Habemus Papam II – The Scriptures and the Papacy

Let’s first make a distinction about what Apostolic Succession is and is not.

Apostolic succession is the idea that the Apostles themselves passed on their offices and authority to successors. Those successors then exercised this apostolic authority and, in turn, passed it on to their successors. In this way, Catholicism is apostolic, tracing its origins and structures back to the Apostles themselves.

One common misconception: Apostolic succession is not limited to the pope. In fact, the bishops are the aim of apostolic succession. The pope’s primacy comes from being the Bishop of Rome – the primacy and the place are intimately tied together. Apostolic succession is based on the bishops. The supremacy of the pope is based on the supremacy of Peter over the other Apostles and is centered on the Bishop of Rome.

It should be said that the process has evolved over time. Papal succession would look rather different from the modern conclave that selects the next Bishop of Rome. Similarly, the papal selection of bishops is a different process than it was at the beginning.

From Lumen Gentium 20:

For they not only had helpers in their ministry, but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves, recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God. They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry. Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning, are passers-on of the apostolic seed. Thus, as St. Irenæus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and preserved.
Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing. And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles' office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church...

The Nature Of The Men And The Mission

Before we really dig into this, I want to take a moment to look at the people and the mission.

When I was a kid, I often thought of St. Peter as a kindly old man, grey hair and beard, interviewing souls as they approached the pearly gates. Many people never encounter St. Peter beyond this image. During the course of this project I encountered a very different man.

Peter in life was an ordinary guy. He lived his life as many of us do today. He was a leader from the outset. A man of the sea, he exhibited courage in several different ways. It takes a certain degree of courage to go to sea in the first place, another to leave your home and life's work to follow a new Master, and another still to defend that Master with a sword when hopelessly outnumbered. Like so many of us, he had an ego and said that he would never betray Christ; but like so many of us he failed our Lord when the time came. Even so, he had a deep sense of sin, and begged Christ to depart from him because of his unworthiness. He was impulsive and impetuous, and often lived by feeling more than reason. When he was given the chance to walk on water, this man of the sea grew so frightened that he called out for help – this man of the sea who had undoubtedly had many a dunking in his day. He told Jesus that he wouldn’t let him wash his feet, and then tried to talk Him off the Cross. By the end of his life he saw his own cross coming, and spoke of it with joy and triumph. The impetuous fisherman had indeed become the Rock and fisher of men. Peter in life was indeed ordinary in an extraordinary way, and I’ve come to admire him greatly over the past few weeks.

And the Mission! Stop and think of it. Christ had other options. He could have asked angels to be our guides and to run His church on earth. He could have chosen scholars or kings or wise men. Instead, He chose a dozen very ordinary men, to be led by a very ordinary man, and asked nothing less of them than to change the world; to spread His light all across the globe. To do this, they would have to endure hardships that would make modern people, in their ever eager quest for comfort, turn into babbling babies.

Don’t lose sight of the human element of this story as we go along.

Peter’s Special Place

If Peter has a special place amongst the Apostles, then surely there must be some evidence of it in the Bible. If so, then we should be able to see at least one occasion where Peter is obviously being treated a bit differently than the others. There are, in fact, many such occasions.

We start at the beginning. There are two biblical versions of the first meeting between Christ and Peter.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18

“He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon, the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter).’” John 1:42

Was Christ prone to empty gestures or hollow words? For Him to change Peter’s name and not mean something by it would have been an empty gesture. There are other points in the Bible where names are changed, and in no case are the changes meaningless. Quite the contrary, when names are changed by God, the elevation of the person is significant. They are far from empty gestures. “No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of the nations.” (Genesis 17:5) “Then he said, 'Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” (Genesis 32:28) These are not empty gestures, but moments of great significance, moments that means something. Jesus intended Peter to be the rock upon which His church on earth would be built.

It’s true that James and John were named Boanerges (son’s of thunder), but this is a nickname that reflects their personalities more than anything else. Neither James nor John takes on the name Boanerges on a full time basis. It’s also true that Peter is often called Simon or Simon Peter even after his name is changed. But if you read these situations carefully, it’s often used to remind Peter of his human failings. “Simon, are you asleep” (Mark 13:47).

The word “rock” is used as a name prior to Peter's arrival on the scene, but the only other times rock is used as a name it refers directly to God (as in Deuteronomy 32:18). In another sense, “rock” is used relative to God’s strength, as an anchor of faith, or as a foundation of life. “To thee, O Lord, I call; my rock...” (Psalms 28:1) Peter is the only mortal ever called rock.

The change of names gives the basis for Peter being the rock, the foundation upon which the Church is built – and this foundation comes from the lips of Christ Himself.

* * *

And what of Peter’s brother Andrew? He was a friend of John the Baptist, and it was John that introduced Andrew to Christ. There’s no indication which one was older, but my guess is that Andrew was the younger of the two – a bit overshadowed by his big brother. He’s quiet and reserved, and doesn’t seem to have resented the fact that Peter was closer to Jesus.

John, the son of Zebedee, was another friend and follower of John the Baptist. John was introduced to Jesus at the same time as Andrew. John was the poet of the group, able to make words sing with meaning. He came to know Jesus better than the others, and his gospel reflects this. John stayed by his Master to the bitter end, to the foot of the cross.

Andrew and John had the distinction of being the first to follow. In John 1:35-42 we see the story of their introduction to Christ. They spend a day with Jesus, and then late in the afternoon, Andrew goes to tell his brother that he had found the Messiah.

Though they were the first to follow, they were not the first of followers. Flip back in your Bible to Matthew 10:2-4. Here we see a list of names; a list of Christ’s twelve chosen men. These are the names of the Apostles, names that every Christian should recognize. And here, at the top of the list, is Peter. In fact, Matthew goes so far as to call Peter “first”. Why call Peter the first? It’s clear from John 1:35-42 that Andrew was identified as the first one to follow Christ (John’s not specifically named, but is assumed via Tradition)? The reason is simple: Matthew knew, when he was writing his gospel, that Peter was indeed the first, the leader. And it’s not just Matthew. Peter is always at the top when the Apostles are listed. He’s also mentioned first in Acts 1:30, Luke 6:14-16, and Mark 3:16-19. In each of these lists the names are jumbled but for one man – Peter.

* * *

Peter was also present at every major event of Christ’s ministry. Not only was he present, but he also spoke for the group and was engaged with our Lord in ways that the others were not.

When Christ walked on the Sea of Galilee, it was only Peter who was given the same opportunity (Matthew 14:26-33). Jesus told them to put out to see. When they were a few miles out the weather went foul, and they were tossed by waves. In the dark of the night, with a storm brewing, Jesus approached them walking on the water. Only Peter is seen trying to reach the Lord on foot. Only Peter is allowed the attempt.

Later in Matthew, at 17:1-8, Peter, James and John were present at the Transfiguration. It is, however, Peter who does the talking and offers to erect the tents. In fact, these three were present many times with Christ; Peter the rock, James the first martyr, and John the visionary. But it was Peter who did the talking for the others. The three of them were given a glimpse into the glory of Christ atop that mountain; a glimpse that no one else received at the time. They were shown this glory to understand what was beyond Calvary.

In a very important passage, it is Peter that's named in Matthew 26:37 as being present during Christ's agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter is the only disciple specifically named in John's version of the same scene (John 18:10). In Mark, Peter is the only one to speak specifically to Christ (Mark 14:32-42), though in this one James and John are named as well. In Luke's version, Peter isn't specifically named as being in the Garden, but is later said to be following Jesus from the place in which he was arrested (Luke 22:39-46 & Luke 22:54 respectively). Christ’s agony in the garden is for us, and who is there to witness it, who is the only one recorded speaking to our Lord in these scenes? Peter.

So close is their bond that Christ pays the temple tax for Peter – Peter is singled out for this distinction in Matthew 17:24-27.

Then, after the resurrection, who was the first to be visited by the risen Christ? According to Paul, it was “he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:5). (Remember from John 1:42 that Cephas means Peter. Luke confirms this.) In Luke 24:34 they say, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”

In Acts 3:1-8, Peter is the first of the Apostles to cure a cripple in the name of Christ. Others do perform miracles later, but Peter is the first recorded to do so.

It’s always Peter first, in list and in deed. Peter is always there.

* * *
To demonstrate Peter's special place amongst the Apostles in a slightly different way, let's look at the shear weight of numbers. I realized something while doing research for this post. Peter's name is mentioned far more often than any of the other Apostles. I counted out the number of mentions of each Apostle in my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. This list represents the number of times each of the original Apostles is mentioned in the Bible:

Jude – 3
Bartholomew – 4
Mark – 5
Matthew – 5
Andrew – 8
Simon – 9
Thomas – 12
Philip – 27
James – 31
Judas – 33
John – 39

Peter – 195

* * *

As can be seen from these points, Peter is indeed looked at in a different light than the other Apostles. He holds a place with Christ that is distinct from the others.

Peter's Commission

Ok, so Peter held a special place amongst the twelve. But is there any evidence that Christ actually commissioned Peter to lead the Apostles? Again we ask if Jesus was prone to empty gestures.

* * *

Much has been said of Matthew 16:18-19.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Our Lord spoke directly to Peter, of that there is no doubt. Christ uses the second person singular – I tell you - there is no way to confuse this in either Greek or Aramaic. He’s not using “you” as a plural. Others may be around, but it is to Peter specifically that Christ speaks. In these words, Christ promises to confer on him the supreme power of the church he is to found.

The powers to “bind” and “loose”; what does this really mean, and where does it come from? This is rabbinical language, something that would have been very familiar to Jews of the early first century. The rabbinical terms of binding and loosing carries more meaning than we have available to us in English. The power to bind or loose deals with the law; it literally can impose or loose a ban on something, it can interpret the law (Mosaic rather than statutory), and it can proclaim a thing forbidden (by binding) or permitted (by loosing). It goes well beyond the idea of teaching and into jurisdiction. God will, from Heaven, confirm whatever obligations Peter commits the Church to on earth. The implications are staggering, so it's no wonder that the early Protestants fought against it so intensely.

This language is also reflected in another part of the Bible. To get at one of the most important aspects of Matthew 16:18-19, we must step back in time more than 700 years before Christ.

“And I will place on his shoulder the keys of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Isaiah 22:22-23

The story being told in Isaiah 22 deals with the keys of the royal household of Israel. It specifically tells the story of the appointment of Eliakim to this vital post. Eliakim is being made the steward of the royal household - what my NAB version calls the “master of the palace”. Here the master of the household is being given the power to bind and loose within the household itself. He is being given authority over those that work in the household of David. It's being done in very similar language to that used by Christ with Peter. This role of chief steward is exactly what Christ was getting at when he gave Peter the power to bind and loose. Peter is to become the chief steward of the Church, just as Eliakim was to become the master of the palace of David. Such would have been well understood by first century Jews like Peter and the Apostles.

* * *

If the Keys were promised to Peter in Matthew, was this promise ever fulfilled – was Peter ever told to go out and lead His church?

When they had finished breakfast Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” – John 21:15-17

Again Christ speaks these words directly to Peter. Christ is fulfilling the mandate with a specific commission. Again, the language used needs to be related to the era. To “feed” in biblical terms when applied to human beings, intends to rule or to govern. As Dr. Ludwig Ott put it in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “By Christ's thrice-repeated mandate, Peter obtained not re-appointment to the Apostolic office – he did not lose this through his denial – but the supreme power of government over the Church.” This idea of governing, using similar phrasing is repeated in Acts 20:28. (And here the Bible version you use is very important - I have four versions in my house and each is different: the NAB says “tend”, the RSV-CE says “feed”, the DRV says “rule”, and the KJV says “feed”.) In this particular verse of Acts, Peter tells the presbyters at Miletus to tend the whole flock, as savage wolves will not spare them once he departs.

There is a second point in the Bible where Peter's commission is explained, but in this spot the terms are a bit different. Let's look at Luke 22:32 (here I'll switch briefly to the NAB for clarity):

...but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.

This quote from Luke is important on a couple of points. This confirms what Ludwig Ott said above, that Peter did not lose the apostolic office through his denial. Second is the specific statement – made directly to Peter again – that he must strengthen his brothers. This gives Peter a position of superiority over the twelve and reinforces the commission. Only Peter is given this specific charge. In modern terms, this is the equivalent of the pope being support and source of strength for the bishops.

* * *
Again I ask – was Christ prone to empty gestures? Given the sequence above, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would give Peter the Keys to Heaven, give him the power to bind and loose, tell him to shepherd His flock, and then really not mean it seriously.

Peter As Leader

If Peter was indeed the leader of the Apostles, as the evidence above shows, then surely there must be some evidence of his acting like a leader.

Shortly after Peter is given the Keys, Christ begins to tell the Apostles that he must “go to Jerusalem and suffer many things.” Peter takes him aside and says, “This shall never happen to you.” I often wondered why Jesus was so hard on Peter by replying, “Get behind me Satan”. After all, Peter simply wanted to spare his life. But Peter was only beginning to understand at this point. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said in Life of Christ, “The Divinity of Christ, he would accept; the suffering Christ he would not. The rock had become a stumbling stone; Peter would have a half Christ for the moment, the Divine Christ, but not the Redeemer Christ.” Satan would have preferred a half-Christ as well, so Jesus rebuked Peter for thinking as men do, not as God does. (Matthew 16:21-23) But Peter never forgot this rebuke. Later in his life he wrote with reference to those who refused to accept the suffering Christ as he had:

The great worth of which it speaks is for you who have faith. For those who have no faith, the stone which the builders rejected has become not only the corner-stone, but also as stone to trip over, a rock to stumble against.

This is 1 Peter 2:7, a multifaceted statement that shows Peter’s gift of wisdom. On one hand, it shows that Christ is a stumbling block for those that don’t believe in Him at all. But so is Peter, who once tried to be a stumbling block for Jesus as well. Both are cornerstones; one of the faith and one of the Church, and both are stumbling blocks for non-believers.

In Mark 8:29 we see a more specific example. Christ asks “them” a question, and “Peter answered him.” In Luke 12:41, Peter asks if Christ's teachings are “for us or for all.” Peter begins to speak for the Apostles, and ask questions on their behalf. True, others ask questions at different times, but none so often as Peter. So much so that, when the Apostles are questioned by the High Counsel in Acts 4:8, who is it that answers? “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them...” John also speaks, at least that's implied a few verses on, but it's Peter that speaks for the group and is quoted in the text.

Then we have: “Then Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them...” This is Acts 2:14 and begins the preaching at Pentecost. Once again, it's the leader of the Apostles that speaks for them. He takes charge. His message is that of the crucified and risen Christ, at nothing less than Pentecost when the Mystical Body of Christ takes shape.

If the Apostles were all equals, then why do all the doctrinal changes come through Peter? In Acts 10, it's Peter that is summoned by Cornelius. Cornelius desires information, and calls the leader of the Christians to speak with him. As the chapter goes on, it is Peter who brings Cornelius into the Church. This is the first occasion when a pagan joins Christianity and its Peter who brings him in. It's Peter who is given the revelation that it's acceptable for a Jew to go amongst the pagans and to baptize the gentiles.

In Acts 15 we see a version of the Council of the Apostles. They went to Jerusalem to ask about the need for circumcision. The topic is discussed much as it might be today. It is Peter that suggests the solution. It is Peter who speaks first after “much debate.” True, others speak at the Council (that is, after all, why councils are called), but it is Peter who leads.

* * *

It’s always Peter. If the twelve are all equals, why aren’t these things happening to the others? Why is Peter the one that speaks for them? Why is Peter the one that asks most of the questions? Why does Peter lead the debates? As Archbishop Sheen has said:

The Galilean fisherman was promoted to the leadership and primacy of the Church. He was the first among all the Apostles in every apostolic list. Not only was he always named first but there was also precedence in action; he was the first to bear witness to the Lord’s Divinity, and the first of the Apostles to bear witness to Christ’s Resurrection from the dead. As Paul himself said, the Lord was first seen by Peter; Peter was the first after the Mission of the Spirit on Pentecost to preach the Gospel to his fellow men. He was first in the infant Church to defy the rage of the persecutor, first among the twelve to welcome the believing Gentiles into the Church, and first about whom it was foretold that he would suffer a death of martyrdom for he sake of Christ.

Now, we have scriptural evidence that Peter was treated differently than the other Apostles, that he was commissioned by Christ to lead the group, and that he acted like a leader after Christ's resurrection. The next question is...

Apostolic Succession

Is there any scriptural evidence to support the idea that Christ intended Peter and the Apostles to pass on their leadership role in the newly formed Christian community?

The first thing to consider is that Peter was subject to death just like all other mortals. This was verified by Christ himself in John 21:18 where He says, “...when you are old, you will stretch out your hand, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” To stretch out your hand was a euphemistic way of saying crucifixion; Jesus is literally saying that Peter would die in same way He would. This comes just after Peter is told to feed Christ's flock. So Peter knew that he would come to the end of his life in old age, but he also knew that he was expected to go out and make disciples of all nations. From this point on, Peter knew that he would have to plan for the future of the Church.

At the beginning of Acts we see the first example of apostolic succession. In Acts 1:15-26, Peter initiates the process of picking a replacement for Judas. Now, it should be noted that this is not quite the process used to replace bishops today; Mathias was chosen by the casting of lots, so it's a bit different than the process of papal selection of new bishops today. But the genesis of the modern system begins here and develops over time. The entire process was started at Peter's request.

Paul also can be seen passing on his office. In Acts 20:25-29, Paul believes that he will not see many of this friends again, so he make sure to charge them with being good overseers and to tend the whole flock. He warns of people from within the ranks of Christianity that will pervert the truth to turn disciples of Christ away from their true path.

Again in 2 Timothy 4:1-6, Paul charges Timothy directly with carrying on after he is gone. “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus…” He’s not speaking lightly when he passes his office to Timothy. Again in 2 Timothy, this time in verse 2, Paul tells Timothy to pass on the teaching office to future generations: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

In his letter to Titus, Paul also lays out the three elements of a bishop’s office and the need to appoint future bishops. In Titus 1:5, Paul says that this is why he left him in Crete, to “set right what must be done and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you.”

In Romans 10:15, Paul says, “How can men preach unless they are sent?” This is an interesting question. When Christ asked the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, did He seriously mean that the entire mission was up to just twelve guys?

Indeed, how can men preach unless they are sent, and sent by a valid authority? As seen above, Paul specifically gives instructions for the type of person to be a bishop. The twelve couldn't possibly make disciples of all nations by themselves, so they made provisions for help and for the future. There is evidence that replacements were made, and instructions left for how to find future replacements.

The direct scriptural evidence for apostolic succession is logical in its structure and function. There are other elements to factor into this as well, and these will be presented in future posts.