Successors

[Classicist]

Hello Brothers & Sisters in Christ

I was baptized in 2011, and have lurked around CAF for a while… I love the Church and wish with all my heart to be a part of her and to be obedient to her, but I’ve been struggling with the supremacy of Rome in scripture, tradition, and history.

It’s pretty clear that the Church is founded upon Peter, not upon the Faith he confessed. It’s obvious that he was made the supreme center of unity between the Apostles… but did Christ found the Church upon only Peter as the first rock, and when the rock was established there was no need for further rocks such as JP 2, B. XVI, and Francis I?

The Isaiah 22 prophecy of Shebna’s sin & Eliakim’s reception of the keys is certainly related to Peter; however, Shebna held the keys, was wicked, lost them, and was replaced. If the office of Shebna & Eliakim = Peter, then if Peter errs, can’t he be cast out just as Shebna was, and replaced with another? What if Christ meant to build the Church upon the *Man *Peter, and not the Office Peter?

It’s clear that Matthias succeeded Judas’ bishopric, but Matthias was not the same man as Judas. Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., are not the same persons. Where do we see the rationale that the office of Peter is inherited completely, fully, and without diminution by his successors? Is Francis I 100% equal to Peter?

Please feel free to use the saints to make a point. I appreciate it.

 

[Nita]

When Jesus appointed Peter as the Rock, it was in relation to the Church He was going to establish/build. The authority given was given for the Church, a foundation for the Church. ("…and on this rock I will build My Church.")

As long as Jesus’ Church exists here on earth, it needs that foundation to keep it solid. Jesus said nothing about removing the authority/rock/foundation after Peter’s death and leaving His Church without a solid foundation/authority.

Jesus also appointed 12 apostles (bishops). But that role did not cease when the apostles died.

 

[Classicist]

Thank you brother/sister Nita for the help…

The Lord did say that He would build the Church upon the rock. Does anyone know if the ancient Greek uses the word “build” in a perfect future tense or imperfect? That is, could the Lord have meant that He would build the Church once-and-for-all upon the One Man Peter, or could He have meant that He would go on building it on Peter(s) through the ages? Obviously the latter is the Catholic interpretation.

Peter lived and died once. He was the foundation of the Church, but the Lord said “upon you”, not “upon you and those who follow you”, or “upon you and your successors”.A building has only one foundation laid, once for all, and then the construction takes place. Christ builds the structure, but the “One Peter” is laid already. How can every Pope be 100% The Rock? That would mean there is no Church during sede vacante!

 

[jonathan_hili]

The verb used is οἰκοδομήσω, which is future indicative (neither future perfect: “I will have built” nor future imperfect - which doesn’t exist in Greek, or in English!), and suggests an act to build in the future.

You ask some good questions:

The Isaiah 22 prophecy of Shebna’s sin & Eliakim’s reception of the keys is certainly related to Peter; however, Shebna held the keys, was wicked, lost them, and was replaced.

Indeed, and the use of “keys” language suggests that what Jesus is establishing is an office, since in Isa 22:19 we read that the prophet says of Shebna: “I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.” (RSV, italics added)

If the office of Shebna & Eliakim = Peter, then if Peter errs, can’t he be cast out just as Shebna was, and replaced with another?

Well, we see Peter err in quite a big way in rejecting Christ three times! But what happens, he finds forgiveness (John 21). The only person who could remove Peter or his successor from office, as with the Davidic kingdom, is the King or God.

What if Christ meant to build the Church upon the Man Peter, and not the Office Peter?

If that’s the case, Jesus was very short-sighted since he only gave his Church one generation of government.

 

[Gorgias]

Does anyone know if the ancient Greek uses the word “build” in a perfect future tense or imperfect?

The future perfect tense is quite rare in the New Testament, and therefore, the decision of whether a future verb is meant to be imperfect (future on-going action) or aoristic (future completed action) is generally based on an analysis of context.

That is, could the Lord have meant that He would build the Church once-and-for-all upon the One Man Peter, or could He have meant that He would go on building it on Peter(s) through the ages? Obviously the latter is the Catholic interpretation.

This is an interesting take on the situation. I’d never have thought about it in quite that way. Instead, I would assert that the Church was built on Peter; and that the Church continues to exist on the grounds of Petrine ministry…

Peter lived and died once. He was the foundation of the Church, but the Lord said “upon you”, not “upon you and those who follow you”, or “upon you and your successors”.

This is true, but Christ also didn’t say “when an apostle dies, his authority dies with him.” Therefore, when we see the apostles acting within the bounds of the authority given them, as they choose a ‘new’ 12th apostle, we already see – in Scripture! – that the principle of apostolic succession exists. Does it seem problematic to you, though, that in Peter we have not only apostolic succession but also the succession of the Petrine ministry?

How can every Pope be 100% The Rock? That would mean there is no Church during sede vacante!

Well, every Pope takes on Petrine ministry, but in doing so, he doesn’t ‘become’ the Church…! Rather, he’s the earthly head of the Church; when the seat is vacant, the Church exists, but is temporarily without a visible head, that’s all. Does that present a problem?

Blessings,

G.

 

[Classicist]

The verb used is οἰκοδομήσω, which is future indicative (neither future perfect: “I will have built” nor future imperfect - which doesn’t exist in Greek, or in English!), and suggests an act to build in the future.

Sorry about that - I am new to grammar-studies, and used the improper term.

Indeed, and the use of “keys” language suggests that what Jesus is establishing is an office, since in Isa 22:19 we read that the prophet says of Shebna: “I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station.” (RSV, italics added)

Yes indeed, but God does not thrust Peters from the Office for wickedness, blasphemy, sacrilege, or erroneous teaching. You can say “well that’s because He guarantees infallibility” - but if infallibility & the everlasting Rock of Peter are guaranteed, why did the Lord use the example of Shebna’s Office (which is manifestly not preserved from error or schism)?

Well, we see Peter err in quite a big way in rejecting Christ three times! But what happens, he finds forgiveness (John 21). The only person who could remove Peter or his successor from office, as with the Davidic kingdom, is the King or God.

Doesn’t this show how inconstant and “un-Rock-y” Peter & the sons of men are, and thus not a likely explanation of how the Foundation-Rock is continued through history?

If that’s the case, Jesus was very short-sighted since he only gave his Church one generation of government.

This is probably the most important thing you’ve said, my friend. He founded the Church upon the Rock - but a foundation is not a government, is it? To lay the foundation is not to appoint the Head, necessarily. The basement of a corporate HQ is not equivalent to the CEO of the company.

Anyway, I know Peter is the rock, the foundation, the leader, etc., but does this continue with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, et. al., or was the Foundation once for all, and the Government given to all the Apostles in toto?

The future perfect tense is quite rare in the New Testament, and therefore, the decision of whether a future verb is meant to be imperfect (future on-going action) or aoristic (future completed action) is generally based on an analysis of context.

Aorist! That’s it. If it is imperfect, then we see everything pan out like a beautiful landscape, and there are no further questions. If it was aorist, more needs to be asked.

This is an interesting take on the situation. I’d never have thought about it in quite that way. Instead, I would assert that the Church was built on Peter; and that the Church continues to exist on the grounds of Petrine ministry…

Please define “Petrine ministry”. How can Peter exercise minister when the seat is empty?

This is true, but Christ also didn’t say “when an apostle dies, his authority dies with him.” Therefore, when we see the apostles acting within the bounds of the authority given them, as they choose a ‘new’ 12th apostle, we already see – in Scripture! – that the principle of apostolic succession exists. Does it seem problematic to you, though, that in Peter we have not only apostolic succession but also the succession of the Petrine ministry?

The election of Matthias as “One of the Twelve”, and then the sudden inclusion of Paul as a thirteenth Apostle, is very important for this discussion. If we take our cues on Apostolic Succession from Acts 1, in that an Apostle is always required to be sitting in one of the “Twelve Cathedras” or chairs, why are we concerned with preserving Peter’s chair only? They were clearly solicitous for all twelve. As to there being an existing but “headless church” without a pope: that does not flow from the analogy of the Rock & Foundation used by the Lord. Why does “rock” & “foundation” = Head/Leader?

Just for clarity’s sake, I think the Orthodox ideal of collegiality, conciliarity, and synodical government looks very much like a logical continuation of Acts 1 & Acts 15.

 

[bzkoss236]

Peter lived and died once. He was the foundation of the Church, but the Lord said “upon you”, not “upon you and those who follow you”, or “upon you and your successors”.A building has only one foundation laid, once for all, and then the construction takes place. Christ builds the structure, but the “One Peter” is laid already. How can every Pope be 100% The Rock? That would mean there is no Church during sede vacante!

Peter is still the foundation of the Church, even today. Peter wasn’t taken out of office, which would be indicative of him no longer being the foundation. That is why the office of the pope is called the ‘chair of peter’. And the fact that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, and as you referenced Isaiah, shows that He will have a successor to which the Keys will be given. And we have had some bad popes in the past, but that is a person, not the office of pope.

The Church is build (and is being build, and will be built) upon Peter, with every new generation and every new pope, the Church is continually built up.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Yes indeed, but God does not thrust Peters from the Office for wickedness, blasphemy, sacrilege, or erroneous teaching.

Oh yes He does (or at least can) - whether He has done so in the past, I don’t know. How was Shebna removed from office? He wasn’t put down by Isaiah or the King but he died!

Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. (Isa 22:17-18, RSV)

Popes die all the time. God might choose to end the life of some Pope for this kind of reason.

You can say “well that’s because He guarantees infallibility” - but if infallibility & the everlasting Rock of Peter are guaranteed, why did the Lord use the example of Shebna’s Office (which is manifestly not preserved from error or schism)?

Because the office is one of deputising for (i) the Davidic king (who is Christ) and (ii) the high priest (who is also Christ). Peter and his successors fulfill both of these roles: spiritual and political leaders of the Church on earth for Christ.

Doesn’t this show how inconstant and “un-Rock-y” Peter & the sons of men are, and thus not a likely explanation of how the Foundation-Rock is continued through history?

Because it is not the person who is the rock but the office. However, there is another way you can look at it, and for that, I shall quote G.K. Chesterton:

“When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.”

Addressing your last point, about the government. That’s the point: the keys were handed to the “over-the-house” (which is what Shebna was) because the king was away. It was most certainly a governmental role. While Jesus is away, Peter and his successors play this role. And this explains why the role continues - because Christ has not yet come again.

 

[Classicist]

Edit:

Clearly Peter is already distinct from the Popes in that he is One Of The Twelve, and the Bishops of Rome are not treated as Apostles, strictly speaking. Already, then, we see that each Pope is not “fully” what Peter was - is that correct or incorrect?

Maybe instead of trying to frame my question in terms of Peter himself, I should ask: how does the Church teach that the Rock, Foundation, Authority, Supremacy, etc., is manifested in each successor of Peter? That’s the title of this thread after all. Where does the Holy Scripture & the earliest Tradition tell us that the Bishops of Rome are not only succeeding Peter (easily found in Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and many others), but are equivalent to Peter? This last part is the crux.

You’re all very helpful, my brothers in Christ.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Where does the Holy Scripture & the earliest Tradition tell us that the Bishops of Rome are not only succeeding Peter (easily found in Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, and many others), but are equivalent to Peter?

Apostolic succession is partly found in Scripture (such as the example you cited from Acts in replacing Judas, as well as 2 Tim 2:2) but more so in early Church Fathers, like Clement (writing in the late first century), such as:

Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. (First Letter To The Corinthians, 44:1–3)

Now, by equivalent, do you mean having the same role over the universal Church? This idea took some time to be clearly articulated but finds earliest expressions in these same Fathers, such as Clement (whose letter to the Corinthians is ostensibly authoritative) and Irenaeus.

 

[jonathan_hili]

No Pope can be fully what Peter was as Peter knew the Lord!

But the importance of the papal role isn’t based on the man Peter but on his office. This understanding took a bit of time to be more clearly articulated but this shouldn’t surprise us. In fact, we see clearer and earlier evidence for papal authority in the Early Church than we do for the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and many other doctrines.

 

[Classicist]

But the importance of the papal role isn’t based on the man Peter but on his office. This understanding took a bit of time to be more clearly articulated but this shouldn’t surprise us. In fact, we see clearer and earlier evidence for papal authority in the Early Church than we do for the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and many other doctrines.

That seems to confuse what the Lord said to Peter. “I say to you; blessed are you; you shall be called; I shall give you the keys;” etc., is all addressed to to the singular person of Peter.

Would you mind giving me CCC references, patristic exegeses, or encyclicals that touch on the rationale behind Peter’s successors, rather than upon Peter himself? It’s pretty clear what the Lord gave to Peter, but what’s not so clear is the transmission & dignity accorded to each successor. Since this is the very lifeblood of the Church, we gotta be clear.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The relevant CCC paragraphs are 881 and 882:

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

Yes, Jesus addressed those words to Peter himself but it is clear from the parallel with Isaiah and especially the reference to the “keys” that this is an office of over-the-house that is being established. When you combine this idea with that of apostolic succession, which we already see evidenced in the NT, you can see how Peter’s role as leader is to be passed on. Even the Orthodox understand the Bishop of Rome (Peter’s see) as “first among equals” precisely because of the role Peter played and his being the foundation stone.

 

[Nita]

That seems to confuse what the Lord said to Peter. “I say to you; blessed are you; you shall be called; I shall give you the keys;” etc., is all addressed to to the singular person of Peter.

Would you mind giving me CCC references, patristic exegeses, or encyclicals that touch on the rationale behind Peter’s successors, rather than upon Peter himself? It’s pretty clear what the Lord gave to Peter, but what’s not so clear is the transmission & dignity accorded to each successor. Since this is the very lifeblood of the Church, we gotta be clear.

I think if you go to the following entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, you’ll find what you are looking for.
newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Scroll down a little past the first major section until you get to the next section titled:
Primacy of the Roman See
We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:
• that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
• that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
…You may want to skip the proof about St. Peter being Bishop of Rome and go right to where the part about his successors begins.

Hope this will provide what you’re looking for.
Actually, the whole article is worth reading if you have the time.

 

[Classicist]

Thank you so much Nita & johnathan for your patience.

The real issue is, as the 1913 Encyclopedia puts it, is whether “the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church.” There’s the crux. Let’s see what NewAdvent has to say, as well as the CCC.

 

[Classicist]

Hmm…

Can anyone familiar with Latin or Greek grammar help me with the future-tense verb “to build”?

The Lord’s words “I will build my Church” are almost the center of the whole Gospel, for what they indicate. If “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that He completes once-for-all upon Peter after Pentecost, then Peter’s role in the Church’s foundation was finished and all the Apostles received the Keys. If, however, “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that the Lord is continually doing forever upon Peter, then the meaning is clearly Papal.

It’s funny how the grammar of a single word can mean everything!

 

[Classicist]

Quotes like this are pretty helpful:

**ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, A.D. 431

SESSION III, Acts of the Council:**

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.”

Note that the Greek word “Exarch” referred to a person with authority over all other governors in a given province. This Fr. Philip was not by any means contradicted by the bishops. Amazing! This is precious gold.

 

[Gorgias]

Hmm…

Can anyone familiar with Latin or Greek grammar help me with the future-tense verb “to build”?

As I mentioned earlier, there is no grammatical difference between future simple and future continuous in the Koine Greek of the New Testament; the distinction is found in context. It is my understanding that Latin grammar is the same: there’s no grammatical distinction between the two notions.

The Lord’s words “I will build my Church” are almost the center of the whole Gospel, for what they indicate. If “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that He completes once-for-all upon Peter after Pentecost, then Peter’s role in the Church’s foundation was finished and all the Apostles received the Keys. If, however, “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that the Lord is continually doing forever upon Peter, then the meaning is clearly Papal.

I’m not certain I agree with your analysis. If Jesus completes his ‘building’ of the Church with Peter, then governance of this Church is still an issue – and if Jesus means “I’m gonna build my Church on Peter, and all ya’ll get the keys”, then you might have a point. However, “I give you the keys” uses the singular ‘you’: in other words, Jesus isn’t speaking to all the apostles when He speaks of governance.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hmm…

Can anyone familiar with Latin or Greek grammar help me with the future-tense verb “to build”?

The Lord’s words “I will build my Church” are almost the center of the whole Gospel, for what they indicate. If “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that He completes once-for-all upon Peter after Pentecost, then Peter’s role in the Church’s foundation was finished and all the Apostles received the Keys. If, however, “aedificabo/οἰκοδομήσω” is something that the Lord is continually doing forever upon Peter, then the meaning is clearly Papal.

It’s funny how the grammar of a single word can mean everything!

I’m not sure how what you’re saying follows, Classicist.

For example, if the founders of the United States said, “We will be the office of the presidency on the constitution”, does that preclude there being any other presidents than just the first? Or does it even preclude there being additions or changes to the constitution? Obviously not.

Sure, Peter was the foundation stone of the Church, but since the Church needs to continue, so does Peter - and he does, through the Popes.

For example, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Second Session (451):

After the reading of the foregoing epistle The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through [Pope] Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!”

 

[Classicist]

Sure, Peter was the foundation stone of the Church, but since the Church needs to continue, so does Peter - and he does, through the Popes

I’m not certain I agree with your analysis. If Jesus completes his ‘building’ of the Church with Peter, then governance of this Church is still an issue – and if Jesus means “I’m gonna build my Church on Peter, and all ya’ll get the keys”, then you might have a point. However, “I give you the keys” uses the singular ‘you’: in other words, Jesus isn’t speaking to all the apostles when He speaks of governance.

The only reason I ask this is the teaching of the Lord a few weeks after the sacred words were uttered to Peter. As recorded in Matthew 18:18-20:

'In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. ‘In truth I tell you once again, if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all, it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them.’

I believe He used the second-person plural pronoun for “you” (Apostles). He does not mention the Keys here, but the effects of the Keys are mentioned: binding & loosing.