Was the Papacy divinely established?

[MilesVitae]

I have been reading a bit of the Church Fathers concerning the papacy.
It seems clear to me that the church in Rome held a place of primal honor in the Church during the patristic period, and probably even possessed some sort of special authority. Furthermore, this special status was based (at least in part) on it being the See of Peter, chief of the Apostles.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.
It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

I have been reading a bit of the Church Fathers concerning the papacy.
It seems clear to me that the church in Rome held a place of primal honor in the Church during the patristic period, and probably even possessed some sort of special authority. Furthermore, this special status was based (at least in part) on it being the See of Peter, chief of the Apostles.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.
It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

No error here. The papacy was divinely established. on Matt 16:18 and John 15-19. Look carefully at the writings of the Church Fathers. This was established by Christ himself.

Saint Augustine wrote in reference of Matt 16:18:

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

 

[Jacob50]

“I have by the grace of God always been a Catholic, never out of communion with the Roman Pontiff. Then, when I observed that public affairs were so ordered, that the sources of the power of the Roman Pontiff would necessarily be examined, I gave myself to a most diligent examination of that question for the space of seven years, and found that the authority of the Roman Pontiff was not only lawful, to be respected and necessary, but also grounded on divine law. You may no more refuse obedience to the See of Rome, than a child might refuse obedience to his natural father. That is my opinion. That is the belief in which, by God’s grace, I shall die.” [A.D. 1535]).

• Thomas More

“According to the promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains free from all taint of heresy or deceit in its pontiffs, the Popes, and in the full faith and authority of Peter, and while other churches are shamed by errors, she reigns the solitary Church, unshakably established, imposing silence and closing the mouths of heretics and we, of necessity for our salvation, proclaim and confess this as the pattern of holy, apostolic tradition.” [A.D. 1259]).

• St. Thomas Aquinas

“In the Catholic Church I adhere to the Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold, must follow this voice of Peter.” (Apostolic Digest pg 251, [A.D. 411])
-Augustine

“You cannot deny that you are aware that In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
-Optatus of Milevus

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the** principle authority** in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276 [A.D. 430]).
-John Cassian

If you read carefully the Church Fathers, there is quite a lot of evidence the Church was divinely established. You can check them at:
catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

Also I dont think Thomas Aquinas or Thomas More are considered Church Fathers but, nonetheless their quotes seemed interesting in my investigation.

 

[bmullins]

Here is a thought, but it’s not fully fleshed. There were 12 apostles. Readily we see that many church fathers and theologians see that as the new twelve tribes. One tribe was selected to hold the office of priest from Israel. Why do we assume it would be different in the new covenant?

 

[MilesVitae]

Here is a thought, but it’s not fully fleshed. There were 12 apostles. Readily we see that many church fathers and theologians see that as the new twelve tribes. One tribe was selected to hold the office of priest from Israel. Why do we assume it would be different in the new covenant?

I don’t assume it would be different - but I won’t assume it must be the same.

Don’t misunderstand me. The notion that Christ would establish a visible head of His Church is perfectly reasonable to me. None the less, I cannot see why this must be so, and am not convinced yet, from Scripture or patristics, that it is a historical fact.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother MilesVitae,

Thank you for asking this in the public forum, and forgive me for neglecting to respond to your PM on the matter.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.

It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

I think the crux of your quandary is implied in your question above (I highlighted it in your post). I think your premise is that the papacy was created at some point in time AFTER the primacy of St. Peter was established. That is where the problem - and solution - can be found.

The papacy is not some new creation after the apostolic age. It is based solidly on the principles of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. It is a UNANIMOUS teaching of the Fathers that St. Peter was the coryphaeus of the Apostles. He was their head, their leader. He had the role, among all the Apostles, to be the confirmer of the brethren, the possessor of the keys, and the one person identified by Christ Himself to be the rock upon which His Church should be built (a rockiness that cannot be separated from His Faith nor from Christ, contrary to the polemics of both Catholics and non-Catholics). The office of the papacy is not a new creation by the Church, but a CONTINUATION of this office of coryphaeus among the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles.

Think about it this way. Do you question the office of bishop? Do you wonder, “is the office of bishop a creation of the Church, or divinely established?” It’s probably never crossed your mind, because deep down you understand that the office of bishop is a CONTINUATION of the office of the Apostles, and not something created out of the blue. The papacy must be considered in the exact, same way. To repeat, the papacy was not created by the Church, but merely a CONTINUATION of an office/a responsibility that ALREADY existed among the Apostles.

Apostolic Succession entails the passing down of EVERYTHING that Christ gave the Apostles for the upbuilding of the body of Christ (except, of course, inspiration/revelation, which was given only to those who knew Christ personally). The onus is on non-Catholics to explain why an office/responsibility that existed among the Apostles for the upbuilding of the Apostles could not be passed down to the bishops. Are bishops greater than the Apostles? If Christ himself understood that the Apostles needed help, do we know better than our Lord with respect to the bishops?

The usual biblical quotes from Catholic apologetics (as given by brother ChrisRedfield) are not really relevant to your question, because they only speak of the establishment, not the continuation, of the Petrine ministry. I will offer you another biblical passage that is very often neglected by Catholic apologists. Read Matthew 24: 45-51. There you will find not only that (1) Christ intended to establish ONE servant over the household to feed the sheep, but (more relevant to your question) also that (2) this overseeing servant would still exist when Christ returns. Does Christ’s statement about the overseeing servant feeding the sheep strike a familiar chord? It should, because he gave that job to St. Peter very explicitly in John 21 (“feed my sheep…feed my lambs…feed my sheep”). And what do you suppose it means that the overseeing servant will still exist when Christ returns? That, brother MilesVitae, is explicit proof from the mouth of our Lord of the CONTINUATION of the Petrine ministry (the overseeing servant) until the Second Coming.

In case you are wondering about patristic support, St. John Chrysostom - patriarch of Constantinople - had used the above passages in specific reference to St. Peter and his successors in the bishop of Rome. This is especially relevant because St. Chrysostom was also from the Church of Antioch. MODERN non-Catholic apologetics and polemics always attempt to oppose the Petrine succession of the Church of Antioch with the Petrine succession of the Church of Rome. But we have here the greatest preacher of his age, who came from the Antiochene Tradition, explicitly admit that the primacy of St. Peter belonged to the succession in Rome.

I hope that helps. Any and all questions are welcome.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[apperkins]

Here is a thought, but it’s not fully fleshed. There were 12 apostles. Readily we see that many church fathers and theologians see that as the new twelve tribes. One tribe was selected to hold the office of priest from Israel. Why do we assume it would be different in the new covenant?

There were more than 12 apostles. Read Ephesians 4. It is clear that Paul was an apostle. Apostle’s according to the New Testament are men who have oversight of a number of churches and see to foundational issues. We see that the church an clearly be split into apostles, teachers, prophets, and elders from close study of ecclesiology and more importantly, the gospel.

 

[mardukm]

Apostle’s according to the New Testament are men who have oversight of a number of churches and see to foundational issues.

Actually, the Traditional definition of “Apostle” is “one who was sent” by the Lord Himself. That includes St. Paul, of course. A few others are called “apostles” in Scripture on the assumption that they were one of the original 70 disciples sent out by the Lord.

I think there are some groups who use “Apostle” very loosely, and are really referring to the office of bishop, instead of Apostle.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatius]

I have been reading a bit of the Church Fathers concerning the papacy.
It seems clear to me that the church in Rome held a place of primal honor in the Church during the patristic period, and probably even possessed some sort of special authority. Furthermore, this special status was based (at least in part) on it being the See of Peter, chief of the Apostles.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.
It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

Jesus (who is God) established it when He said to Peter “Thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build My Church”. So, yes, it was divinely established.

 

[mardukm]

Jesus (who is God) established it when He said to Peter “Thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build My Church”. So, yes, it was divinely established.

I don’t think MilesVitae has an issue with the establishment. The issue is whether or not the office/responsibilities of the papacy is the same thing that Jesus gave to Peter. So we need to address the issue of CONTINUATION, not establishment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

No error here. The papacy was divinely established. on Matt 16:18 and John 15-19. Look carefully at the writings of the Church Fathers. This was established by Christ himself.

Saint Augustine wrote in reference of Matt 16:18:

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

Thank you, a succinct and beautiful, quote worthy answer!
Blessings.

 

[mardukm]

I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

I believe you are thinking about Canon 28 of Chalcedon, where it says that New Rome is to have the same privileges as Old Rome.

First of all, the the giving of privileges was not with respect to Rome, but to Constantinople.

Secondly, the “privileges” spoken of are not referring to ecclesiastical privileges, but political privileges, by virtue of it being the new Capital of the Empire. Take note that it says that it is going to give the SAME privileges to New Rome as Old Rome already possessed, while at the same time admitting that Constantinople was SECOND to Rome in the ecclesiastical order. So the “privileges” spoken of cannot possibly be referring to the ecclesiastical order - in other words, it doesn’t make sense to give the SAME ecclesiastical privileges, yet still be SECOND to Rome. If they were the SAME ecclesiastical privileges, they would be EQUAL, ecclesiastically speaking. But since the Canon specifically admits that Constantinople was only SECOND to Rome, ecclesiastically speaking, the privileges spoken of could not possibly be referring to ecclesiastical privileges.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[kepha1]

I have been reading a bit of the Church Fathers concerning the papacy.
It seems clear to me that the church in Rome held a place of primal honor in the Church during the patristic period, and probably even possessed some sort of special authority. Furthermore, this special status was based (at least in part) on it being the See of Peter, chief of the Apostles.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.
It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

Was the Papacy Established by Christ?

******Resolved: **

The papacy, defined as “the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian church,” was created by Christ, through the apostle Peter, and this ministry was thereafter succeeded to by the bishops of Rome.

Affirming the Resolution: Mark Bonocore
Denying the Resolution: Jason Engwer

Good debate.

 

[Trebor135]

Was the Papacy Established by Christ?

********Resolved:

The papacy, defined as “the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian church,” was created by Christ, through the apostle Peter, and this ministry was thereafter succeeded to by the bishops of Rome.

Affirming the Resolution: Mark Bonocore
Denying the Resolution: Jason Engwer

Good debate.

Do you know of any solid debates on this topic between a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox? Catholic Answers should arrange something.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I have been reading a bit of the Church Fathers concerning the papacy.
It seems clear to me that the church in Rome held a place of primal honor in the Church during the patristic period, and probably even possessed some sort of special authority. Furthermore, this special status was based (at least in part) on it being the See of Peter, chief of the Apostles.

What is not clear to me from the patristic evidence, however, is that the papacy was divinely established.
It is possible that Christ established a perpetual office with Peter, and that this divinely instituted office was passed on by Peter and held by the bishops of Rome - as Catholics believe.
But it also seems to me quite possible that the special place possessed by the bishop of Rome was bestowed on it by the Church, not by Christ. That is, Peter played a primal role among the Apostles, and for this reason the Church gave special status to the church in Rome. I even recall a passage from the early church which speaks of the Fathers bestowing privileges on the church at Rome (I haven’t found it again, yet).

Certainly some of the fathers did seem to hold that the role of the bishop of Rome was of divine origin - for instance, Saint Jerome and some of the popes themselves. Could this not have been an erroneous development of thought on their part, however?

Jesus said Peter would be the Rock upon which he would found his Church. The See of Rome is literally built above St. Peter’s resting place and and the See has always been the leader, is this a coincidence? SO you see the Catholic Church and Holy See are literally and metaphorically built upon the Rock

 

[mardukm]

Do you know of any solid debates on this topic between a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox? Catholic Answers should arrange something.

I’ve investigated this issue quite thoroughly, and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox rhetoric against the papacy is exactly the same (I’ve actually been on the Orthodox [not in communion with Rome] side of the issue for most of my life).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear brother MilesVitae]
I will offer you another biblical passage that is very often neglected by Catholic apologists. Read Matthew 24: 45-51. There you will find not only that (1) Christ intended to establish ONE servant over the household to feed the sheep, but (more relevant to your question) also that (2) this overseeing servant would still exist when Christ returns. Does Christ’s statement about the overseeing servant feeding the sheep strike a familiar chord? It should, because he gave that job to St. Peter very explicitly in John 21 ("feed my sheep…feed my lambs…feed my sheep"). And what do you suppose it means that the overseeing servant will still exist when Christ returns? That, brother MilesVitae, is explicit proof from the mouth of our Lord of the CONTINUATION of the Petrine ministry (the overseeing servant) until the Second Coming.

In case you are wondering about patristic support, St. John Chrysostom - patriarch of Constantinople - had used the above passages in specific reference to St. Peter and his successors in the bishop of Rome. This is especially relevant because St. Chrysostom was also from the Church of Antioch. MODERN non-Catholic apologetics and polemics always attempt to oppose the Petrine succession of the Church of Antioch with the Petrine succession of the Church of Rome. But we have here the greatest preacher of his age, who came from the Antiochene Tradition, explicitly admit that the primacy of St. Peter belonged to the succession in Rome.

I am having trouble finding this particular passage from Chrysostom - do you remember where it’s from?

 

[bmullins]

“Rightly therefore, did Christ say, ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent, whom the Lord will set over His house?’ The words are again as of one who knows not; but He Who spoke them did not speak in ignorance. But, as when He asked Peter whether he loved Him, He questioned His disciple’s love, not because He did not know it, but because He desired to show the excess of His own love, so now when He says: ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent?’ He says it not because He knew not that faithful and prudent servant, but because He wished to show the rarity of the thing and the greatness of the rule [Greek]. See how great is the reward: ‘I will set him,’ saith He, ‘over all My goods.’ Will you, then, still complain that I have deceived you, when you are to be set over all the goods of God, and when you are doing those things in doing which Christ said that Peter would be able to surpass [Greek] the other apostles? For He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My sheep.’” (De Sacerdotio, 2, I, 632[371-2])

I think that’s the one you are looking for.

 

[Trebor135]

I’ve investigated this issue quite thoroughly, and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox rhetoric against the papacy is exactly the same (I’ve actually been on the Orthodox [not in communion with Rome] side of the issue for most of my life).

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s amusing (two parties with otherwise nothing in common are marching to the same tune on one issue) and encouraging (there aren’t twice as many arguments to deal with) all at once.

(Also, you were discussing the Meletian schism with an Eastern Orthodox a while back and I didn’t get the chance to follow up. Have to take a look at that soon.)

 

[brodowb]

Jesus said Peter would be the Rock upon which he would found his Church. The See of Rome is literally built above St. Peter’s resting place and and the See has always been the leader, is this a coincidence? SO you see the Catholic Church and Holy See are literally and metaphorically built upon the Rock

Unfortunately the early church mistranslated the Greek text to suit its own purposes in establishing the papacy. The original inspired Greek text stated: “You are PETROS (a movable stone) and upon this PETRA (a large massive rock) I will build my church.” Using two different words of which one is PETROS for Peter and the other PETRA for rock which refers to Christ. The Peshitta Syriac New Testament text, at least in its extant MSS, mistranslated the passage in Matthew 16:18, incorrectly using the Syriac word KE’PHA’ for both Greek words PETROS and PETRA. The Church of Rome bases its doctrine of Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built on this mistranslation and/or a falsely reconstructed Aramaic/Syriac original, ignoring the distinctions in the Aramaic language. The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”