Catholic Home Study Service

The Papacy and Peter

Sponsored by the Vincentian Community
(Congregation of the Mission) and the Missouri Knights of Columbus.
Reprinted with permission.

In considering the matter of whether or not Christ intended that Peter would have successors in his office as chief of the Apostles and visible leader of the Church, it is true that the answer is not spelled out in the text, "You are the Rock and on this rock I will build my church." But if one reads the whole passage in context, it is hard to see how succession can be ruled out without making the whole statement absurd.

Christ explicitly says: ". . . on this rock I will build my church and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. 'Now the "jaws of death", or however you translate the phrase, clearly means that Christ intends his church to continue and indeed promises that it will continue. If it did not continue, how else could it evade the "jaws of death?" If one were to use less figurative language, the passage would mean that the church would be immortal or, at very least, that it would endure until Christ's return.

This reading is surely supported by that other passage, also from Matthew, in reference to the church: "Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name 'of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always until the end of the world!" (Emphasis added.)

If then, Christ's church was to endure to the end of time so the argument runs and if the guarantee of this was to be that it was established on the Rock-Peter, and if Peter personally was not to be alive beyond the normal span, the promise must have implied that Peter would have successors. The logic of this is inescapable. Nothing points this out more clearly than the fact that objectors do not attack the conclusion but rather try to undermine the premises.

One such attempt claimed that the whole passage was not original to Matthew but was added to the text, perhaps as lately as the second century. This theory now has been discarded by most scholars as unfounded.

Another approach is that of denying that Christ expected the church to last beyond a generation after which his second coming would take place. This radical view about the limited knowledge of Christ was dormant for a while but now seems to be reappearing in some writers. It is true that certain passages in the Gospels such as Mt 10:23 could give this impression. That passage reads: "When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. I solemnly assure you, you will not have covered the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." The explanation of this text has been something of a puzzle to exegetes for a long time. Some think it is a reference to the Jewish War which was sometimes characterized as the beginning of the last age and, therefore of the coming of Christ. Whatever the meaning of this passage, the idea that Christ thought the end would come in Peter's lifetime is too much to accept. It does seem to impinge on his divinity. Granted that his human and divine natures must not be confused, and granted that there was room for a certain growth in his experiential knowledge as far as his human nature was concerned, it is hard to see how this divine knowledge would have been totally excluded from his thinking on the matter of the second coming. There is deep mystery here, of course, and certain passages would seem to indicate that the man Christ did not know the exact time of the world's end (cfr. Mk 13,32; Acts 1,7). Still, it seems to us at least that some kind of divine communication was necessary to preserve the man Christ from error on the essential thrust of his mission. Hence, to argue that Christ did not intend successors for Peter on the ground that he did not expect the church to exist beyond Peter's lifetime is a position that creates more problems than it solves.

If one admits, therefore, that Christ intended his church to last to the end of time, one must accept the conclusion that he intended Peter to have successors in his office of feeding "the lambs and sheep."

This conclusion leads to the further question about the identification of Peter s successors with the occupants of the see of Rome, those who eventually came to be called popes. If one considers the primacy or office of vicar in itself, there is, of course, no reason why it should be tied to the office of bishop of Rome. Theoretically, there could be any number of modes of succession. As a matter of historical fact, however, as all the best evidence indicates, Peter went to Rome and established that as his primatial see, though he probably never used the term. And the church from the beginning accepted his successor as his heir not simply to the local see but also to the office of vicar of Christ.

PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS

The historical arguments strike us as rather persuasive. In the first place, there is no evidence that any bishop other than the bishop of Rome ever put himself forward as Peter's successor in the primacy. So one is forced to say either that this bishop was in fact the lawful successor or else the primacy died out in direct contradiction to Christ's promise that it would go on.

For a time, there was some problem with this argument because there were some who claimed that Peter never was bishop of Rome. Since the archeological excavations under St. Peter's at the Vatican, however, most scholars consider the evidence for his being there as conclusive.

In looking for the historical evidence for the Roman papacy, one has to remember that awareness of the scope and importance of the primacy developed slowly in the church. The turmoil of the times, the intermittent persecutions, the slow means of travel and communication, the smallness of the local churches, and similar factors conditioned the process of development. For all that, the primacy was indeed exercised in Rome and we have some important testimony to that effect.

Among the oldest documents is a letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians. Clement, bishop of Rome from 88 to 97 A. D. is the third successor in St. Peter's see. His letter to the members of the church at Corinth founded by St. Paul speaks with real authority enjoining on the faithful the obligation of obeying their priests (presbyters as they were then called) and putting an end to the schism that was dividing the church. Besides the authoritative tone of the letter, two additional points are worthy of note. One is that the letter was respectfully received, obeyed and preserved. The other point is that when Clement wrote the letter and issued the orders, St. John the Apostle was still alive and active in the Church. Beloved as the Apostle was, he was not judged to be Peter's successor. Clement's authority was unchallenged.

Ignatius of Antioch was a contemporary of Clement. In his "Letter to the Aornans," written early in the second century, he addresses that church in an altogether special way. "Ignatius . . . to the (Roman) church that has found mercy . . . which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory; a church worthy of God and presiding in love. (emphasis added).

Toward the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus talks of two ways to verify true Christian teaching. One is to canvass all the churches of Apostolic origin. The other is to consult the church of Rome, "the greatest, most ancient and well-known church founded by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." He gives the reason namely, "For with this church, because of its more eminent leadership, all churches must agree", that is to say the faithful in all places.

As time went on, other great Christian writers appeared on the scene and in turn simply accepted the primacy of the Roman bishop or else expressly spoke of it. From among the Fathers, we may select a few quotations:

St. Jerome (343-420) to Pope Damasus. "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none other but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built" (Letters 15,2).

St. Augustine (354-430) speaks of Rome as the Church "in which the ruling power of the apostolic see has always flourished" (Letters 43,7).

By the time of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), the primacy of the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor was an accepted teaching of the whole church. From this council comes the famous expression: "Peter speaks through Leo." (Leo I was the pope at the time.) It was the Council's acknowledgment of Leo's power to condemn the heresy of Eutyches who denied that there were two natures in Christ.

UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

Thus as the centuries passed, one bishop of Rome after another assumed the office in the name of Peter and was recognized as his lawful successor in the primacy. And the primacy was understood as being one of lawful authority, a primacy of jurisdiction, and not simply a distinction of honor. Only with the unfortunate divisions in Christianity that took place in the East in the 12th century and in the West in the 16th century did any question arise concerning the papacy. We know that the original causes of separation in both cases were not doctrinal but rather human reactions to oppressive and scandalous situations, real or imagined, within the church. Emotions ran high, political schemers interfered and social conditions complicated the various relationships and made calm and reasonable solutions almost impossible. Reactions became overreactions and what Vatican Council II calls the "scandal of a divided Christianity" is with us yet.

So great was the heat of anger and debate generated by both these ancient divisions that some of it is still with us. There are some hopeful signs, however, that things are improving. Some advance has been made in ecumenical dialogue among the separated brethren of Christianity. There is still a long way to go.

No one has any illusions that the road will be easy. As recent discussions have shown, one of the most difficult areas for agreement is the one we have been discussing. In 1967, Pope Paul himself said, "The pope, as we all know, is undoubtedly the gravest obstacle in the path of ecumenism." This is true with regard to the matter of the primacy. It is perhaps truer in regard to the even more sensitive matter of papal infallibility. All indications are that we are a long way from agreement. But at least we can agree to disagree in a respectful and harmonious way. The fact that this is happening to some extent is no small blessing from the Lord.

---

We recognize the following sites for their services:
Christian Classics | Vatican Website | Zenit | World News - Vatican Radio

Resources: Catechism Catholic Church - The New American & The Douay-Rheims Bibles

Catholic Information Network (CIN)
is a free service, not an official organ of the Vatican.
Copyright 1987-2020 - Updated: 03/14/2020
Contact: webmaster@cin.org