
Apostolic Constitutions,8:27(A.D. 400),in ANF,7:493

“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.”
Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298

” ‘To the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi.’ Since it was likely that the Jews too would call themselves ‘saints’ from the first oracle, when they were called a ‘holy people, a people for God’s own possession’ (Ex. xix. 6; Deut. vii. 6, etc.); for this reason he added, ‘to the saints in Christ Jesus.’ For these alone are holy, and those hence-forward profane. ‘To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.” What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, “Fulfil thy ministry,’ when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, ‘Lay hands hastily on no man.’ (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, ‘Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.’ (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, ‘For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife’ (Tit. i. 5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, ‘For the Bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward, not self willed:’ (Tit. i. 7.) “
John Chrysostom,Homilies on Phillipians,1:1(A.D. 404),in NPNF2,XIII:184

“[I]f any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.’ And to Timothy he says: ‘Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.’ Peter also says in his first epistle: ‘The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ’ … taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God.’ In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is episkopountes, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who reclining on the Saviour’s breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: ‘The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth; ‘ and another thus: ‘The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gains whom I love in the truth.’ When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing t to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.”
Jerome,To Evangelus,Epistle 146:1(ante A.D. 420),in NPNF2,VI:288-289

“We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession. “
Pope Celestine[regn A.D. 422-432],To the Council of Ephesus,Epistle 18(A.D. 431),in NPNF2,XIV:220

“Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.”
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6:15(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:135

“Moreover, with respect to a certain bishop who, as the aforesaid magnificent men have told us, is prevented by infirmity of the head from administering his office, we have written to our brother and fellow-bishop Etherius, that if he should have intervals of freedom from this infirmity, he should make petition, claring that he is not competent to fill his own place, and requesting that another be ordained to his Church. For during the life of a bishop, whom not his own fault but sickness, withdraws from the administration of his office, the sacred canons by no means allow another to be ordained in his place. But, if he at no time recovers the exercise of a sound mind, a person should be sought adorned with good life and conversation, who may be able both to take charge of souls, and look with salutary control after the causes and interests of the same church; and he should be such as may succeed to the bishop’s place in case of his surviving him. But, if there are any to be promoted to a sacred order, or to any clerical ministry, we have ordained that the matter is to be reserved and announced to our aforesaid most reverend brother Etherius, provided it belong to his diocese, so that, enquiry having then been made, if the persons are subject to no fault which the sacred canons denounce, he himself may ordain them. Let, then, the care of your Excellency conjoin itself with our ordering, to the end that the interests of the Church, which you have exceedingly at heart, may not suffer damage, and that increase of reward may accrue to the good deeds of your Excellency.”
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Epistle 6(A.D. 602),NPNF2,XIII:94

The Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession

(these verses might be repeats):

Clement was the Bishop of Rome well before the 4th century. His letter to the church at Corinth was probably written around the year 100 AD (give or take 20-30 years). Here are some of the passages relevant to this discussion. This letter was written in response to a request from the Corinthian church. That church was not only taught directly by an Apostle (Paul) but also had several books of Scripture in their original form. Yet they wrote to Rome for the settlement of the disputes they were having. In the first two passages we clearly see Apostolic succession being taught. In the third we see that the bishop of Rome is claiming God speaks through him. The letters of St Clement are two, only the first is attributed authentically to Pope St. Clement. Earliest copies of both are present in the 5^th century Codex Alexandrinus. Eusebius himself attests to the great reverence to the Epistle of Clement in the earlist Church and Eusebius attests that the letters were read out at the gathering of the brethren and treated seemingly as part of sacred scripture. The canon list of Jerome (?) lists the letter among those of high esteem (?) along with (?), and it seems that the letter only narrowly missed out of being included in the final Biblical canon.
——————————————
” And thus preaching through countries and cities, they[the Apostles] appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Ch 42)

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (Ch 44)

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him[God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger;” (Ch 59:1,2)
———————————————

” ‘…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High”
Maximus the Confessor,Opuscula theologica et polemica(A.D. 650),in PG.

The Tree of Life once again appears in St John’s Revelations, bearing twelve crops of fruit in the year, signifying the Twelve Tribes, represented by the Twelve Apostles the foundation of the Catholic Church–

Petros and Petra- an Authentic Word Study of Matthew 16

Protestant argument: “There’s a distinction between the two “rocks” in Greek. The text actually reads, ‘You are petros,’ which means small pebble, ‘and on this petra,’ which means 0massive boulder, ‘I will build My Church.’ The first rock is Peter, the second rock is Christ. See? Christ didn’t build the Church on Peter, but on Himself.”

Response: Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. So when the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon’s name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael, or Louise instead of Louis.” Even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament? [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] As you pointed out, petra means a ‘rock.’ It even usually means a ‘large rock.’ And that’s exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone,’ as you’ve been told. The Greek word for ‘pebble’ or ‘small stone’ is lithos, not petros.

For example, “In Matthew 4:3,” you continue, “the devil cajoles Jesus to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, the Greek plural for lithos, into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up stones, lithoi, to stone Jesus with. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes Christians as ‘living stones,’ lithoi, which form a spiritual house. If St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he didn’t. The rock is St. Peter!”

When Jesus gave Simon the name ‘Rock,’ we know it was originally given in Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, and the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. And the Aramaic word for ‘rock’ is kepha. This was transliterated in Greek as Cephas or Kephas, and translated as Petros. In Aramaic, nouns do not have gender as they do in Greek, so Jesus actually said, and St. Matthew first recorded, ‘You are Kephas and on this kephas I will build My Church.’ Clearly the same rock both times.

“And just as Greek has a word for ‘small stone,’ lithos, so does Aramaic. That word is evna. But Jesus did not change Simon’s name to Evna, He named him Kephas, which translates as Petros, and means a large rock.”

If we look at the parallel passage in John 1:42. ‘Jesus looked at [Simon] and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).’ See? St. John knew that the original form of the name was Kephas, large rock, and he translated it into Greek as Petros, or Peter.”

Jesus addresses St. Peter directly seven times in this short passage? The context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St. Peter, naming him the rock.”

“notice Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means ‘this very,’ when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: ‘You are Peter, and on taute petra,’ this very rock, ‘I will build My Church.’ “Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for ‘and,’ which is ‘kai,’ the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, ‘You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,’ the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.

“Jesus could have gotten around it if He’d wanted to. He didn’t have to say, ‘And,’ kai, ‘on this rock I will build My Church.’ He could’ve said, ‘But,’ alla, ‘on this rock I will build My Church,’ meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn’t do that.”

The Old Testament references to the Rock are one of the greatest prophetic symbols that is used. There is no doubt that the Rock is Jesus Christ himself. Psalm 118, Isaiah 28:16, Daniel 31. Yet Jesus calls Peter the rock on whom He will build his Church. This reading is quite a cornerstone, and is worth analysing in detail. Jesus does not even say “you will be called Rock”, he says “You are Rock”. To say that by this Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession of Faith seems inane to me. It is like telling your gardener “Mow my lawn and I will pay you for it” and after he has mown it, you say that you actually meant to pay for the bottle of Coke he had picked up for you earlier. This is a horrendous interpretation of the verse used to prop up a horrendous theology. It’s like building a house of straw or a sand castle. What’s moral of the story of the three pigs? That’s why I ask, who do you trust to interpret the Bible and what are the reasons for your confidence in them, because that one surely couldn’t have inspired any. I would sooner entrust the eternal salvation of my soul to the gardener, at least he got it right.

It is the reason that Jesus calls Peter blessed in the same sentence. It is the reason that he changes the name lovingly given to him by his own parents that means ‘Gift of God’. It the reason he entrusts to him the keys and the authority in the very next sentence. It is no accident that he uses an analogy that in the OT is unmistakably and multiply applied to his own very Self, indicating that Peter will be his vicar on Earth. And before his Ascension it is why He says to him three times to feed his lambs and look after his sheep. Did Protestant interpreters even read the whole Bible?

The verse from Matt 16, is understandably the least quoted Protestant verse. Because it clearly and undisputably states that the keys to Heaven, and the absolute authority to make or break eternal laws, lie with the Church. And there was no Protestant Church for more than 1500 years! What did Peter do with these keys if he didn’t hand them over to the Church? Did he take them along with him, what would have been the point of that. To return them to Jesus a few decades later saying ‘Here you are, the Church that you built on me as the Rock is done with these, they don’t need any keys now…’.  He left them with the Church, obviously. But he didn’t cut 41,000 copies and counting! So they have to be with the One Church. As the only copy.

Jesus says “I am the gate”, and “I am the Good Shepherd”. But before He ascended, He said: Now you look after my sheep. That is not, obviously, in any way to say that He has abandoned us, or the Pope. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age”. But this is how He has set up His Salvation. Not because He is lazy. Because it’s good for us this way.

The “Holy Father” Controversy

Luke23:9 “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” This is a puzzling verse, for by that stretch, one should also be prohibited from calling one’s biological parent ‘father’, however there is not one who would seriously think that this was the implication. This even though the instruction is very clear “anyone on Earth” with no exception. Again “only one Father and he is in Heaven” does not brook any exceptions. Now if you say He didn’t mean this literally, then how do you explain this?