Explorations Class #4 Discussion

Apostolic Succession

 All of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church hinge on the claim that the church of Rome is the sole repository of the truth, that is was founded by Peter, that Peter was the chief apostle, and that he was given authority by Jesus which he was able to hand down to an unbroken chain of successors. As can be seen, that is a lot of "ifs". To support its claims, the RCC appeals to "the unanimous consent of the fathers", and to a hermeneutic (interpretive method) which is inconsistent with proper exegesis (understanding of the content of scripture). It also claims that "the church never changes anything".

"The unanimous consent of the fathers" is appealed to in many Papal dogmas. This statement implies that the "founding fathers" of the church were in total agreement as to a particular point of doctrine. Our first task is to identify the "fathers". The general understanding of this term is the "Ante-Nicene Fathers". These are the early pioneers of Christianity after the apostles, and before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There are many of these leaders, and many of their writings still exist. This allows us to historically examine the claims regarding "unanimous consent".

One example will suffice. Mary was the mother of Jesus, who was God. The Greek word theotokos means "mother of God". Therefore, by simple logic, Mary was the mother of God. Yet, because of the interpretive possibilities of theotokos, (some of which are now actually used to support the idea of divinity for Mary) the Ante-Nicene fathers pursued a considerable debate over the propriety of even using the term. There cannot honestly be said to be "unanimity of the fathers" on this issue. As a matter of fact, there is not even unity of opinion on the divinity of Jesus! Arius, a priest of Alexandria in the fourth century, taught that Jesus was a created being lower than God but higher than angels. His doctrine was accepted widely, and was declared heresy at the Council of Nicaea. So, even on the most fundamental of issues, unanimity of the fathers does not exist. When other issues are examined, we will find that there is not one single doctrinal issue of substance on which unanimity of the fathers exists. Therefore, this claim of the RCC is fraudulent.

The next issue is hermeneutics (principles of interpretation). We recognize that the proper way to understand scripture is to establish its natural understanding, given the language, customs, and usage of the time. Only when required by its intrinsic form should we understand a symbolic usage of a statement. (This is known as the historical-grammatical method.) The vast majority of the early fathers came from Gnostic backgrounds, and this shows in their use of allegorical interpretations. One classic example is the statement that because there were eight people in the ark, we should worship on the "eighth day". This is obviously non sequitur, and we would properly reject such a interpretation. Yet, as we move into the Marian doctrines, such interpretations will be seen to be de rigeur.

Our first specific question deals with Jesus' discussion in Matthew 16. In it, we find Jesus asking all of the disciples (v 13) who the people said that he was. There were answers from several of the group, and Jesus asks the question again. This time Peter answers. Then comes the response (v18) used by the RCC to justify their position: "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will establish my church..." There are three key points to consider here.

1. The conversation involves Jesus and all the disciples. Therefore, any answer given to them (or Peter in specific) will be of interest to all of them.
2. In the immediately preceding discussion (vv1-12), Jesus was using "leaven" in a symbolic manner. He had to repeat and explain himself to make it clear that he was speaking symbolically. While this does not require that the next discussion include symbolic material, it certainly suggests that we be prepared for another symbolic discussion.
3. The actual material in verse 18 is in fact symbolic. Jesus uses the most famous pun in all the Bible. The name "Peter" (Aramaic "Cephas") means a stone. A rock is a stone, too. We must establish the meaning of this usage.

Jesus says to Peter "thou art 'petros' (a pebble)". He then says that "upon this 'petra' (large boulder) I will build my church." The first thing to notice is that this is an issue of contrast. Peter and the rock are two separate identifications. This presented difficulties to many of the early fathers. Opinion was widely divided as to whether Peter was the rock, or whether the apostles or Christ or even an issue of doctrine was the rock. Unanimity did not exist. The RCC dogma that Peter was the rock fails of its first historical test.

The key to this passage is the way Jesus sets it up. He asks about perceptions of His identity. When His proper identity is stated (by Peter), Jesus points out that His church will be built on the identity of the Savior. Christianity will be CHRISTianity. He takes advantage of Peter's position in properly answering to create a word play which contrasts the identity of the Messiah (the Christ) with the identity of Peter (a man). Then, he uses a symbol taken from multiple OT messianic prophecies, the rock (see Is 8:14, 28:16, Ps 118:22) to tie his point to His messiahship. He is pointing out that the Messiah is to be the center of the church. This denies the RCC claim that Peter is the foundation of the church. We should further consider the fact that in John 1:42 Jesus gives him the name "Cephas," which is to be "interpreted" (hermeneuo) as petros, a small stone.

The fact that Peter spoke up is a feature of Peter's personality. It says nothing about whether he is pre-eminent. Peter simply cannot be the rock for other reasons, since his fickle personality is demonstrated in verses 22 & 23, where Jesus figuratively calls Peter Satan. Peter himself denies that he is the foundation of the church, since in 1 Peter 2:6-8, he quotes the same OT messianic prophecies to which Christ referred. This testimony of the person closest to the issue must be considered with care. Likewise, the testimony of the other disciples must be considered. There is not one word in the writings of the other participants to indicate that they thought that Jesus was indicating a superior status for Peter. Paul states in 1 Cor 3:11 that the church is built on Jesus.

The next issue is the keys of the kingdom. The only other place where keys are mentioned is in the messianic prophecy of Is 22:22. The keys were symbols of authority given to a highly placed official in the kingdom. This official was lower in status than the king. The symbol of the keys indicated that he exercised the authority of the king. It did not grant the official any independent authority. He remained subordinate to the king.

The key of this passage is not found in the symbol of the keys. It is found in the character of the authority given. This authority is stated as "Whenever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Matthew 16:19 is translated in a form that indicates that if something is bound on earth, then it will be bound in heaven. This represents an incorrect translation of the Greek verb. The proper translation of the verb is in the future perfect tense. This would translate so that whatever was bound on Earth was already bound in heaven (lit. "shall have been bound"). The first understanding would give Peter or any other recipients of this authority of the ability to command heaven. The proper understanding makes it clear that those who have received the binding authority are actually in tune with heaven and will only bind those things which have already been bound in heaven. The final part of this issue is resolved in Matthew 18:18, where we see that all of the disciples are given the same authority. There is no pre-eminence for Peter in this discussion since all of the disciples get the same authority that Peter gets.

Our next problem arises in John 21:15-17. In this text we find that Peter being told to "feed my sheep". Our Catholic friends say that this grants Peter special authority and pre-eminence. They take the verb translated "to feed", and make that a special grant of authority by translating the verb as "To shepherd". If we look at the discussion preceding Jesus' statement to Peter, we find that Jesus addresses the disciples, including Peter, as "children" in verse five. Next, in verse 7, we find John identifying Jesus for Peter. It is difficult to imagine Peter being given a pre-eminent position if he can't even identify his Lord. Then three times Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves him. Three times Peter says yes, then three times Jesus says "feed my sheep". We see the final impact of this sounding almost the same as Matthew 16, when we look down toward a verses 18-22. In this passage we find Peter not understanding well and having to be pulled back into line to follow Jesus' wishes. This is not the image of an apostle who will lead all the others.

We find that Peter's focus is not even directed at Rome. In 1 Peter 1:1 we find in his first epistle addressed to Jews were residing in foreign countries. None of the countries listed include Rome. If he were acting as bishop in Rome we would find him either addressing Rome or saying something about him writing from Rome much in the same way Paul talks about writing from prison. Then in 1 Peter 5:2 we find Peter using the same term to describe the care that local believers are to use regarding their fellows as Jesus used in John 21 regarding Peter. If Peter was to be the sole shepherd, he would not have described the task of the local believers in this manner. The issue is actually resolved by Jesus in John 10:16. In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that he is the only shepherd. The consequence of this is simple. The apostles and all of the believers were to act as shepherd's helpers and to help care for the flock. Jesus was using a metaphor in the common terms of the day so that everyone would understand if their duty. No superiority of one person over another was intended.

The key to John 21 in the challenge question is the attitude of Peter. Peter continually acts in a somewhat childish and impetuous manner. His understanding is incomplete, and his actions are a natural consequence of his incomplete understanding. Jesus repeats His question so that Peter will finally understand it.

In the examples we've covered so far, the Catholic interpreters' mode is one of allegory. The natural reading of texts is ignored and alleged deeper meanings are drawn out to help. These allegedly deeper meanings are not ones that are necessary consequences of the text, but rather are necessary consequences of the belief system they are intended to support. This means that the Catholic method will take any text it can find to try to create an understanding which is favorable to the Catholic position. This method is known as eisegesis and is to be condemned. It is our task to identify the message that God has placed in his word, not put man's message in God's word.

Our next text is Luke 22:31-32. Catholic interpreters take Jesus' statement that Peter should strengthen his brothers as indicating that Jesus appointed Peter to be the chief apostle. This is again a stretch by the Catholic interpreters. If we examine the other uses of the same Greek verb by Luke, we find that the task of strengthening is also undertaken by Paul, Judas, Silas and others. If this were unique to Peter, the other apostles would not be carrying out the same task. Therefore this text cannot be used to justify any pre-eminence for Peter.

Once again, if we are careful in our interpretation, we will evaluate context. The preceding verses give us a story of a dispute among the disciples. Once again, they were acting in a childish fashion. Jesus solves the dispute, then points out to that all disciples would judge Israel. This indicates an equality among all the disciples, not a pre-eminence for Peter.

The Catholic church takes Acts 2 as support for the idea that Peter was the chief apostle. They point out that Peter is the first named apostle to speak. Once again, this is an example of reading more into a text than exists there. The fact that Peter is the one who spoke up first merely indicates the chronological sequence of the events. It does not indicate any status or authority for Peter. In fact, if we examine the preceding verses we find that all of the disciples were granted the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were also all granted the gift of tongues. There is no evidence that any one of them received any special dispensation or greater quantity of either of these gifts.

Acts 15 tells the story of the council held in Jerusalem regarding the issue of circumcision. The Catholic church claims that Peter acted as the president of this council, and that the status was evidence of his superiority over the other apostles. The key phrase for the Catholic interpretation is found in verse 7. There Peter says that God made a choice "among the apostles" that by Peter's mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel. As we see in Galatians 2:7, Peter is "speaking out of school". In that passage we find that Peter's mission was to the Jews not the Gentiles. Four verses later Paul has to confront Peter because "he was to be blamed".

An examination of the record of the council shows that there was much debate. Peter just happens to be the first member of the council who is quoted specifically. When we reach the end of the council we find that James is the one who delivers the judgment of the council. In verse 19 James states that "it is my judgment", indicating that James is acting as president of the council. If any of the apostles is to be considered superior in this story it has to be James, not Peter.

Acts 8:14 says nothing whatever about Peter and Rome. What it does say is that Peter was given a mission to Samaria. As we examine the record of the apostles, we find that there is no mission listed specifically for Peter to Rome. There is some evidence that Peter was in Rome at one time. But this is not firm enough to say that Peter founded the church in Rome.

2 Corinthians 12:11 has Paul speaking. In it he makes a clear statement that he is not inferior to any apostle. The implication of this is clear. Paul, who got his revelations directly from God, states that Peter is not any greater than Paul is. He may not use the word "Peter", but by saying that Paul himself is no less than any other apostle, he necessarily includes Peter, and eliminates any possibility of Peter being the chief apostle.

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 12:28. This is one of the best known statements about the structure of the church. It states that God has appointed apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on. In this list of appointments, there is no indication whatever that there is to be a chief apostle. This is a continuation of the utter silence of the New Testament on the issue of the supremacy of Peter.

In 1 Peter 5:1-3 we find Peter describing himself as a "fellow elder". He concludes by noting that the oversight which elders have over the church is voluntary not compulsory. This is in keeping with the understanding we see throughout the Ministry of all the apostles where the authority of the Bible and of God is brought forward, and the apostles take the position of humble servant. At no time do they lord their position over anyone else.

Romans 1 brings the issue into closer focus. In verse 11, Paul says "I long to see you in order that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established". This is the desire of an apostle to a church which is in need of spiritual assistance. The church in Rome, if Peter had been in residence (as required by the theory), would be well supplied with all spiritual gifts and instruction. There would be no need for it to be "established" (enhanced, made greater), since it would have already been the greatest of churches.

2 Timothy 4:9-16 is even more damning to the idea that Rome was the seat of Peter. Paul had been imprisoned in Rome, where he wrote his epistle to Timothy. Paul is about to end his time on earth. Beginning at verse 9, he asks Timothy to come soon. In verse 10 he lists friends who had been with him, but had gone on to missions. By now, only Luke is with him (verse 11). Finally Paul notes that "At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me". Absolutely no one had stuck around when Paul was first brought before the Emperor. The implications of this are fatal to the Catholic assertion. At no time during Paul's imprisonment has Peter been seen. If Peter were the Bishop of Rome, it would have been criminal for him not to visit Paul in prison. Yet, "no one" was around. This includes Peter! There can be no mistaking the fact that, even if Peter did found the church in Rome, he was absent at the time of Paul's imprisonment, and therefore was not acting as the bishop of that church. His failure to act as bishop denies the possibility of being the first of an unbroken line of succession. There cannot be a succession if there is no first occupant of a position.

We now begin with the second issue with regard to Peter. The Catholic Church alleges that Peter passed on his authority to an unbroken chain of successors in Rome. There is a necessary condition for this. That is, Peter must stay in residence at Rome and establish his own bishopric there. In doing this, Peter would be establishing a core of believers who were receiving their gospel directly from the apostle. These church members would necessarily be receiving their information from the chief apostle, and therefore would require no assistance from any other apostle, since they would be getting the best possible gospel.

As we examine the book of Matthew we find in it the only two texts were Jesus uses the word "church". Matthew 16:18 simply says that Jesus will build his church. It gives no information about the character of the church. Matthew 18:17 is part of the discussion where Jesus gives the apostles instruction on how a situation where one church member has wronged another is to be handled. The context of this letter statement makes it clear that it would be impossible for the conditions laid down by Jesus to be satisfied if the church is made up of a specific organization founded in a specific single place. It requires that there be a "church" in any location where there is a body of believers. This does not lend any support to the idea of a single central church being founded by Peter.

1 Timothy 3:15 identifies the church as "The household of God", "The pillar and support of the truth". This text is used by the Catholic Church to identify the Catholic Church as the pillar and support of the truth. They take this to mean that the single church founded in Rome was the sole repository of truth. If this were the only text which use this metaphor, they might have a case. However, the alleged founder of the Church of Rome, Peter, clarifies the picture for us in 1 Peter 2. In this passage Peter makes it clear that each church members is a "Living Stone". These "Living stones" are then added together to build up of the House of God. This means that the church is made up of all the believers. The church bodies founded by the apostles can then be understood to be supportive of the truth. But this does not mean that they are the ultimate foundation of the truth in the sense of being the cornerstone. The cornerstone must always be Jesus Christ, the cornerstone identified by Peter in this passage. Once the cornerstone has been laid, then it is possible to build a foundation, pillars, and other structures of the house on the cornerstone. Paul makes this clear that the only foundation which can be laid it is Jesus Christ. See 1 Corinthians 3:11.

It is interesting see how the apostle Paul uses the word Church in Romans 16. This is epistle was written to the church in Rome. In his closing chapter Paul commends to the Roman church members of the church at several locations and in verse 23 refers to "the whole church". The location of this "church" is not identified in the text, but a clear that Paul is using the term in a general sense, and it is paying no concern to be in the supposed superiority of the church in Rome. If the church in Rome were truly the Church of the pre-eminent apostle, it is unlikely that Paul would write such an expository piece to it. The book of Romans is an exposition of law and gospel, which would been made abundantly clear by Peter to his parishioners. This would make Paul's epistles unnecessary. It would also be highly unlikely for Paul to ignore such a pre-eminent Church in the text of his epistle.

The book of Acts records the travels of the apostles in the early history of the church. In the texts listed, there is not in any indication of any special status for the church in Rome. In fact, the church is repeatedly described in terms of the local events were ever the apostles are at the moment.

The apostles repeatedly told their new converts to guard the truth carefully. Those who were assisting in the spreading of the word were told to "entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also". This trust was extended to faithful men in old assemblies in all areas. There is never a hint of Rome with being the only repository for the truth.

The total absence of support for the Roman position leads them to grasp at straws. The catechism declares that the pope has the same apostolic connection to God that the apostles had. In support of this, numerous Church writings are quoted. The only texts quoted are Matthew 28:20 and Acts 20:28. The text in Matthew simply instructs the apostles to the evangelists. The text in Acts is a little bit more specific. It states that the Holy Spirit had made the apostles to be overseers, "To shepherd the Church of God". The fact that this text uses the term "Shepherd" is seized upon by the Roman Catholic Church as the justification for their doctrine of the supremacy of Rome. However, it is clear from Paul's admonitions in the pastoral epistles of Timothy and Titus that there will be overseers in every church congregation. This denies the possibility that the apostles, or Peter in particular, are being given any unusual status by this statement.

Our final text addresses the issue of the vicar of Christ. The Catholic Church declares that the pope is the vicar of Christ. The term vicar means a substitute. Therefore the Catholic Church states that the pope is a substitute for Christ in Christ's absence. Once again, this claim is without substance. Jesus makes it clear in John 14:25-26 that the Holy Spirit is actually his substitute in His absence.

With this we come to the end of this section of Roman Catholic doctrine. It should be a very clear by now that there is no scriptural support for the doctrine of apostolic succession. There are a few texts which, taken out of context, can be twisted to mean that Peter was the chief apostle, and that the church in Rome would be the sole repository of truth. However, this interpretation is only possible if one ignores the plain meaning of the text and adopts an allegorical interpretive method. The use of this method comes from the time of the Gnostics. These philosophers believed that true knowledge was hidden. Such an interpretive method strokes the egos of the official interpreters. It also keeps ordinary people unable to understand without the aid of official interpreters. This becomes a power enhancing technique.

We are told in 2 Timothy 2:15 to study. In 2 Timothy 3:16 we're told that all scripture is useful. If these texts are true, then the plain meaning of scripture must be available to ordinary people. This is part of what we discussed in the lesson on sola scriptura. If the plain meaning is accessible, then an official interpreter is not required. This does not mean that all texts will be immediately understood. It does mean however, that the central texts will be readily understood. This means that we will not use allegorical techniques to extract supposed truth from texts. It does mean that the plain meaning of a text is what is intended on its surface, and that is the meaning that we should pursue. If we use his proper technique, then all of the Roman Catholic justifications disappear.

As we proceed in the other Roman Catholic doctrines we will discover that there is less and less scriptural justification for them. Each of them proceeds out of a gradual change of traditional ideas, and then grows into its full modern form. The Roman Catholic church insists that it changes nothing, and that what it declares to be dogma is only that which was agreed to by unanimous consent of the fathers. We will examine the key doctrines and show how they do not meet historical criteria set out for them by Catholic Church.

We must never be afraid to open the word and learn what it has to say to us. It is only when we are unprepared that we will fall for the false goods proceeding from other teachers. We must remain close to the only infallible teacher, the Bible, as aided by the Holy Spirit through prayer.