Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[Snow]

It looks like I have some catching up to do on this thread. I want to devote some time to understanding (and perhaps) rebutting some of the scriptural arguments.

But for now, I’d like to post what I have run across in my studies about whether or not Peter was actually a monoepiscopal leader over the Church and Bishop of Rome.

He wasn’t - Catholic scholars agree:

1. “*Let’s see what St. Ireneaus has to say on the subject back in the second century between the period of 175-190 A.D.

Adversus Haereses (1:27:1):

“Credo was the one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live in Rome at the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the espiscopal succession from the Apostles downward.”* note: 100 plus years after the fact

and

1. An unquoted and un-cited and unquoted claim that Eusebius said that Peter was the 1st Bishops of Rome. (which would have been about 230 plus years after the fact.

I always enjoy the opportunity to add to my library and so a few trips to the bookstore and local library resulted in the following that indicate that I am far from alone in my assertion that the evidence for Peter as the first pope is lacking (and note that at minimum 5 of the historians below are Catholic - Cahill, McBrian, Duffy, Wills, Johnson, De Rosa - and a number of those were trained in the Catholic priesthood.)

1. “Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2
2. Nothing is known of the length of his residence (in Rome): the story that it lasted 25 years is a 3rd century legend. Ignatius assumes that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman Church while Iraneus claimed they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all of Peter as presumed leader of the community… In the late 2nd cent. the tradition identified Peter as first bishop of Rome.(J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986 p6-7)
3. “The papcy was to claim that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome… No proof exists.” Brian Maynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, Doubleday, 2002, p41
4. “(The first succession lists, however, identified Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope. Peter was not regarded as the first Bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.)” and “St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200) assumes that Peter and Paul jointly founded the church of Rome and inaugurated it’s succession of bishops (Against Heresies 3.1.2: 3.3.3). However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30
5. “Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there (Rome) a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there is no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the death of the apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve.” Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinner - A History of the Popes, Yale University Press 1997, pp1-2
6. Peter and Paul, however, do not appear to have been monarchial bishops handing on office to their successors… The first bishop whose actions suggest monarchial status is Anicetus (c. 155-66).” Paul Johnson, The Papcy, Orion Publishing Group, 1998, p26

to be cont…

 

[Snow]

1. “According to legend, after leaving Jerusalem in the 40s Peter traveled through Asia Minor and eventually to Rome, where he was martyred under the emperor Nero after the great fire of 64. These legends, however, come from later developments in the Petrine tradition.” L. Michael White From Jesus to Christianity, Harper 2004 p272
2. “As to worldwide jurisdiction, did it ever cross Peter’s mind when preached to his little flock at Antioch or Rome that he had command over the whole Church? Such an idea had to wait until Christianity was integrated into the Roman Empire. Even then it took time for the papacy to grow to the stature that made such pretension plausible… So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter.” Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ. Crown Publishers, 1988, p25
3. “That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… The tradition is only vaguely discerned in Hegesippus and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (c. 170). By the third century, however, the early assumptions based upon invention or vague unfounded tradition have been transformed into “facts” or history. D. W. O’Conner, Peter in Rome, Columbia University Press, 1969, p207
4. “In fact, the first Roman bishop in any meaningful sense was probably Soter, 166-74…” Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1976, p61
5. “Well if Peter alone of the Twelve left Jerusalem, can the claim of succession be derived from him as bishop of Rome? So defenders of the papacy have claimed. But Brown asserts that “Peter never served as the bishops or local administrator of any church. Anitioch and Rome included.” Gary Wills, Papal Sin, Doubleday 2000 p158 - Wills quotes Raymond E. Brown, SS., Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church, Paulist Press, 1975, p70.
6. The question of whether Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome has recently gained popular prominence due to the American best seller by papal critic and dissenter Garry Wills who vigorously dismisses the entire idea as myth. Although simplistically and sensationally presented, Wills’ thesis relies on the view of many, albeit more subtle, critical scholars that Peter could not have been a bishop at Rome because there were no bishops in Rome until the middle of the second century A.D. This view that Peter could not have been a bishop appears to be the common or majority view among critical scholars. Oswald Sobrino, J.D., M.A. (Catholic author “Catholic Analysis 2006” who also writes on the web)

To be fair, in addition to the 11 books and 1 web paper I checked above, I have one book - that I bought autographed by the author - A History of the Popes - Vicars of Christ by Charles A. Coulombe, MJF Books, 2003. The author discusses at length Peter’s extra-biblical activities in depth including details of Peter’s supposed years in Rome without a single citation nor without mentioning, as do the 12 sources cited above, that there is no historical record of it for over a hundred plus years later.

 

[BDawg]

Thanks, Snow. This forum is notorious, in my view, for people who 1) demand absolute historical proof for the claims of other religions, 2) deny the existence of the evidence we do put forward, and 3) inflate claims of historical evidence for their own claims beyond belief.

I think perhaps that some people stake so much of their faith on these supposed “proofs” that they can’t afford, emotionally, to admit any flaws or gaps. They have the silver bullet, and anyone who doesn’t see things their way must be stupid or just evil.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It looks like I have some catching up to do on this thread. I want to devote some time to understanding (and perhaps) rebutting some of the scriptural arguments.

But for now, I’d like to post what I have run across in my studies about whether or not Peter was actually a monoepiscopal leader over the Church and Bishop of Rome.

Perhaps you misunderstand the role of the Pope. He is not a monoepiscopal leader over the Church.

 

[Snow]

Perhaps you misunderstand the role of the Pope. He is not a monoepiscopal leader over the Church.

This is a change.

Did you forget to insult the LDS Church and complain about Joseph Smith?

The pope is, first and foremost, the Bishop of Rome. The most important study in this regard is Jean-M.R. Tillard’s The Bishop of Rome, trans John de Satge (Willington, DelL Michael Glazier, 1983). See also Tillard, “Primacy, Papal” The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1051-3.

The office of the Bishop of Rome is a monoepiscopal office.

Mono means one. Episcopal means of or relating to a bishop / of, relating to, or involving church government by bishops.

 

[Snow]

Thanks, Snow. This forum is notorious, in my view, for people who 1) demand absolute historical proof for the claims of other religions, 2) deny the existence of the evidence we do put forward, and 3) inflate claims of historical evidence for their own claims beyond belief.

I think perhaps that some people stake so much of their faith on these supposed “proofs” that they can’t afford, emotionally, to admit any flaws or gaps. They have the silver bullet, and anyone who doesn’t see things their way must be stupid or just evil.

You’ll notice, I’ve found that the bright, educated and Christian-like posters will debate you on the merits with appropriate sources and reasoning for their position. Then there are those who’s only tools are whining, attacking, name-calling, ignoring posts they can’t refute.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,

I have never heard before that the first 30 popes were martyred. Where did you get this information?

There you have it; How can something like the martyred popes be something to miss. Sounds like bias historical interpretation you have been recieving from Mormonism. Did you know that Joseph Smith misinterpreted ancient Egyptian manuscripts he purchased in a art dealer sale to his own fancy. What makes you think when they found the ancient documents in the 1800’s from the apostates who went on record to prove to the law that they worshipped Romans gods according to the edict by the Emperor; inorder to be freed from torture and death. These newly found documents were misinterpreted to conjur up a false claim of a total apostacy of the Catholic church. Somethin, mighty fishy going on then?

As far as resources, it has been many years of pope by pope study, I see if I can find a solo resource that contains all for you, and get back to you. I could give all the names at this time if your interested? peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. “According to legend, after leaving Jerusalem in the 40s Peter traveled through Asia Minor and eventually to Rome, where he was martyred under the emperor Nero after the great fire of 64. These legends, however, come from later developments in the Petrine tradition.” L. Michael White From Jesus to Christianity, Harper 2004 p272

Gabriel of 12
Ahhh, Snow, Snow; So L. Michael White overrides scripture, Jesus, and first four centuries of eyewitness accounts, to label factual history as “legend” about the Church Jesus built upon Peter? come on give me a break.

Your long listing of misinterpretations of Catholic Saints does not get you anywhere here. Just reading them as you placed these quotes are far from how you are forcing your personal interpretations to these Catholic Saints. It is sad, that you would go to such trouble listing a lengthly comment and misintrepret the Catholic Saints.

Using the tactic of bombardment of misquotes, does not support your case from learned Catholic, It may work out there were your from to the Joe pew christian, but in this real world, be ready to support your false claims.

One more point, you are arguing Peter’s succession from a time period that it meant death to be a Pope, let alone a practicing Christian. That Tradition from the apostles is so important here. First four centuries of Catholic Popes and Saints, and martyrs do not begin to record about the apostolic successors of Peter when the underground Church was growing, and does not get the edict of Milan until 325 A.D lifting the 300 year old persecutions law of Christians and Popes. Please be reasonable. Ireneaus writings list the first 12 popes from Peter. Ireneaus would have listed all the successors of each apostle, but according to Tradition, every one in his time new who they are. The problem is the Pope kept changing because the Popes kept getting martyred by the Roman law, and never apostacised, they welcomed death first.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks, Snow. This forum is notorious, in my view, for people who 1) demand absolute historical proof for the claims of other religions, 2) deny the existence of the evidence we do put forward, and 3) inflate claims of historical evidence for their own claims beyond belief.

I think perhaps that some people stake so much of their faith on these supposed “proofs” that they can’t afford, emotionally, to admit any flaws or gaps. They have the silver bullet, and anyone who doesn’t see things their way must be stupid or just evil.

Oh, so your an eyewitness to Jesus passion, Crucifixion, and resurrection? That you can offer proof of this historical fact without using Catholic writings, teachings, and canonized bible?

I think you and Snow are making arguments against Apostolic Tradition and confusing them with the Chair and authority of Peter. Making you should look into the dates when the new testament was written after the Church was already in existance. This may help you understand history and the death threat that ruled over Christians for the first four centuries.

Take a step back and see how your unintending arguing Catholic Saints against Catholics? Does not make sense to me: This complacent arguing of yours makes me question your learning source. God is not going to judge you by your education, God Love’s you, and wants you to know him and love him, but most of all have “Faith” in him. Having all black and white without Sacred Traditon taught by the apostles and Jesus, is not having “Faith”.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks, Snow. This forum is notorious, in my view, for people who 1) demand absolute historical proof for the claims of other religions,

Gabriel of 12
You know BDawg; you raise an interesting point here. LDS argue 1800 years later of an apostacy in the Catholic church beginning from the first century without any facts of date, people, cities, names, and built their religion from this false claim, because history is silent of never there being a total apostacy of the Catholic church Jesus built upon Peter. LDS has built its religion form this false foundation by the man (founder) Joseph Smith and his followers.

Catholics argue from the first century when the apostles walked the earth from apostolic Tradition handed down to the Catholic church when it was a crime to be a Christian.

So which is more reasonable to argue? Your freedom religion to argue safely 1800 years later against the blood of the first four centuries of Catholic christians, or Catholics arguing from eyewitness accounts, scripture, apostolic Tradition from the first four centuries on any christian topic.

Peace be with you

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

BDawg is really getting the better of you.

I didn’t know this was a contest. If it were, he’s be left in the dust…trust me.

 

[mercygate]

Interesting progression.
Christ the rock and foundaion of the Church
Peter the rock and foundation of the Curch
The “chair of Peter” now is transfered to others.

This is in scripture?

Yes. Petrine primacy is in Scripture. We didn’t make this up.

Back to a couple of points up-thread: the Church celebrates the foundation of the Roman Church, giving credit to the role of both Peter and Paul in one of her great feasts: The Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul on June 29.

But the primacy is, by the commission of Our Lord Himself, Peter’s.

Keep in mind also that the Church is built upon the foundation of all the apostles. Christ is the ROCK; Peter is the rock upon which Our Lord states that He will build His church. By the year 175 A.D., Irenaeus, in his *Adversus Haereses, *refers to the foundation of the Roman Church by Peter and Paul and notes that since the succession of its bishops is well known and that THIS Church has never fallen into heresy and that all the other churches must be in union with her.

In case you think 175 A.D. is a long time after 33 A.D., let me give you a personal example. I remember my great grandmother very well. She was born in 1858 and died in 1954 when I was 9 years old. She told of being taken by her parents to see the train carrying Abraham Lincoln’s coffin as it made its way through Illinois. It is now 2005, 140 years after Lincoln’s death. Yet I have sat on the lap of someone who was an eye witness to that train journey. I have no reason to doubt this family “tradition” because I learned it directly from her and also heard it from her long-lived younger brother. I have passed that story on to my daughter, who will probably live to repeat it until at least 2060.

Since the Peter-as-Bishop-of-Rome tradition is a lot more important than my great grandmother’s viewing of Lincoln’s train, I would think it to be at least as reliable.

Peter is said to have gone to Rome in A.D. 42. Ignatius (ca. 107) speaks of his presence there. Thus, this second century tradition is closer in time to Peter than I am to my great grandmother’s story about Lincoln.

The fact that the full development of Petrine primacy as an operative principle evolved over a couple of hundred years does not translate into a denial that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, especially since the tradition is so near in time to its origin and is corroborated by early texts cited by others.

If memory serves, the first Pope specifically and formally to claim the power of the keys was Cornelius in A.D. 251 – but that in no way unseats the fact that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

 

[ryanoneil]

I’d also be interested in exploring the case for Peter’s primacy in the New Testament.

Here are some examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and his leadership role is shown.

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. (Mt 10:2) Mk 3:16 and Lk 6:14-16 are very similar.

Rising very early before dawn, he left and went off to a deserted place, where he prayed. Simon and those who were with him pursued him and on finding him said, “Everyone is looking for you.” (M 1:36)

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” (Mt 19:25-27)

But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’" (Mk 16:7)

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” (Act 2:37)

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

And there are many more example where Peter (because of is position) is the one who speaks and answers on behalf of the disciples.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is a change.

Did you forget to insult the LDS Church and complain about Joseph Smith?

The pope is, first and foremost, the Bishop of Rome. [The most important study in this regard is Jean-M.R. Tillard’s The Bishop of Rome, trans John de Satge (Willington, DelL Michael Glazier, 1983). See also Tillard, “Primacy, Papal” The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1051-3.

The office of the Bishop of Rome is a monoepiscopal office.

Mono means one. Episcopal means of or relating to a bishop / of, relating to, or involving church government by bishops.

Look how smart you are! All the “Pope is the Bishop of Rome”.

Did you forget what you said?

quote: “a monoepiscopal leader over the Church”

I said, perhaps you don’t understand the role of the Pope, he is not the monoepiscopal leader of the Church.
[/quote]

 

[ryanoneil]

In fact, all indications are that Paul got to Rome before Peter. For example, after Paul had already been there, he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. If Peter were there, why didn’t Paul mention Peter in the letter? Check out Romans 16, where Paul salutes various prominent Roman Christians by name–but no Peter.

Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another’s foundation” referring to Peter.

Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation, but as it is written: “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.” (Rom 15:20)

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is a change.

The pope is, first and foremost, the Bishop of Rome. [The most important study in this regard is Jean-M.R. Tillard’s The Bishop of Rome, trans John de Satge (Willington, DelL Michael Glazier, 1983). See also Tillard, “Primacy, Papal” The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1051-3.

Snow, perhaps you would like to read something more recent than the old Encyclopedia and more authoratitive (for Catholics, ie what we believe) than Jean-M.R. Tillard?

Give Lumen Gentium a read.
[/quote]

 

[Hisalone]

I didn’t know this was a contest. If it were, he’s be left in the dust…trust me.

I say this because you make great leaps of conjecture stating what has not been proven as if fact. You are unable to look critically at the Catholic Church taking everything it says about itself as a given. You must understand that in many eyes The CC has not proven its claims.

 

[Hisalone]

Yes. Petrine primacy is in Scripture. We didn’t make this up.

Back to a couple of points up-thread: the Church celebrates the foundation of the Roman Church, giving credit to the role of both Peter and Paul in one of her great feasts: The Solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul on June 29.

But the primacy is, by the commission of Our Lord Himself, Peter’s.

Keep in mind also that the Church is built upon the foundation of all the apostles. Christ is the ROCK; Peter is the rock upon which Our Lord states that He will build His church. By the year 175 A.D., Irenaeus, in his *Adversus Haereses, *refers to the foundation of the Roman Church by Peter and Paul and notes that since the succession of its bishops is well known and that THIS Church has never fallen into heresy and that all the other churches must be in union with her.

In case you think 175 A.D. is a long time after 33 A.D., let me give you a personal example. I remember my great grandmother very well. She was born in 1858 and died in 1954 when I was 9 years old. She told of being taken by her parents to see the train carrying Abraham Lincoln’s coffin as it made its way through Illinois. It is now 2005, 140 years after Lincoln’s death. Yet I have sat on the lap of someone who was an eye witness to that train journey. I have no reason to doubt this family “tradition” because I learned it directly from her and also heard it from her long-lived younger brother. I have passed that story on to my daughter, who will probably live to repeat it until at least 2060.

Since the Peter-as-Bishop-of-Rome tradition is a lot more important than my great grandmother’s viewing of Lincoln’s train, I would think it to be at least as reliable.

Peter is said to have gone to Rome in A.D. 42. Ignatius (ca. 107) speaks of his presence there. Thus, this second century tradition is closer in time to Peter than I am to my great grandmother’s story about Lincoln.

The fact that the full development of Petrine primacy as an operative principle evolved over a couple of hundred years does not translate into a denial that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, especially since the tradition is so near in time to its origin and is corroborated by early texts cited by others.

If memory serves, the first Pope specifically and formally to claim the power of the keys was Cornelius in A.D. 251 – but that in no way unseats the fact that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

If I accept all that the CC teaches on Matt 16 which I do not, how did we get there from here?
How does the bishop at Rome evolve into the whole Vatican structure and dogma of the Papacy that we have today?

 

[MDK]

I say this because you make great leaps of conjecture stating what has not been proven as if fact. You are unable to look critically at the Catholic Church taking everything it says about itself as a given. You must understand that in many eyes The CC has not proven its claims.

The Catholic Church does not have to prove anything, she just has to be what she is. It’s up to others seeking the truth to really find out. However, many seem to stop short of the finish line in that journey, and enjoy a comfortable rest stop for their life, rather than courageously going with where the Truth takes them.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

If I accept all that the CC teaches on Matt 16 which I do not, how did we get there from here?
How does the bishop at Rome evolve into the whole Vatican structure and dogma of the Papacy that we have today?

The Nature and Role of the Church:

1. Jesus founded One Church (Matt 16:18)
2. Jesus established an authoritative church regarding the Truth (John 8:32; 1 Timothy 3:15; Matt 18:15-17)
3. The church must be a visible church, with unity in doctrine. (Acts 4:32; I Corinthians 1:10; John 17:23)

What exactly is the nature of the Church’s Authority?

All authority inside and outside the Church comes from God. Scripture tells us that. So the authority of the Church is God’s authority. Is there a particular type of authority in regards to the Church? “We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” We have an apostolic authority.

Matthew 28:18-19 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 20:21 - Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me [with full authority on Heaven on Earth], even so I am sending you.”

Apostolic Authority is the authority of God the Father, as given to Christ and then to the apostles. When you heard the apostles pronounce on matters of faith and morals, you were hearing Jesus Christ Himself.

Luke 10:16 - “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

John 14:16-17 - And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete (Helper), to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

The apostles received the Holy Spirit of truth.

John 14:26 - But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 - When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The apostles were able to teach on faith and morals without error because they were guided by the Holy Spirit, who doesn’t make mistakes. The had the charism or the gift of infallibility. If a person is infallible, it doesn’t mean they cannot commit a sin, can never make a mistake, or that they will always teach what they should. In Catholic theology infallibility means the person will not err in teaching on matters of faith and morals. Infallibility has nothing to do with math, physics, biology… It is a negative protection - simply prevents error from being taught.

Acts 8:30-31 - So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Scripture tells us we need a guide to understand Scripture, wouldn’t God give us an infallible guide to guide us into the truth of His Word?

1 John 4:6 We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us; he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

You can tell who is or is not of God by seeing who does and who does not listen to John, the leaders in the Church, the apostles and their successors.

1 Peter 1:12 - It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.

In other words, the apostles taught infallibly because the Holy Spirit guided them.

(to be continued)