The leaders of the church up to the time of pope Gregory the Great were in unanimous agreement: none of them interpreted Mt 16:18 according to modern Roman Catholic dogma. Agreement with the church fathers rejects the belief that Peter was the first pope, was infallible, and passed on his authority to others. According to J.H. Dollinger The Pope and the Council (London, 1869), p. 74:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Mt 16:18; Jn 21:17), not a single one applies to them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we posses - Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in cantenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation upon which Christ would build His church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."
Peter De Rosa wrote in Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 24-25:
"It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection between it [Mt 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou are Peter" to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants.
Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys...
For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith - or the Lord in whom Peter had his faith - which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to COnstance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock onwhich the church rests.
...not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him....There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office.
So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter....The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels"
These are astonishing revelations from devout Catholics, and experts of Roman Catholic Church history. Furthermore, to be intellectually honest, Catholics absolutely must spend time researching the evidence supporting the claim that popes are the apostolic successors to the apostle Peter. All Scriptural arguments aside, does historical evidence support any claim of an unbroken line of 262 popes?
There's no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, therefor no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor (its non-sequitor not to mention illogical). Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons, provided the first list of 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus appears first on this list. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of church history, never mentioned Peter as Bishop of Rome. He simply states that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but Peter is not. That's an extremely odd omission for an apostle who is Bishop of Rome.
The Vatican has released official lists of popes, arbitrarily begining with Peter and continuing to the present John Paul II. All these lists over time have been revised and each is now in conflict with each other. Liber Pontificalis, is presumed to be the first list composed by pope Hormisdus (514-23), yet even the Catholic Encyclopedia casts doubt on its authenticity, and most scholars agree it contains a healthy dose of fiction. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic University of America, 1967) vol. 1, p. 632 s.v. "antipopes", acknowledges:
"But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiency in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes"
The simple truth is that the Roman Catholic Church itself with its vast archives of historical documents cannot verify an accurate and complete list of popes. The claim of an unbroken line of succession back to Peter is mere fiction. And in all actuality, the Bishop of Rome wasn't considered to be the pope of the universal Church until about 1000 A.D.
Morever,it is undisputed historical fact that the Bishop of Rome had only authority of the territory of Rome itself. If this was not true, then all of the Church would, as is the case today, be involved in chosing him. However, when the citizens of Rome had their absolute right to chose their own Bishop abrogated, the citizens of Rome revolted and forced their will upon local civil and religious authorities. How can mob pressure be called apostolic succession by the direction of the Holy Spirit?
Powerful families such as the Colonna, Orsini, Annibaldi, COnti,Caetani, et ali, fought wars for the papacy for centuries. Imperial armies installed and deposed popes, as did Roman mobs. Some were murdered, and more than one pope was executed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife. That's apostolic succcession?
Money and/or violence more often than not determined who the pope's successor would be. It begs the question of why it was necessary on 23 Sep 1122, at the Concordat of Worms, that Emperor Henry V made pope Calixtus II swear that the election of bishops and abbots would take place "without simony and without violence" (see Ehler, Sidney Z., John B Morrall, trans. and eds., Church and State Through the Centuries, London 1954, p 48).
In 366, Ursinus and Damasus simultaneously were elected pope by rival factions. Ursinus' followers managed after much violence to have him installed as pope. Nevertheless, after a bloody three-day battle, Damasus (with the backing of the emperor) emerged the ultimate winner. Apostolic succession operating through armed force is just a breathtaking way to run a religion. The ironic thing here is that Damasus in 382 was the first to use Mt 16:18 to claim supreme spiritual authority. He was both bloody, wealthy, powerful and exceedingly corrupt, surrounding himself with luxuries that would have made an emperor blush.
Stephen VII, who had pope Formosus exhumed and then condemed the corpse in a mock trial for heresy, was soon thereafter strangled by zealot opponents who promptly elected Cardinal Sergius. Nevertheless, would be pope Sergius was immediately chased out of Rome by a rival faction who elected Romanus as "Vicar of Christ."
E.R. Chamberlin in The Bad Popes (Barnes & Noble, p. 21), writes:
"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, mainatained themselves precarisously for a few weeks - or even days - before being hurled themselves into their graves.
Seven popes and an anti-pope appeared in a little over six years when...Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years' exile, backed now by swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope [Leo V, 903] found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached a climax, and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as pope Sergius [III, 904-11], the sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff."
The diaries of the Master of Ceremonies at the conclave that elected pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), John Burchard, holds much insight into the election process. In the diary he states that only five votes were not bought. "The young Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici, who refused to sell his vote, thought it prudent to leave Rome immediately" after the election (see: Chamberlin, op. cit. p. 172). Borgia bought the papacy with "villas, towns and abbeys...[and] four mule-loads of silver to his greatest rival, Cardinal Sforza, to induce him to step down." Remarks Peter de Rosa, not so facetiously in all actuality (despite his intent in that regard): "It is instructive to see, by the way of the Burchard diaries, how the Holy Spirit goes about choosing St. Peters successor" (see: Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p. 104). The tawdry and dark tale of apostolic succession nevertheless goes on and on ad nauseum.
Quit apart from Roman Catholic tradition Scripture teaches something completely different concerning apostolic succession. Paul and Barnabas personally laid their hands upon the successor of their choice and ordained them, when they were sent forth by the church at Antioch to undertake their first missionary journey (Acts 13:3). Timothy's appointment to the ministry was also done by the elders laying hands upon him (I Tim 4:14), as did Paul when he imparted a special spiritual gift to Timothy (II Tim 1:6). This biblical procedure has never been followed with regard to successors of bishops of Rome or the popes.
Nevertheless, I've digressed. WHO IS THE ROCK central to the controversy? The truth is, it doesn't depend upon a disputable interpretation of a few verses, but upon the totality of Scripture. God himself is described as the unfailing "Rock" of our salvation throughout the entire Old Testament (Dt 32:3,4; Psa 62:1,2; etc.) The Bible declares that God is the only rock: "For who is God save [except] the Lord? or who is a rock save [except] our God?" (Psa 18:31).
In the New Testament, it is made clear that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built and that He, being God and one with the Father, is therefor the only rock. The rock upon which the "wise man buildeth his house" was not Peter but Christ and his teachings (Mt 7:24-29). Peter himself points out that Christ is the "chief cornerstone" upon which the church is built (I Pt 2:6-8) and quotes an Old Testament passage for affect in that regard. Likewise, Paul called Christ "the chief cornerstone" of the church and declares that the church is also "built upon the foundation of [all] the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). No special position for Peter here anywhere (and not even a position acknowledged by Peter himeself).
Furthermore, what Christ meant by giving "the keys" to Peter is explained in Mt 16:19. According to Spiros Zodhiates, editor of commentary in the Key Word Study Bible (KJV), a more accurate translation out of the Greek reads:
"And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. And whatever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be as having been bound in the heavens; and whatever thou shalt loose on the earth shall be as having been loosed in the heavens." Before these verses can be understood correctly, a distinction must be made between "the church" (v18), and the kingdom of the heavens (v19). The Church is the representative of the body of believers here on earth while the kingdom of the heavens is made up of both the earthly and heavenly realms. The teaching here is that those things which are conclusively decided by God in the kingdom of heaven, having been so decided upon, are emulated by the Church on earth. The Church is made up of true believers who acknowledge the deity of Christ as Peter did. Christ is the "Rock" upon which the Church is built (I Cor 3:11). There is no reference made here to binding and loosing of persons. One can note that this speaks exclusively of things because of the neuter gender of the indefinite pronouns hos [Strong's 3739: probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:--one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who(-m, -se), etc. See also 3757. ] in v19, and hosos hos'-os [Strongs 3745: by reduplication from 3739; as (much, great, long, etc.) as:--all (that), as (long, many, much) (as), how great (many, much), (in-)asmuch as, so many as, that (ever), the more, those things, what (great, -soever), wheresoever, wherewithsoever, which, X while, who(-soever).] in v18. Believers can never make conclusive decisions about things, but can only confirm those decisions which have already been made by God himself as conclusive in the general context of His kingdom both on earth and in heaven. The two verbs dedemenon (from deo, deh'-o Strongs 1210), and lelumenon (from luo, loo'-o Strongs 3089), are both perfect passive participles which should have been translated respectively as "having been bound" and "having been loosed" already in the heavens.
A. T. Robertsons says:
And I also say unto thee (k'agô de soi legô). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on Kagô: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (Jn 1:42). Peter (Petros) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse Mt 16:17 Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife. On this rock (epi tautêi têi petrâi) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in Mt 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petros is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (Kêphâ). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
I will build my church (oikodomêsô mou tên ekklêsian). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word ekklêsian which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Act 19:39), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in Act 8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, ekklêsia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Dt 18:16; 23:2 and Psalms, both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Ps 89:1ff most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. So oikodomêsô in Ps 89:5; ekklêsia in Ps 89:6; katischuô in Ps 89:22; Christos in Ps 89:39,52; hâidês in Ps 89:49 (ek cheiros hâidou). If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word ekklêsia it will be helpful to turn to 1Pe 2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1Pe 1:1), says: "You are built a spiritual house" (oikodomeisthe oikos pneumatikos). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1Pe 2:9) he speaks of them as an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, showing beyond controversy that Peter's use of building a spiritual house is general, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in Mt 16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
The gates of Hades (pulai hâidou) shall not prevail against it (ou katischusousin autês). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses thanate in 1Co 15:55 in quoting Ho 13:14 for hâidê. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). The ancient pagans divided Hades (a privative and idein, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both "Abraham's bosom" and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. Lu 16:25). Christ was in Hades (Ac 2:27,31), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa 38:10; Wisd. 16:3; 3Macc. 5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also Ps 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17 (pulai thanatou pulôroi hâidou). It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The ekklêsia is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse Mt 16:21); it is echoed in Ac 2:24,31" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb katischuô (literally have strength against, ischuô from ischus and kat-) occurs also in Lu 21:36; 23:23. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in Mt 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklêsia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. Sublime Porte used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.
The Keys of the kingdom (tas kleidas tês basileias). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse Mt 16:18. In Re 1:18; 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (oikonomos) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Mt 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Mt 20:21) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (dêsêis) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (lusêis) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Mt 18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (Jn 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.
You're misinterpreting the Profession of Faith. The vow is to not interpret it contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
The leaders of the church up to the time of pope Gregory the Great were in unanimous agreement: none of them interpreted Mt 16:18 according to modern Roman Catholic dogma.
Really!
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, the foundation stone of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that the power of binding and loosing sins was given to him, who up to this moment and always lives in his successors, and judges. (Speech of the Roman Legate at the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD, in Denzinger-Deferrari, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 112)
According to J.H. Dollinger
Dollinger? Come on. Could you find a less biased source, maybe?
One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys...
Two examples:
Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede
et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit videte:
ipsa est petra quam non superbae inferorum portae
vincuntNumber the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. (Augustine, Psalm Against the Party of Donatus, lines 238-241)
I have considered that I ought to consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle ... it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. (St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus, in Epistles 15)
Raygun, I don't understand how you can claim this procedure is not followed, when you are describing the Sacrament of Holy Orders to a tee:
1573 The essential rite of the sacrament of Holy Orders for all three degrees consists in the bishop's imposition of hands on the head of the ordinand and in the bishop's specific consecratory prayer asking God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and his gifts proper to the ministry to which the candidate is being ordained.
This is exactly what happened in Acts is it not?
I would check your sources again here, because wherever you got these facts was wildly incorrect.
Irenaeus's list of the bishops of Rome is contained in his Against Heresies III.3. Here's the passage that you are probably referring to:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...Starts with Linus? Actually it starts with the "blessed Apostles" handing off the office of bishop to Linus. And who were those blessed Apostles? Here's the paragraph right before this one:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.Not only does Irenaeus specifically mention Peter and Paul "founded and organized" the Church of Rome, but he says that every Church should agree with the Church there "on account of its preeminent authority". So for a scholar to cite him as evidence against the office of papacy continuing past Peter is, to say the least, seriously odd.
There's much more about Peter in Eusebius than being crucified at the end of his days, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd books.
Eusebius in one part does mention "After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed bishop of Rome was Linus." (History of the Church 3:2). He also says, supporting your argument, that "Clement..became the third bishop of Rome". Eusebius therefore seems to be counting from Linus, and not from Peter.
However, Eusebius also calls Linus
"the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome".And elsewhere:
"Meanwhile At Rome, when Evarestus had completed his eighth year, Alexander took up the Bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul." (4:1)Clearly, whether Eusebius actually called Peter "Bishop of Rome", he envisioned a continuing office of bishop that was established by Peter and continued through Linus, Anacletus and Clement.
Bear in mind that Peter had a far more dignified office than mere bishop--he was an Apostle. We don't call Bush governor of Texas anymore, because he has achieved a higher office--likewise, it may well be that the Fathers did not think of Peter as a bishop, but rather an Apostle. But it is clear, as the above quotes indicate, that the bishopric in Rome (as elsewhere---Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria) came directly from his Apostolic office.
This an exceedingly odd thing to say.
"Ho Xristos kephale tes ekklesias" (Eph 5:23)--Christ is the head of the ecclesia, the Church. Seems to me if we desire union with Our Lord we should be more "ecclesiastical", not less.