Overview
Apostolic Succession
One of the major doctrinal divides between Catholic and Protestant is the Catholic concept of apostolic succession. According to this Catholic doctrine, the authority of the original apostles has been passed down to the Catholic bishops through a mechanical, religious rite called "Apostolic Succession."
Since Peter, they argue, was the chief of the apostles whom Christ gave the keys, and since he founded the church in Rome, his authority over all the church has been passed along to the bishop of Rome (the pope) through this rite of apostolic succession. Beginning in the latter part of the second century, lists began to be made of this succession.
According to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), since Protestant "communities" do not hold to this Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of "Apostolic Succession," or maintain a "sacramental priesthood," they cannot be called churches.
Being able to trace a mechanical, institutional succession back to the apostles is, according to Catholic doctrine, what makes Roman Catholicism the true church and is what disqualifies Protestant "communities" from being called churches.
TERTULLIAN, C. A.D. 150-220
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus was born at Carthage to pagan parents, with his father serving as a proconsular centurion.159 Tertullian was born about sixty years after the death of the Apostle John.160 Although he seems to have been a native of Carthage, he converted to Christianity in Rome when he was about forty years old.161 For reasons still unknown, Tertullian later became a member of the heretical sect known as the Montanists.162 It is believed that he joined the group around 207.163 One of his more significant works is the piece Against Praxeas; the work decries modalism, and some believe that Tertullian actually wrote the treatise for Callistus (see below), with Praxeus serving as a false name.
In many of his writings, Tertullian affirms that Peter is the “rock” of Matt 16:18. For example, Tertullian writes the following in his Prescription Against Heretics: “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built’ … ?”165 Tertullian wrote the Prescription c. A.D. 199, during the orthodox period of his life.166 Here, he clearly equates the “rock” in question to the Apostle Peter. In another treatise, On Monogamy, Tertullian writes: “Peter alone do I find married, and through mention of his mother-in-law. I presume he was a monogamist; for the church, built upon him, would for the future appoint to every degree of orders none but monogamists. As for the rest, since I do not find them married, I must presume that they were eunuchs or continent.” Interestingly, this text was written c. A.D. 208, shortly after Tertullian converted to Montanism. Even though he remains associated with a heretical sect, Tertullian still affirms a Petrine interpretation of Matt 16:18. Like many of the other patristic writers, Tertullian believed in both apostolic succession and the primacy of Roman teaching. However, Tertullian does not seem to imply that Peter’s status as the “rock” is conferred to any successors. What seems to concern Tertullian is the preservation of the truth of the gospel, not the establishment of a permanent Roman see with all the authority of an apostolic office. For example, according to Tertullian, Peter ordained Clement to succeed him as bishop of Rome, but that does not appear to mean that Clement inherits Peter’s apostolic office, let alone the position as “rock”; instead, it means that the teachings of Clement may be trusted because he received his teaching from the Apostle Peter himself. Here, then, lies a subtle but important point: the apostle’s teaching flourishes in the words of the disciples who come after him, but the apostolic office and the privileges that come with it appear to remain with the apostle himself. Thus, the teaching of the apostles, not the transfer of an office, concerns Tertullian. Tertullian even seems to distinguish between the two: on one hand, there is the “apostle” (Peter or John, for instance); on the other hand, there is the “apostolic man,” the one trained by the apostle (Clement and Polycarp, respectively). But Tertullian does not indicate that the apostolic man becomes an apostle upon the death of his teacher. Rather, the apostolic man is charged with disseminating the teaching that he has received from the apostle. So, even if it were granted that Clement is the legitimate successor of Peter, and therefore the rightful bishop of Rome, that does not mean that Clement should be viewed as an “apostle” or “rock” in the same manner as Peter. What matters is that Clement is teaching others what he has learned from Peter. With the papacy of Callistus I, however, a claim is made that the bishop of Rome inherits all the rights and privileges afforded to Peter, and that claim stirs great controversy within the Church, particularly in the writings of Tertullian.
POPE CALLISTUS [CALIXTUS] I, A.D. 217-222
Callistus is one of the earliest popes listed as a martyr in the oldest martyrology of the Roman church, the Depositio Martyrum. His history is one of intrigue. He was raised as a slave to a Christian who wanted to set him up in banking, but when the business failed, Callistus fled the city of Rome.After one day being charged with fighting in a synagogue on the Sabbath and sentenced to hard labor in the mines of Sardinia, Callistus was freed with other slaves and inmates at the behest of the emperor’s Christian mistress, Marcia, and Pope Victor I (189-98). Victor’s successor, Zephyrnus, eventually appointed Callistus as his deacon and chose the former inmate to succeed him.175 The pontificate of Callistus lasted for five years. While none of the pope’s writings are extant, the writings of Tertullian are, and an excerpt of his aforementioned letter to the bishop of Rome (De Pudicitia) is presented below. Tertullian opens the treatise by addressing the reader as Pontifex Maximus – that is, the bishop of bishops, so it is clear that he is writing to the Roman pontiff.
‘But,’ you say ‘the Church has the power of forgiving sins.’ This I acknowledge and adjure more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets… . I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to ‘the Church.’ If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My Church; ‘and I will give to thee the keys,’ not to the Church; and, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key… . For in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will certainly appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet… . and thus from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted ‘a Church’ from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly ‘the Church,’ it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.
Apparently, Tertullian is accusing Callistus of using Matt 16 to affirm his own authority. Again, these are Tertullian’s words, not Callistus’. But if Tertullian’s words accurately reflect the beliefs of Callistus, then the pope viewed himself as a leader who not only succeeded Peter but who also exercised authority in the same manner as Peter. Tertullian clearly rejects Callistus’ claim to such authority. Moreover, it appears that Tertullian takes issue with the application of Matt 16:18 to later bishops, not only to those of Rome, but to bishops generally.179 Essentially, there is no real difference between the clergy and the laity for Tertullian at this point, since authority belongs to those who possess the Spirit, not to bishops.180 It should be noted that these remarks were probably written between A.D. 217-222, after Tertullian’s conversion to Montanism. According to Tertullian, Jesus made Peter the rock of the church because Peter was a true, spiritual Christian. For this same reason, Jesus gave Peter control of the “keys of the Church” (an allusion to Matt 16:19). In this text, Tertullian seems to imply that through Peter the “power of the keys” is passed to the Church as a whole, meaning to every Christian.181 This has led some theologians to read Tertullian as having a “typological” interpretation of Matt 16:18.182 In other words, while it is true that Peter is the “rock” in question, he remains the type of every true and spiritual Christian.183 In some sense, then, all Christians can be called “rocks” if they affirm spiritual truth (although in this case, “spiritual truth” might be referring to Montanist teaching). Callistus’ actions, though, have proven to Tertullian that this pope is not a spiritual man.
Again, it is worth noting that during the orthodox period of Tertullian’s life (and even in the time shortly following his conversion), he seemed to have a much more “singular” notion of Petrine authority; that is, Tertullian readily affirmed that Peter alone was the “rock” of Matt 16:18. Furthermore, prior to his conversion, Tertullian maintained that true teaching could be trusted to come from Rome because of the nature of apostolic succession. After his prolonged affiliation with Montanism, though, Tertullian did begin to view the Peter of Matt 16:18-19 as “representative of the entire church or at least its spiritual members.”184 Certainly, then, the claim cannot be made that the Montanist Tertullian affirmed the supremacy papal office and its use of Petrine authority.
The Roman Claim
The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate; that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.
As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome;
Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece, Irenaeus for Gaul, Clement and Origen for Alexandria, Tertullian for Africa.
In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.
No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome.
There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter's presence in Rome may be one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into antiquity.
About 150 the Roman presbyter Caius offers to show to the heretic Procius the trophies of the Apostles: "If you will got the Vatican, and to the Via Ostiensis, you will find the monuments of those who have founded this Church." Can Caius and the Romans for whom he speaks have been in error on a point so vital to their Church?
Next we come to Papias (c. 138-150). From him we only get a faint indication that he places Peter's preaching in Rome, for he states that Mark wrote down what Peter preached, and he makes him write in Rome. Weizsaecker himself holds that this inference from Papias has some weight in the cumulative argument we are constructing.
Earlier than Papias is Ignatius Martyr (before 117), who, on his way to martyrdom, writes to the Romans: "I do not command you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple", words which according to Lightfoot have no sense if Ignatius did not believe Peter and Paul to have been preaching in Rome.
Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter's and Paul's martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered "amongst us" he says, and Weizsaecker rightly sees here another proof for our thesis.
The Gospel of St. John, written about the same time as the letter Clement to the Corinthians, also contains a clear allusion to the martyrdom by crucifixion of St. Peter, without, however, locating it (John 21:18, 19).
The very oldest evidence comes from St. Peter himself, if he be the author of the First Epistle of Peter, of if not, from a writer nearly of his own time: "The Church that is in Babylon saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). That Babylon stands for Rome, as usual amongst pious Jews, and not for the real Babylon, then without Christians, is admitted by common consent (cf. F.J.A. Hort, "Judaistic Christianity", London, 1895, 155).
This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).
St. Peter's successors in office
St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:
With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)
The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance.
Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.
1 comments