Will the real successor of Peter please stand up

[Madaglan]

I know that this question is probably covered in scores of other threads, but unlike many other posts, many of which deal with the papacy in general, I hope to p(name removed by moderator)oint in this thread the connections among the Apostle Peter, His claimed apostolic authority, the bishop of Rome (AKA the pope), and the pope’s claimed apostolic authority over the Church through his connection with Peter.

Recently I have become increasingly aware of the fact that there are today several living successors of Peter. Unless I am mistaken, Fr. Ambrose in a post several months ago noted that two bishops who follow their roots through the see of Antioch have roots in Peter. I also remember that Peter is supposed to have been bishop of Alexandria, too. So, it seems that there are three sees that have roots in Peter: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

This now said, I am having difficulties making the exclusive connection between the bishop of Rome and Peter. Granted that Peter did have an authority over the other apostles, why was this apostolic authority passed through the bishop of Rome and not the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch?

Also, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the bishop of Rome is indeed the best successor of Peter. Why does the bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s claimed universal authority? Even if Peter is the foundation of the Church, how do the bishops of Rome become the foundation of the Church as well?

Sometimes I think that we as Catholics jump from “Peter is the foundation and has universal authority over the Church” to “the bishop of Rome (as opposed to the bishop of Antioch) is the foundation and has university authority over the Church.” I hope to discover the logic behind this connection.

Sorry if this may result in a rehash of earlier posts, but I really do intend to focus specifically on the connection between Peter and the bishop of Rome, from a Catholic perspective, of course.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

St. Peter ended his Apostolic mission in Rome when he was crucified. His successor, St. Linus, assumed his responsibility as the chief apostle. This is not contested, in fact, St. Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, confirms it.
St Ignatius of Antioch:

1:1 "“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

3:1 “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”

Madaglan:

I know that this question is probably covered in scores of other threads, but unlike many other posts, many of which deal with the papacy in general, I hope to p(name removed by moderator)oint in this thread the connections among the Apostle Peter, His claimed apostolic authority, the bishop of Rome (AKA the pope), and the pope’s claimed apostolic authority over the Church through his connection with Peter.

Recently I have become increasingly aware of the fact that there are today several living successors of Peter. Unless I am mistaken, Fr. Ambrose in a post several months ago noted that two bishops who follow their roots through the see of Antioch have roots in Peter. I also remember that Peter is supposed to have been bishop of Alexandria, too. So, it seems that there are three sees that have roots in Peter: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

This now said, I am having difficulties making the exclusive connection between the bishop of Rome and Peter. Granted that Peter did have an authority over the other apostles, why was this apostolic authority passed through the bishop of Rome and not the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch?

Also, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the bishop of Rome is indeed the best successor of Peter. Why does the bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s claimed universal authority? Even if Peter is the foundation of the Church, how do the bishops of Rome become the foundation of the Church as well?

Sometimes I think that we as Catholics jump from “Peter is the foundation and has universal authority over the Church” to “the bishop of Rome (as opposed to the bishop of Antioch) is the foundation and has university authority over the Church.” I hope to discover the logic behind this connection.

Sorry if this may result in a rehash of earlier posts, but I really do intend to focus specifically on the connection between Peter and the bishop of Rome, from a Catholic perspective, of course.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by Scott Lafrance:

St. Peter ended his Apostolic mission in Rome when he was crucified. His successor, *St. Linus, assumed his responsibility as the chief apostle. This is not contested, in fact, St. Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, confirms it. *[Madaglan’s italics]

Quote:
Originally Posted by St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans AD 110
*1:1 "“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

3:1 “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”*

Hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I believe that Ignatius attaches the word “presidency” to the “church of Rome,” and not necessarily the bishop of Rome. Also, again, don’t take this wrong, but I understand that there is ancient discrepancy of witness concerning who held the seat of Rome immediately after Peter died.

I don’t know how you interpret what Ignatius is saying, but I see him simply praising the Romans for 1) Holding fast to received Christian truths, 2) Showing charity towards one another, 3) Teaching others the truth rather than falseness. In other words, Ignatius praises the Church of Rome (and not specifically the bishop) because they have lived up to the high standards placed on them. Moreover, to be a Christian in Rome was to live in the midst of persecution. Many Christians in Rome were persecuted, and several were fed to the lions in the coliseum (Ignatius would soon be one of them.) So, I think that Ignatius tacitly acknowledges the steadfastness of the Romans as well.

It is clear that in this selection Ignatius attaches a “presidency” to the Romans, not explicitly because the bishop of Rome has an authority over all the other bishops, but because they have a “presidency in love.”

 

[Lorarose]

It is clear that in this selection Ignatius attaches a “presidency” to the Romans, not explicitly because the bishop of Rome has an authority over all the other bishops, but because they have a “presidency in love.”

But exactly WHY would Rome hold a “presidency” of love?
There were other churches which were founded before the church at Rome - some even were founded by Peter.
Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch - why wouldn’t Antioch hold the “presidency of love”?

I can think of only one reason.
Rome inherited the keys because that is where Peter was bishop when he was martyred.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Madaglan:

This now said, I am having difficulties making the exclusive connection between the bishop of Rome and Peter. Granted that Peter did have an authority over the other apostles, why was this apostolic authority passed through the bishop of Rome and not the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch?

Also, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the bishop of Rome is indeed the best successor of Peter. Why does the bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s claimed universal authority? Even if Peter is the foundation of the Church, how do the bishops of Rome become the foundation of the Church as well?

Sometimes I think that we as Catholics jump from “Peter is the foundation and has universal authority over the Church” to “the bishop of Rome (as opposed to the bishop of Antioch) is the foundation and has university authority over the Church.” I hope to discover the logic behind this connection.

Sorry if this may result in a rehash of earlier posts, but I really do intend to focus specifically on the connection between Peter and the bishop of Rome, from a Catholic perspective, of course.

Through many the Early Fathers writings they speak of “The Bishop of Rome has spoken”, “Peter has spoken through XXX” the Bishop of Rome. Many early Bishops write to the Church at Rome and to the Bishop of Rome specifically for clarification on some matter. Many early letters carry the decisions of the Bishop of Rome back out to other Bishops. All the early Councils had to be approved by the Bishop of Rome and slightly later we see representatives of the Bishop of Rome attending Councils. Some decisions of Councils were rejected by the Bishop of Rome and never went tnto effect. We never see any example like this with Antioch or any other See for that matter.

 

[Damascene]

This now said, I am having difficulties making the exclusive connection between the bishop of Rome and Peter. Granted that Peter did have an authority over the other apostles, why was this apostolic authority passed through the bishop of Rome and not the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch?

Madaglan, because only one Bishop can hold the supreme Pontificate at a time. We know that the primacy was given by Peter to the Roman Church from the fact that ecclesiastical writers afterwards always testify to it. Tertullian writes in The Prescription of Heretics: “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places … Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s!” (36:1-3). Sts. Peter and Paul set up their thrones in Rome to show that they had attached their authority to the Roman See.

Cardinal Journet explains this quite well, I think:

1. Supposing that Peter had lived, as he did at the outset, without fixing his Chair, his See, in any local Church: then his successor, in the same way, would not necessarily have had a Chair in any particular Church. Suppose that he had died at Antioch after having (as Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom report) set up his Chair there: then his successor would have been Bishop of Antioch and the Church of Christ would have been Antiochene. Suppose once more that after transferring his Chair from Antioch to Rome he had taken it away from Rome to fix it elsewhere that he had ceased, I do not say to have his residence at Rome, but his Chair, that is to say the episcopal See to which he would attach the sovereign pontificate: then his successor would have been Bishop elsewhere, at Alexandria, say, or Jerusalem, and the Church of Christ would have been Alexandrine or Jerusalemite.[932] If we look at the metaphysical possibilities alone, the supreme jurisdiction might either have been unattached to any particular See or might have been attached to some See other than that of Rome. The union effected by Peter was therefore due to no metaphysical necessity but to an unforeseeable decree of Providence.

[932] “If Peter had separated from Rome not only by place but by chair, so that he would have selected the chair elsewhere, the roman pontiff would not have succeded to Peter” (Cajetan, On the Institution of the Roman Pontiff, chap. 10 III)

And he quotes Soloviev: “Christ’s words could not remain without their effect in Christian history; and the principal phenomenon in Christian history must have an adequate cause in the word of God. Where then have Christ’s words to Peter produced a corresponding effect except in the Chair of Peter? Where does that Chair find an adequate cause except in the promise made to Peter?”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lorarose:

But exactly WHY would Rome hold a “presidency” of love?
There were other churches which were founded before the church at Rome - some even were founded by Peter.
Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch - why wouldn’t Antioch hold the “presidency of love”?

I can think of only one reason.
Rome inherited the keys because that is where Peter was bishop when he was martyred.

Rome did not always hold to what has become contemporary teaching about the nature and supremacy of its place in the Church.

When Saint Columban was having his exchange of letters with Pope Boniface in the 7th century we see the older and more balanced approach to the significance of Rome…

Saint Columbanus writes to the Pope:

“On account of the two Apostles of Christ, you are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of the whole world, and of the Churches”.

Note that it is on account of the TWO Apostles (Peter AND Paul) - the modern teaching which focuses all power in Peter had not developed in the 7th century. Rome was central because two major Apostles had taught there and been martyred there. This is a constant theme -Peter and Paul as co-founders of Rome- in all the writings of the Church Fathers. Starting from roughly the 9th century, Rome starts to downplay the significance of Paul and begins to emphasis the importance of Peter alone.

Saint Columban writes in the same letter to the Pope:

“For we are the disciples of Saints Peter and Paul, and of all those their disciples who by the Holy Ghost have written the divine canon”

The Orthodox have NO problem with any of what Saint Columban has written. He is speaking out of an Orthodox mindset which was, in his time, the norm in the West as well as the East. And, please God, it will be the norm again one day so that unity may be restored to Christendom.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set”
-Proverbs 22.28

 

[Damascene]

Rome did not always hold to what has become contemporary teaching about the nature and supremacy of its place in the Church . . . Starting from roughly the 9th century, Rome starts to downplay the significance of Paul and begins to emphasis the importance of Peter alone.

Fr. Ambrose,

St. Columba also says in that letter:

We, indeed, are, as I have said, chained to the Chair of St. Peter; for although Rome is great and known afar, it is great and honored with us only by this Chair.

To me, that looks like he’s putting a greater emphasis on St. Peter than on St. Paul.

I think, though, that Rome has always placed a greater emphasis on St. Peter than on St. Paul. For instance:

For this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of Peter the apostle. (Letter of the Council of Sardica to St. Julius I, 344 AD)

We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs. (St. Siricius I, Letter to Himerius, Bishop of Terracina, 385 AD)

Peter the head is of such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified . . . by human as well as divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself . . . (St. Zosimus I, Letter to the Bishops of Africa, 418 AD)

The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him . . . These considerations turn my mind to the regions of the Orient . . . one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded . . . let not anyone wishing to endure in our communion bring up again for discussion the name of our brother and fellow priest, Bishop Perigenas, whose sacerdotal office the Apostle Peter has already confirmed at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit . . . let there be no objection to this, since he was appointed by Us . . . (St. Boniface I, Letter to Rufus and the Bishops of Macedonia, 422 AD)

No one doubts, but rather it has been known to all generations, that the holy and most blessed Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith . . . up to this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges. (Philip, Legate of Rome, at the Council of Ephesus)

And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all . . . Accordingly, we entreat you, honour our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honourable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. (Letter of the Council of Chalcedon to St. Leo the Great)

the holy Roman Church . . . has held the primacy by the evangelical voice of the Lord and Savior saying: Thou art Peter . . . There is added also the association of the most blessed Paul the Apostle . . . equally have they consecrated the above-mentioned Church of Rome to Christ the Lord and have raised it above all other cities in the whole world by their presence and venerable triumph. Accordingly the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first . . . (St. Gelasius I, Decretal, 495 AD)

St. Peter seems to me to be given a much more prominent place than St. Paul, even when they are both mentioned. Even the Council of Chalcedon calls St. Leo “the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter”, of St. Peter, not of Sts. Peter and Paul. The only time they are viewed as any way equal is by St. Gelasius, and he seems to still downplay St. Paul’s role. Rome holds the primacy by “Thou art Peter”, and Paul is only “added” to that. Rome is, according to him, the “see of Peter the Apostle”.

 

[JimG]

St. Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome, i.e., the fourth pope, wrote a letter to settle a dispute among the Corinthians, at their request. The last remaining Apostle, St. John, was still alive at this time. To me, it seems significant that the Corinthians went to the bishop of Rome to settle a dispute rather than to the Apostle. Clement, as bishop of Rome, was head of the Church.

 

[Lorarose]

while it is true the early writings refer to Peter and Paul both building up the Church in Rome - it is also true that they refer to the “keys” - this is a clear reference to Peter and his primacy.

 

[challenger]

Any bishop Peter ordained is a successor- but only those ordained to Peter’s office are successors to the papacy.

 

[Exporter]

"St. Peter ended his Apostolic mission in Rome when he was crucified. His successor, St. Linus, assumed his responsibility as the chief apostle. This is not contested, in fact, St. Ignatius, the third Bishop of Antioch, confirms it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by St Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans AD 110
*1:1 "“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”

3:1 “You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”*

Of course we do not read the word “Pope” in the writtings of the Early Fathers - because it is slang and had not been coined in those early days. Correct me if I am wrong but I remember that the Bishop of Rome wasn’t called “Pope” until about 325 AD. So if Ignatias wrote the word “presidency” it is perfectly fine, it can mean the leader or “Pope”. Pope is slang for the Latin word which means Father in Latin. We wouldn’t expect Greek writters to used Latin slang!

 

[gelsbern]

The Apostolic succession goes beyond the Chair of Peter. Anyone who was ordained Bishop by Peter would pass on the line down so therefore there are bishops who can trace their apostoloci succession back to Peter. Just like other Bishops who can trace their apostolic succession back to the other apostles. It’s like a big family tree.

However, the Successors of Chair of Peter are a different matter. They elected to become Pope and hold the position Peter held, but they do not necessarily have a lineage back to Peter, they may have a lineage that goes to one of the other twelve apostles.

Pople John Paul II is the successor of Peter but his apostolic family tree may trace back to a different apostle. Unfortunately I am having a hard time finding his lineage online anywhere.

If anyone has a link could you point me in the right direction?

 

[vern_humphrey]

gelsbern:

The Apostolic succession goes beyond the Chair of Peter. Anyone who was ordained Bishop by Peter would pass on the line down so therefore there are bishops who can trace their apostoloci succession back to Peter. Just like other Bishops who can trace their apostolic succession back to the other apostles. It’s like a big family tree.

However, the Successors of Chair of Peter are a different matter. They elected to become Pope and hold the position Peter held, but they do not necessarily have a lineage back to Peter, they may have a lineage that goes to one of the other twelve apostles.

Pople John Paul II is the successor of Peter but his apostolic family tree may trace back to a different apostle. Unfortunately I am having a hard time finding his lineage online anywhere.

If anyone has a link could you point me in the right direction?

John Paul II’s Apostolic Link is to Peter.

Bishops are not required to be related by blood to Apostles, but to be ordained by successors of the Apostles. John Paul II, being ordained and elected to the Chair of Peter is in the Apostolic lineage of Peter.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m actually curious if there are any online resources showing epsicopal pedigrees. I know that there are offline resources around, though they are not wide spread, but I’m not aware of any online ones.

Anyone more knowledgeable than myself care to point the way?

 

[gelsbern]

vern humphrey:

John Paul II’s Apostolic Link is to Peter.

Bishops are not required to be related by blood to Apostles, but to be ordained by successors of the Apostles. John Paul II, being ordained and elected to the Chair of Peter is in the Apostolic lineage of Peter.

Prove it. His lineage may go back to Matthew, or Bartholomew or any of the other twelve. As I said there is a difference between the apostolic succession of a Bishop, and being a successor the the See of Peter.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gelsbern:

Prove it.

He could just have lineage that goes back to Matthew, or Bartholomew or any of the other twelve.

I think you have a different version of “lineage.” The Pope is elected and consecrated to the Chair of Peter. Those acts MAKE him of Peter’s lineage.

How ELSE would you track the lineage of a bishop, if not by the seat to which he is consecrated?

 

[gelsbern]

vern humphrey:

I think you have a different version of “lineage.” The Pope is elected and consecrated to the Chair of Peter. Those acts MAKE him of Peter’s lineage.

How ELSE would you track the lineage of a bishop, if not by the seat to which he is consecrated?

By the Bishop the Consecrated him.

So far I can find a lineage back to SCIPIONE REBIBA in 1541, but the documentation is fuzzy.

ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/johnpaul.htm

ALL BISHOPS HAVE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

Let’s hypothetically do it like this so that I can explain.

St. Mark a bishop of the Church, consecrated Ted as a bishop,
Ted then consecrates Fred,
Fred then consecrates Larry.
Larry is elected as Pope. Larry is successor to the See of Peter but his apostolic succession goes back to St. Mark.
Now anyone who Larry consecrates gives them an apostolic succession that still leads to St. Mark, not Peter.

I guess that’s about the best way I can explain it.

 

[Ghosty]

I think we’re simply dealing with some confusion about the “lineage of the Keys” versus the episcopal pedigree of the one holding them. The “lineage” of the passing of Keys is unbroken, and goes straight back to Peter, but the person holding those keys can come from any Apostalic pedigree.

 

[vern_humphrey]

gelsbern:

By the Bishop the Consecrated him. .

And WHICH Bishop would that be?

The Pope is ELECTED and consecrated not by A bishop, but by ALL THE BISHOPS, collectively.

By being elected and consecrated to the Seat of Peter, he becomes the successor of Peter and of the episcopal lineage of Peter.