Did Peter Have A Successor?
In my last post “The Case For Peter As Pope” I established that 1. The role of the Pope came from God, not man. 2. Peter was selected by Jesus to be the first Pope. If interested in the evidence I provided for the Papacy and Peter as the first Pope then please refer to my previous blog. Many protestants will accept that Peter had a special role in the church and was given authority but believe that role and authority stopped with Peter. They don't believe in a successor of Peter which means they believe that we should not have a Pope. The view of Peters's role as a one-and-done is faulty and a dishonest one to the viewer. If one can acknowledge Peter as a leader, given the biblical history of succession, and still admit that there is no successor is dishonest to oneself.
The Old Testament is full of succession throughout. One great example of this is when Moses appointed Joshua as his successor. Most successions were passed from father to son which was traditional. Joshua was not the son of Moses yet he was chosen to lead the people of Israel once Moses died. Joshua a member of the 12 tribes came to be the leader of the 12 tribes just as Peter would later be a member of the 12 Apostles and come to be their leader. If you take a look at the Davidic line of kings you see constant successors from the line of David. With Jesus bringing in and establishing the new kingdom where he will reign forever. As Jesus is the king, he will have a prime minister to lead his kingdom while he is away. Peter was the first prime minister (Pope) and there have been many successors of prime ministers due to Jesus’s Kingdom having no end. (Is 22:19-25)
The Bible doesn't mention Peters's successor but it does mention Apostolic succession in the book of Acts when Judas is replaced with Matthias (Acts 1:12-26). If Judas had a successor then the rest of the Apostles including Peter would have a successor. If this proves that Peter had a successor, would this mean that his successor would have his role as Pope? The early church fathers believed that it very much did. The church Fathers not only believed that Peter had a successor but they provided the names of the men who succeeded him.
Two of these names are mentioned in the New Testament. Pope Linus who is believed the be the second Pope is mentioned in (2 Timothy 4:21). “Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren. - 2 Timothy 4:21”
The other name is a man called Clement who was one of the most influential early church fathers. Clement of Rome is listed as the 4th Pope. Clement is listed in the New Testament in the letter to the Philippians. “And I also ask you, who are a true co-worker, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. - Philippians 4:3”
The early church wouldn't even consider you apart of the church if you did not hold to the belief of Peter’s primacy and him having a successor. My question to someone who doesn't believe in the Papacy is do you believe the early church Fathers had it wrong? If you say yes then I would ask what makes you more right than them. If you disagree due to the belief in Sola Scriptura, then I ask you to remember that the church had already existed for over 300 years before the New Testament was complied. Below I will provide multiple quotes by the early church fathers regarding this topic. Let’s take a look at the general consensus of the early church Fathers about Peter’s successors:
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” - St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] 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 (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” -St. Ambrose of Milan (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . ” - St. Augustine (Letters53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
