|
Do
You Reject the Papacy / the Pope? |
Consider:
*
How can you disregard Christ's own words:
"Jesus said to [Peter] in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter
[meaning 'Rock'], and
upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the
netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys
to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven." (Mt. 16:17-19, emphasis added)? Do you try to disprove that Peter is the rock relying on Greek? Why
is it that you do not consider that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and
that Scripture preserves the Aramaic name for Peter - 'Kepha' (Cephas /
Kephas) - which means rock ("a massive stone"!)?
Furthermore, the apologists have pointed that if the Evangelist was wanting to
refer to a 'small stone', there was an
even more common word in
Greek that could have been used ("lithos"). And, do not forget that Jesus
named Peter "Rock" at their first meeting (Jn. 1:42)!
Remember that name changes in Scripture are very significant: "It
is meant as a token of particular merit, when a man has a name
given him or changed by God." (St. Bede the Venerable, Doctor
of the Church)
and that none of the other of the twelve Apostles had their name
changed. How is it that you can disregard the clear testimony of Scripture? Why is it
you twist Scripture so much to distort the clear meaning of Jesus'
statement? Why do you suppose that Jesus speaks to Peter and says
"you", if he is not really referring to Peter? How can
you claim that "rock" refers to faith? How is it that
one's faith can bind and loose? Why was Simon renamed Peter
("Rock")? Why was it that none of the other of the
original twelve
apostles had their names changed?
*
How can you discount the fact that keys - a symbol of authority - were handed over? This
means a great deal! If keys are necessary to enter heaven, how can
one expect to enter heaven without them? Do you really
propose that it was meaningless for Christ to have left the
keys to heaven? How could the keys be given otherwise than to
Peter when Jesus was speaking to Peter and repeatedly said
"you"? Do you not think it dangerous to forgo the keys
to heaven? How is it you expect to get in? Remember that even though
Jesus conferred power on the other apostles (see Mt. 18:18), he
never gave the other apostles the keys (although the other
apostles were given power, Peter alone was given supreme
authority). Rather, Peter alone was given the keys to
heaven - by Christ. [Note: The obvious fact that Christ also
retains the keys, does not disprove the fact that Jesus gave the
key to Peter any more than your giving a second key to someone
else proves you no longer have yours!]
*
If Peter was not to head the Church, why does Christ tell
Peter - three times - that he is to tend to Christ's sheep (cf. Jn. 21:15-17)? If you deny the
papacy, what do you imagine this means?
*
If Peter was not 'in charge', why would Christ say he was to
strengthen his brethren (see Lk. 22:32)?
*
If Peter did not enjoy supremacy among the apostolic college, why
is his name always given first (while the others are sometimes simply referred to as apostles or companions) [e.g. see Mt.
10:2-4, Mk. 3:16-19, Lk. 6:14-16, Lk. 9:32, Acts 1:13, Acts 2:37,
Acts 5:29, etc.]?
*
How is it that you cannot see the supremacy of Peter considering
that Peter often speaks for all the apostles (e.g. Mt. 16:13-16,
Mt. 17:4, Mk. 8:29, Mk. 9:5, Jn. 6:68-69, Acts 4:5-12) and that
Jesus often speaks only to Peter (e.g. Mt. 17:25, Mk. 14:37-38, Lk.
7:40-43, Lk. 22:31-32, Jn. 21:15-19)?
*
If Peter did not have a leadership role, how do you explain the fact that Scripture says that the resurrected Jesus appeared to
Simon (that is, Peter) - who is mentioned alone - in Lk. 24:34?
(Or, as in 1 Cor. 15:5, "to Kephas, then to the
Twelve")?
*
If you discount Peter's primacy, how can you explain the fact that
John waited for Peter to enter the tomb before he entered (see Jn.
20:3-8)?
*
If Peter did not have a leadership role, why did he take charge in
choosing a successor to Judas (see Acts 1:15-26), why was he first
to preach at
Pentecost (see Acts 2:14-40), why is he shown making the first converts (see Acts
2:41), receiving the first Gentiles (see Acts 10:44-46), and
performing the first miracle after Pentecost (see Acts 3:6-7)? Why
does Scripture show that it was at his rebuke that the couple who lied
suffered death ("the first anathema", Acts
5:1-11)? Why does Peter act as head of the council in Acts
15:6-12?
*
If Peter did not have a leadership role, why does the angel
instruct Cornelius to seek Peter (Acts 10:5)?
*
How can you deny Peter's supremacy when Scripture specifically
indicates that Paul - the apostle called directly by Christ after His Resurrection -
went to Peter after his conversion (see
Gal. 1:18)?
*
How can you deny the office of the papacy when it is clear in
Scripture that St. Peter was the leader of the apostles? How do
you explain away the fact that Peter's name is mentioned more than
all the other disciples names combined?
*
How can you deny the office of the papacy considering that all the
earliest Christians accepted this office? If you attempt to argue that the papacy didn't exist in the first century,
how can you explain quotations such as this one? - "If
certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him
through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves
in no slight transgression and danger." (Pope St. Clement, c.
95 A.D.)
*
Do you attempt to deny the papacy because the term "pope"
wasn't used in the beginning or isn't in scripture? Based on that logic, you would also
have to deny the Trinity because the term wasn't used until
later. You would also have to deny
the Bible because this term is not in Scripture. The
fact that a word wasn't used from the beginning or doesn't appear
in Scripture does not mean that the concept was unknown - it
simply means a word was coined at a later date. Clearly, the
office of the papacy is indicated as Scripture, just as the Trinity
is - even though these exact terms are not used. In a similar
vein, why is it you accept Scripture even though the Bible wasn't
formally 'codified' until almost the year 400? And why do you call
Scripture
a 'Bible', since that term isn't contained in the Bible?
*
If you reject the office of the papacy, do you also reject the
fact that there was a seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2-3)? Do you only
selectively reject authoritative religious offices?
*
Do you imagine that St. Paul's authority was equal to St. Peter's?
How can this be when Scripture shows that St. Peter was given
supremacy by Christ Himself (symbolized by the keys in Mt. 16:19)? Remember that after Jesus called St. Paul, he did
not go out on his own, but respected the authority of St. Peter
and "went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and
remained with him for fifteen days" (Gal 1:18). It should be
noted that if certain terminology appears to indicate a
"shared or divided episcopate" between St. Peter and St.
Paul, it may more aptly refer to their "shared teaching"
(it does not mean that they had equal authority). At no
time in history was it held by the Church that St. Peter and St.
Paul shared the papacy or had equal authority in the universal
Church. Rather, St. Peter's supremacy has always been recognized
in the Church.
*
How can you reject the fact that Christ authorizes certain persons
to act in his name and that rejection of them means rejection of
Christ? Consider that Scripture says...
Lk.
10:16: "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent
me."
Jn.
13:20: "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me."
Rom.
13:2: Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
How
can you not be concerned that you are rejecting those who
have received authority from Christ?
*
Do you imagine that the office of the pope ended with St. Peter?
How is it that you think a supreme leadership role would end at death, but
Judas's lesser office required the election of a successor (see Acts
1:15-26)? How is you think the keys would not be transferred to
another? Would heaven simply be closed after the death of Peter?
Does the presidency of the country end because a President dies?
*
If the papacy was to end with St. Peter's death, why didn't Peter
write more Scripture? Why did he leave but three (relatively
short) letters and no Gospel or other writings? If such a great
office was to end, why is it that he didn't leave more instruction
while he had the chance? Why did the Jews (and Jesus) recognize
Moses' seat (Mt. 23: 1-3)
if religious offices didn't survive death? Are we really to believe
that Christ left His Church - a visible Church (click
here) - without a visible head? As the Baltimore Catechism
states: "We know that the rights and
privileges bestowed on St. Peter were given also to his successors, the
Popes, because the promises made to St. Peter by Our Lord were to be
fulfilled in the Church till the end of time, and as Peter was not to
live till the end of time, they are fulfilled in his successors."
*
If the papacy was to end with St. Peter's death, how can you
explain the unbroken succession of popes since that time (complete
with historical records to back them up)? If no successor was
supposed to take St. Peter's place, why did not the apostle St.
John (who was still alive) complain? In fact, why was Pope Clement
(the fourth pope!) consulted
to resolve a particular matter in the Church when St. John was still
alive? Why did they not go to St. John instead? In fact, why did
they not go to St. John considering that St. John was at a much
closer distance to them than Pope Clement? You should know that
this is a documented fact!
*
Again, how is it that the earliest Christians accepted the papacy,
but you reject it? (And, once again, their acceptance of it is a
documented fact!) In fact, all (orthodox) Christians accepted the office of
the papacy prior to the schism of the Orthodox!
*
Do you think that Paul's rebuke of Peter disproves Peter's
supremacy? Would you, then, also have the nerve to imply that Jesus did
not have ultimate supremacy over Peter because Peter rebuked Jesus
in Mk. 8:32? Clearly, Paul's rebuke of Peter doesn't disprove Peter's supremacy any
more than if you rebuked your superior, his supremacy over you would be
disproved!
*
Do you reject the papacy because some popes have been bad, even
scandalous? Would you then also reject the fact that one's father
remains one's father even if his behavior is scandalous? Would
you reject the office of the presidency over a bad president? How
is it you expect that popes will not have faults? Do you expect a
pope to be perfect - to be God Himself? Can you not see that
"primacy does not depend upon the worthiness of any particular
pope, but on the office alone"? Remember that Jesus himself chose
Judas.
*
Why can you not see the necessity of the papacy? For example...
*
How can you not see that it is necessary for a visible
organization to have a visible head? What country could survive
without a ruler? How could a company continue without a leader?
What organization of people could possibly continue for thousands
of years with no one in charge?
*
If you look honestly at history, can you not see that the Church couldn't have
survived without a pope? That there would be nothing but
chaos?
*
Without a final authority, how can one ever be certain in matters
of doctrine?
*
Since all truth is not contained in Holy Scripture (click
here) and since Scripture cannot interpret itself, it is necessary
that there be a supreme teacher. The need for such an authoritative
interpreter is obvious, and may be clearly demonstrated by the fact that those who claim to be able to
interpret Scripture on their own (click
here) cannot agree among themselves on its interpretation.
*
In fact, can you not see that there would have been no
authoritative bible without the popes, since there would have been
no infallible authority to judge which books were inspired?
*
Can you also not see how having a final authority protects against
false doctrine?
*
Can you not see how having a final authority - whose job it is to preserve
the faith undefiled - is so necessary to combat the
democratic spirit which wants to change teachings to suit personal
desires?
*
Can you not see how having a final authority promotes - and is, in
fact, necessary for - unity?
"The
Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one,
Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the
Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who as the
legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills
the Apostolic chair. It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers
that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve
unity in the Church." (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
As Pope Pius XI has said, "... unity can only arise from one teaching
authority" (Pope Pius XI, "Mortalium Animos", 1928
A.D.)
*
Can you not see that without the Pope there would be no preserver
of doctrine, no center of unity, and no supreme authority visible
on earth? The Church was literally founded by our Lord on the
"rock" of St. Peter, and without this foundation, the
entire structure would fall.
*
Does not the very fact that there are thousands and thousands and
thousands of competing Protestant sects constitute positive proof
of the need for a supreme authority? Protestant sects have no
supreme authority and therefore they are wholly incapable
of unity [contrary to Christ's desire that
"they may all be one" (Jn. 17:21)] As Pope Pius XII
has said, "For often those who
disagree with the true Church complain openly of their
disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness
to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority." (Pope Pius
XII, "Humani Generis", 1950 A.D.)
*
Do you reject the papacy because of the portrayal of Babylon in Revelation? Do you not realize that
'Babylon' referred to pagan Rome - the very
Rome that killed St. Peter and St. Paul - and not to Christian Rome, which was later to conquer pagan Rome? Do you not see that
it is pagan Rome - not Christian Rome - that is condemned in
Scripture for persecuting the Church (see Rv. 17:6)? Babylon most
certainly does not refer to the Church itself, but to her
persecutors! Do you further try to associate the papacy with the
"seven hills" indicated in Rv. 17:9? Are you unaware of the
fact that Vatican Hill (where the Pope
resides) is not one of the
seven hills of Rome [which are namely: Aventino (Aventine), Caelio
(Celian), Capitolino (Capitoline), Esquilino (Esquiline), Palatino
(Palatine), Quirinale (Quirinal), and Viminale (Viminal)]? Do you bring forward
the tired argument that the number 666 refers to the pope? Have
you not heard the apologists easily rebut this argument (e.g. by
the fact that the title used to add up to 666 is not even a true
title of the Pope - nor has it ever appeared on any papal tiara, that many things add up to 666, that the name
of the woman who started the religion who argues this point so heavily
adds up to 666, etc.)?
*
Do you protest that the Pope must be the 'antichrist' since there
is an upside-down cross in Rome? Are you unaware that this is symbolic
of St. Peter' death (he was crucified upside down)?
*
Do you think that the pope is the 'antichrist' for some other
reason? Are you not aware that there are so many myths - and even
downright lies put forward by the enemies of the Church over many years? Have you
never considered that Christ said that his followers would be
hated (see Mt. 10:22, 24:9, Mk. 13:13, Lk. 21:17)? Throughout
history, it is clear that the Popes (and the papacy) have had many enemies. Those
who dislike the Pope or the papacy are sometimes easily led to
believe certain erroneous, derogatory things regarding the popes,
ranging from insulting comments to accusations of the Pope being
the antichrist himself. While it is true that the behavior of some
popes has been scandalous, it is also true that the behavior of
many has been glorious. This should come as no surprise since
popes are human beings. Christ himself picked apostles that
doubted, betrayed, and denied Him. Enemies of the Church often use
these events as well as other myths, misunderstandings, errors, or
even lies to attack the institution of the papacy itself. When one
looks into such accusations objectively, one often finds that they are easily
disputed, that they are myths or empty claims, that they are based
on errors or misunderstandings or forgeries, or made up
"facts", that no evidence supports the charges, that the
charges do not stand up to careful examination, etc. Even stories
with a kernel of truth are sometimes twisted to "prove"
that the papacy is "corrupt" or "merely a human
institution". Catholics are not surprised by this considering
the treatment our fully innocent Lord received and the calumnious
accusations He suffered. Those who reject or hate the papacy may
be merely misled - or perhaps they may be lashing out against the
divinely instituted teaching authority that condemns the lifestyle
they wish to lead.
*
Do you reject the Papacy because you think the Pope creates new doctrine
or makes new revelations? You should know that the Pope is not a creator of doctrine, but its guardian. He is
rather like a steward or a trustee who is charged with preserving
and interpreting Divine Revelation. Although he may make more
explicit what is already contained in the deposit of faith (e.g.
the Immaculate Conception of Mary), he may not create entirely new
doctrines. As stated by the First Vatican Council, "The
Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the
revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine,
but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation
transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of faith, and
might faithfully set it forth."
*
Do you reject the papacy because you don't like what it teaches?
If so, then you are also rejecting Christ's teaching because the
Pope does not create new doctrine, but merely passes on,
clarifies, and preserves what he has received.
*
Why is it you reject the authority of papacy (which Christ
established - as Scripture testifies and history proves), but you
accept a 'pastor' who felt 'inspired' to start a 'church'?
Why do you reject the Pope but make your 'pastor' a 'mini-pope'?
Do you not realize the contradiction? Why is it that Christ tells
Peter to "feed his
flock" (cf. Jn. 21:15-17), yet you reject Peter and go to 'Pastor
Bob'? Are you intending to admit that you are not one of Christ's
sheep?
*
Finally, considering that the papacy was instituted by Christ, enjoys
his protection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is
necessary for the Church, has always existed, and has been - by Christ's
authority - entrusted with the keys to Heaven, how can
you reject it? If Christ builds His Church on St. Peter (Mt.
16:18),
how do you claim to be in His Church if your 'church' isn't
built on St. Peter? How do you expect to gain access to heaven if
you forgo the one entrusted with the keys? How do you deny Jesus'
authorized "agents" despite the fact that Scripture condemns
persons who reject those whom Christ sends? Why do you deny
Peter's ability to govern in Christ's name when Scripture is clear
that this authority has been given to him? Why is it that Christ
tells you that He gives power to Peter but you deny that power has
been given to him? "Why is it that Jesus entrusts His flock
to St. Peter but you do not trust Jesus' judgment?"
Closing
Quotations...
"Where
Peter is, there is the Church." (St. Ambrose, Doctor of the
Church, 4th century
A.D.)
"Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about
this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled."
(St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church)
"It
has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has one
been decided by the Apostolic See." (Pope St. Boniface I, 422
A.D.)
"Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write
first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this
place [Rome]?" (Pope St. Julius, 341 A.D.)
"Anyone
who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he
has not part or lot in the divine mystery." (Pope St. Leo I
the Great, Doctor of the Church, 445
A.D.)
"For
this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests
from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the
chair of Peter the apostle." (Council of Serdica, 343-344
A.D.)
"The
tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to
the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with
its judgment." (Pope St. Zosimus, 418 A.D.)
"It
is clear to everyone who knows the Gospel that the care of the
whole Church has been committed to the blessed Peter, chief of the
apostles." (Pope St. Gregory I the Great, Doctor of the
Church, c. 595 A.D.)
"They
have not the heritage of Peter who have not the see of Peter, rent
by their impious division." [Tertullian ("an excellent early Christian writer" - although he would ultimately fall into heresy), 3rd century A.D.]
"Just
what do these keys mean, which were entrusted personally to Simon
son of John, to Peter, if they are not an indication of the
universal rule over the Church which was entrusted to him?" (Pope
John XXIII)
"If
cases of greater importance are to be heard, they are, as the
synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic
see." (Pope St.
Innocent I, c. 404 A.D.)
"Reckon up the priests form the days that Peter sat, and in
their ancestral ranks note who succeeded whom; for that is the
rock over which the gates of hell shall never prevail." (St.
Augustine, Doctor of the Church, 4th century A.D.)
"[I]f
[a deposed bishop] declare that he will seek further redress,
another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of
Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (Council of
Sardica, c. 343 A.D.)
"It
is clear that this Church [of Rome] is to all churches throughout
the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever
separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian
religion." (Pope St. Boniface I, 422 A.D.)
"Rome
has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting
the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides
over all and guards the universal divine harmony." (St. Gregory of
Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church)
"It
is to Peter himself that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church.' Where Peter is, there is the Church.
And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." (St.
Ambrose of Milan, Doctor of the Church, c. 385 A.D.)
"For
to Peter himself the Lord said, 'Whatever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven' (Matt. 16:19). Whoever, therefore,
resists this authority thus ordered by God, resists the command of
God (see Rom. 13:2)" (Pope Boniface VIII, " Unam Sanctam")
"In
the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence
who watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one
among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman
for all the others to Rome." ('History of the Church', c. 300-325
A.D.)
"Moreover,
he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only
over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they
are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled
together rule and guide the shepherd?" (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis
Cognitum", 1896 A.D.)
"History
proves clearly that the Apostolic See, to which has been entrusted
the mission not only of teaching but of governing the whole
Church, has continued 'in one and the same doctrine, one and the
same sense, and one and the same judgment' (Const. de fide,
Chapter iv)" (Pope Leo XIII, "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae",
1899 A.D.)
"Certainly
Christ is a King forever; and though invisible, He continues unto
the end of time to govern and guard His Church from Heaven. But
since He willed that His kingdom should be visible He was obliged,
when He ascended into Heaven, to designate a vice-regent on
earth." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896
A.D.)
"As the Son of God came to do the Father's will,
so shall ye fulfill the will of your mother, which is the Church,
the head of which, as has been stated already, is the church of
Rome. Wherefore, whatsoever may be done against the discipline of
this church, without the decision of justice, cannot on any
account be permitted to be held valid." (Pope St. Calixtus, c. 220 A.D.)
"If, therefore, the
Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to
his successors, they necessarily say that they are not the sheep
of Christ, since the Lord says there is one fold and one shepherd
(Jn. 10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority thus
ordered by God, resists the command of God." (Pope Boniface
VIII)
"[I]t
can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall
succumb or in any wise fail. 'For the Church, as the edifice of
Christ who has wisely built 'His house upon a rock,' cannot be
conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who
shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be
powerless against it'" (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
1896 A.D.)
"Be
thou blessed, O divine Shepherd! For thy having thus provided for
the necessities of thy fold, which could not be one, were it to
have many shepherds without one supreme shepherd. In obedience to
thy command, we bow down before Peter, with love and submission;
we respectfully kiss his sacred feet; for it is by him that we are
united to thee; it is by him that we are thy sheep." (Dom
Gueranger)
"Against which [the gates of hell] we
read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our
prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of Hell shall not
conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain
for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven - you who fight
against the chair of Peter?" (Optatus of Milevis, as quoted
by Pope Leo XIII in "Satis Cognitum", 1896 A.D.)
"We
exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently
what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of
Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see,
provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by
reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the
faith without the consent of the bishop of the city of Rome." (St.
Peter Chrysologus, Doctor of the Church, c. 449 A.D.)
"As
Christ is the Shepherd, is Peter not a shepherd? On the contrary,
Peter is also shepherd... For if he be not shepherd, why should it be said
to him: feed my sheep? Yet it is the true shepherd who feeds his
own sheep. Now it was said to Peter, not, Feed thy sheep, but my
sheep. Hence Peter is shepherd not in himself, but in the body of
the Shepherd. For if he fed his own sheep, they would immediately
become goats which he was feeding." (St. Augustine, Doctor of
the Church, 5th century
A.D.)
"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."
(Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.)
"They
did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the
concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the
notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement
might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other
churches [that is, Catholic churches - there were no others at the
time] - just as all waters proceed from their own natural source
and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure
liquids of an incorrupted head." (Pope St. Innocent I, 417
A.D.)
"He
founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a
source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others
were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter,
whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one
chair... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can
he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair
of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident
that he is in the Church?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, c. 251
A.D.)
"Indeed
no true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not
governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have
given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians
must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith
is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as
it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity,
inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of
government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is
necessary jure divino." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
1896 A.D.)
"But
the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with
Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter;
otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd.
It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the
faith that the head should merely have been charged with the
office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with
a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he
should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole
community is bound to obey." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
1896)
"Now
if we acknowledge a permanent miracle in the uninterrupted
succession of the Bishops of Rome, in spite of all the revolutions
of eighteen centuries, we acknowledge it to be a still higher
prodigy that, notwithstanding the instability of man's opinions
and judgments, the Chair of Rome has faithfully preserved the
truth without the slightest admixture of error, whereas the sees
of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were scarcely
able to maintain the true Faith for a few centuries, and have
become so frequently those Chairs of pestilence spoken of by the
Royal Prophet (Ps. i I)" (Dom Gueranger)
"According
to this promise of the Lord (Mt. 26:18), the Apostolic Church of
Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or
heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of
Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant
faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have
to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone
immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths
of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride,
confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy
apostolic tradition." (St. Cyril, Doctor of the Church)
"Ignatius,
also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the
greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, His only
Son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus
Christ, our God, by thee will of Him that has willed everything
which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the
place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of
honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of
love, named after Christ and named after the Father. This Church do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, Son of
the Father." (St. Ignatius
of Antioch, c. 110 A.D.)
"For
if, indeed as you assert, some sin has risen among them, a
judicial investigation ought to have been made according to the
ecclesiastical canon, and not in this manner. Everyone should have
written to us, in order that thus what was might be decided by
all; for the bishops were the ones who suffered, and it was not
the ordinary churches that were harassed, but which the apostles
themselves governed in person. Yet why has nothing been written to
us, especially regarding the Alexandrian church? Or do you not
know that it is the custom to write to us first, and that here
what is just is decided? Certainly if any suspicion of this nature
did fall upon the bishop of that city, the fact should have been
written to this church." (Pope St. Julius I, 341 A.D.)
"Simon,
My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I
betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its
buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth
a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you,
the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the
fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My
disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is
that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to
be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as
the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you
the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over
all my treasures!" (St. Ephraim, Doctor of the Church, 4th century A.D.)
"Should
anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one
Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is
obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the
Sacraments, but also their invisible minister - He it is who
baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him
the eternal ministers of the Sacraments - so has He placed over
His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be
His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires
a visible head; therefore the Savior appointed Peter head and
pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the
feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the
very same power of ruling and governing the entire church to
descend to Peter's successors." (Catechism of the Council
of Trent)
"In
this same sense He says: 'Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth it
shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on
earth it shall be loosed also in Heaven.' This metaphorical
expression of binding and loosing indicates the power of making
laws, of judging and of punishing; and the power is said to be of
such amplitude and force that God will ratify whatever is decreed
by it. Thus it is supreme and absolutely independent, so that,
having no other power on earth as its superior, it embraces the
whole Church and all things committed to the Church. The promise
is carried out when Christ the Lord after His Resurrection, having
thrice asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the rest, lays
on him the injunction: 'Feed my lambs - feed my sheep.' That is He
confides to him, without exception, all those who were to belong
to His fold." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
1896 A.D.)
"Our
Lord Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, so established the
worship of divine religion, which He wanted to shine out by God's
grace unto all nations and peoples, that the truth, previously
contained in the proclamation of the Law and the Prophets, might
go forth through the apostolic trumpet to the salvation of all, as
it is written: 'Their sound has gone forth to all the earth, and
their words to the ends of the earth.' But the Lord desired that
the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in
such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed
Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. And He wanted His gifts to
flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as it from the head,
in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from
the solidarity of Peter would realize that he has himself no
longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (Pope St. Leo I the
Great, Doctor of the Church,
c. 445 A.D.)
"With
only one exception, all the documents which attest Clement's
intervention in the affairs of distant churches have perished with
time; but the one that remains shows us in full action the
monarchical power of the bishop of Rome at that primitive epoch.
The church of Corinth was disturbed with intestine quarrels caused
by jealousy against certain pastors. These division, the germ of
which had appeared even in St. Paul's time, had destroyed all
peace, and were causing scandal to the very pagans. The
Corinthians at last felt the necessity of putting an end to a
disorder which might be prejudicial to the extension of the
Christian faith; and for this purpose it was requisite to seek
assistance from outside. The apostles had all departed this life,
except St. John, who was still the light of the Church. It was no
great distance from Corinth to Ephesus where the apostle resided:
yet it was not to Ephesus but to Rome that the church of Corinth
turned. Clement examined the case referred to his judgment by that
church, and sent to Corinth five commissaries to represent the
Apostolic See. They were bearers of a letter, which St. Irenaeus
calls potentissimas litteras. It was considered at the time so
beautiful and so apostolic, that it was long read in many churches
as a sort of continuation of the canonical Scriptures. Its tone is
dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to
pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the
grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none
can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn
and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace as reestablished in
the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff
soon brought back the happy news." (Liturgical Year)
"It
was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to
the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal
element - that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of
lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St.
Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another.
'There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter,
persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received,
hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been
confided to him' (S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3). For this reason
the Pontiffs who succeed Peter in the Roman Episcopate receive the
supreme power in the Church, jure divino. 'We define' (declare the
Fathers of the Council of Florence) 'that the Holy and Apostolic
See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy of the Church
throughout the whole world: and that the same Roman Pontiff is the
successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true
Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the father and
teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him,
in Blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, to rule, and
to govern the universal Church, as is also contained in the acts
of oecumenical councils and in the sacred canons' (Conc.
Florentinum). Similarly the Fourth Council of Lateran declares:
'The Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful,
by the will of Christ obtains primacy of jurisdiction over all
other churches.' These declarations were preceded by the consent
of antiquity which ever acknowledged, without the slightest doubt
or hesitation, the Bishops of Rome, and revered them as the
legitimate successors of St. Peter. Who is unaware of the many and
evident testimonies of the holy Fathers which exist to this
effect?" (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896
A.D.)
"Jesus
was one day, previous to his Passion, in the country of Cesarea
Philippi; his Apostles were standing around him, and he began
questioning them about what they thought of him. One of them,
Simon the son of John or Jonas, and brother to Andrew, answered in
the name of all, and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living
God! Jesus expressed his pleasure at receiving Simon's testimony,
which was not the result of any human knowledge, but the
expression of a divine revelation there and then granted to him;
and he immediately told this Apostle that from that time forward
he was to be, not Simon but Peter (which means rock). Christ has
been spoken of by the prophets under the name of a Rock, or a
Stone; by thus solemnly conferring upon his disciple a title so
characteristically that of the Messias, Jesus would give us to
understand that Simon was to have something in common with himself
which the other Apostles were not to have. After saying to him:
'Thou art Peter' (that is, thou art the rock), he added: 'And upon
this rock I will build my Church.' Let us weigh the force of these
words of the Son of God: I will build my Church. He has, then, a
project in view - he intends to build a Church. It is not now that
he will build it, but at some future period; but one thing we
already know as a certainty - is that this Church will be built on
Peter. Peter will be its foundation; and whosoever is not on that
foundation will not belong to the Church. Let us again give ear to
the text: And the gates of hell shall not prevail against my
Church. In scriptural language gates signify powers: the Church of
Christ, therefore, is to be proof against all the efforts of hell.
And why? Because the foundation which Jesus is to give to it shall
be one that no power can shake. The Son of God continues: And I
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In the
language of the Jews, keys signify the power of governing; and in
the Gospel Parables the kingdom of heaven is the Church built by
Christ. By saying to Peter (which is henceforth to be Simon's
name), I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
Jesus implied this: 'I will make thee the King of my Church, of
which thou art to be the foundation!' Nothing could be
clearer." (Dom Gueranger)
"Union
with the Roman See of Peter is to [St. Jerome] always the public
criterion of a Catholic. 'I acknowledge everyone who is united
with the See of Peter' (Ep. xvi., ad Damasum, n. 2). And for a
like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, 'the primacy of
the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church' (Ep. xliii.,
n. 7); and he denies that anyone who dissents from the Roman faith
can be a Catholic... In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches
that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith
and of legitimate communion. 'Therefore if a man does not want to
be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this
or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in
communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he
should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and
orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience
to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is
to the Apostolic See.' The reason and motive of this he explains
to be that 'the Apostolic See has received and hath government,
authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate
Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and
decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all
the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the
Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens
there' (Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem). Wherefore
what was acknowledged and observed as Christian faith, not by one
nation only nor in one age, but by the East and by the West, and
through all ages, this Philip, the priest, the Pontifical legate
at the Council of Ephesus, no voice being raised in dissent,
recalls: 'No one can doubt, yea, it is known unto all ages, that
St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and
the ground of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the
Kingdom from Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is: the power of
forgiving and retaining sins was given to him who, up to the
present time, lives and exercises judgment in the persons of his
successors' (Actio iii.). The pronouncement of the Council of
Chalcedon on the same matter is present to the minds of all:
'Peter has spoken through Leo' (Actio ii.), to which the voice of
the Third Council of Constantinople responds as an echo: 'The
chief Prince of the Apostles was fighting on our side: for we have
had as our ally his follower and the successor to his See: and the
paper and the ink were seen, and Peter spoke through Agatho' (Actio
xviii.). In the formula of Catholic faith drawn up and proposed by
Hormisdas, which was subscribed at the beginning of the sixth
century in the great Eighth Council by the Emperor Justinian, by
Epiphanius, John and Menna, the Patriarchs, this same is declared
with great weight and solemnity. 'For the pronouncement of Our
Lord Jesus Christ saying: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church...' cannot be passed over. What is said is
proved by the result, because Catholic faith has always been
preserved without stain in the Apostolic See' (Post Epistolam,
xxvi., ad omnes Episc. Hispan., n. 4). We have no wish to quote
every available declaration; but it is well to recall the formula
of faith which Michael Paleologus professed in the Second Council
of Lyons: 'The same holy Roman Church possesses the sovereign and
plenary primacy and authority over the whole Catholic Church,
which, truly and humbly, it acknowledges to have received together
with the plenitude of power from the Lord Himself, in the person
of St. Peter, the Prince or Head of the Apostles, of whom the
Roman Pontiff is the successor. And as it is bound to defend the
truth of faith beyond all others, so also if any question should
arise concerning the faith it must be determined by its judgment'
(Actio iv.)." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum",
1896 A.D.)
|
