Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
From Called To Communion: Understanding the Church Today
Editor's note: This is the second half of a chapter titled "The Primacy of Peter and Unity of the Church." The first half examines the status of Peter in the New Testament and the commission logion contained in Matthew 16:17-19.
The principle of succession in general
That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.
The real difficulty arises when we come to the second question: Can the idea of a Petrine succession be justified? Even more difficult is the third question that is bound up with it: Can the Petrine succession of Rome be credibly substantiated?
Concerning the first question, we must first of all note that there is no explicit statement regarding the Petrine succession in the New Testament. This is not surprising, since neither the Gospels nor the chief Pauline epistles address the problem of a postapostolic Church—which, by the way, must be mentioned as a sign of the Gospels' fidelity to tradition. Indirectly, however, this problem can be detected in the Gospels once we admit the principle of form critical method according to which only what was considered in the respective spheres of tradition as somehow meaningful for the present was preserved in writing as such. This would mean, for example, that toward the end of the first century, when Peter was long dead, John regarded the former's primacy, not as a thing of the past, but as a present reality for the Church.
For many even believe—though perhaps with a little too much imagination—that they have good grounds for interpreting the "competition" between Peter and the beloved disciple as an echo of the tensions between Rome's claim to primacy and the sense of dignity possessed by the Churches of Asia Minor. This would certainly be a very early and, in addition, inner-biblical proof that Rome was seen as continuing the Petrine line; but we should in no case rely on such uncertain hypotheses. The fundamental idea, however, does seem to me correct, namely, that the traditions of the New Testament never reflect an interest of purely historical curiosity but are bearers of present reality and in that sense constantly rescue things from the mere past, without blurring the special status of the origin.
Moreover, even scholars who deny the principle itself have propounded hypotheses of succession. 0. Cullmann, for example, objects in a very clear-cut fashion to the idea of succession, yet he believes that he can Show that Peter was replaced by James and that this latter assumed the primacy of the erstwhile first apostle. Bultmann believes that he is correct in concluding from the mention of the three pillars in Galatians 2:9 that the course of development led away from a personal to a collegial leadership and that a college entered upon the succession of Peter. [1]
We have no need to discuss these hypotheses and others like them; their foundation is weak enough. Nevertheless, they do show that it is impossible to avoid the idea of succession once the word transmitted in Scripture is considered to be a sphere open to the future. In those writings of the New Testament that stand on the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it-especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Letters—the principle of succession does in fact take on concrete shape.
The Protestant notion that the "succession" consists solely in the word as such, but not in any "structures", is proved to be anachronistic in light of what in actual fact is the form of tradition in the New Testament. The word is tied to the witness, who guarantees it an unambiguous sense, which it does not possess as a mere word floating in isolation. But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a wit ness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as "flesh and blood" but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ. For the Paraclete does not speak of himself, but he takes from "what is his" (that is, from what is Christ's: Jn 16: 13).
This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-"not of himself, but what he hears" -is called "sacrament" in the language of the Church. Sacrament designates a threefold knot-word, witness, Holy Spirit and Christ-which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty from the testimony of the Pastoral Letters and of the Acts of the Apostles that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.
The Petrine succession in Rome
In opposition to the New Testament pattern of succession described above, which withdraws the word from human manipulation precisely by binding witnesses into its service, there arose very early on an intellectual and anti-institutional model known historically by the name of Gnosis, which made the free interpretation and speculative development of the word its principle. Before long the appeal to individual witnesses no longer sufficed to counter the intellectual claim advanced by this tendency. It became necessary to have fixed points by which to orient the testimony itself, and these were found in the so-called apostolic sees, that is, in those where the apostles had been active. The apostolic sees became the reference point of true communio. But among these sees there was in turn–quite clearly in Irenaeus of Lyons–a decisive criterion that recapitulated all others: the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole.
Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter's martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. [2]
This leads us to a very fundamental observation. [3] The Roman primacy, or, rather, the acknowledgement of Rome as the criterion of the right apostolic faith, is older than the canon of the New Testament, than "Scripture".
We must be on our guard here against an almost inevitable illusion. "Scripture" is more recent than "the scriptures" of which it is composed. It was still a long time before the existence of the individual writings resulted in the "New Testament" as Scripture, as the Bible. The assembling of the writings into a single Scripture is more properly speaking the work of tradition, a work that began in the second century but came to a kind of conclusion only in the fourth or fifth century. Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roman bias, has remarked in this regard that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the "books of the New Testament" won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches also gradually subscribed "for the sake of its intrinsic value and on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church".
We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through the tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas–the preeminent original authority–of the Roman see as a constitutive element.
Two points emerge clearly from what has just been First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form-apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so that we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other. Furthermore, we have seen that in Rome the traditional series of bishops was from the very beginning recorded as a line of successors.
We can add that Rome and Antioch were conscious of succeeding to the mission of Peter and that early on Alexandria was admitted into the circle of Petrine sees as the city where Peter's disciple Mark had been active. Having said all that, the site of Peter's martyrdom nonetheless appears clearly as the chief bearer of his supreme authority and plays a preeminent role in the formation of tradition which is constitutive of the Church-and thus in the genesis of the New Testament as Bible; Rome is one of the indispensable internal and external- conditions of its possibility. It would be exciting to trace the influence on this process of the idea that the mission of Jerusalem had passed over to Rome, which explains why at first Jerusalem was not only not a "patriarchal see" but not even a metropolis: Jerusalem was now located in Rome, and since Peter's departure from that city, its primacy had been transferred to the capital of the pagan world. [4]
But to consider this in detail would lead us too far afield for the moment. The essential point, in my opinion, has already become plain: the martyrdom of Peter in Rome fixes the place where his function continues. The awareness of this fact can be detected as early as the first century in the Letter of Clement, even though it developed but slowly in all its particulars.
Concluding reflections
We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.
But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure. It does not merely furnish proof texts, it is a permanent criterion and task. It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man's capacity and God's sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.
If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite. The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.
The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of God's power. Every single biblical logion about the primacy thus remains from generation to generation a signpost and a norm, to which we must ceaselessly resubmit ourselves. When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.
For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.
When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .
Endnotes:
[1] Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (198 1), 147- 51; cf. Gnilka, 56.
[2] For an exhaustive account of this point, see V. Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos (Münster, 1982).
[3] It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future I will have the opportunity to develop and substantiate in greater detail the view of the succession that I attempt to indicate in an extremely condensed form in what follows. I owe important suggestions to several works by 0. Karrer, especially: Um die Einheit der Christen. Die Petrusfrage (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1953); "Apostolische Nachfolge und Primat", in: Feiner, Trütsch and Böckle, Fragen in der Theologie heute (Freiburg im.Breisgau, 1957), 175-206; "Das Petrusamt in der Frühkirche", in Festgabe J. Lortz (Baden-Baden, 1958), 507-25; "Die biblische und altkirchliche Grundlage des Papsttums", in: Lebendiges Zeugnis (1958), 3-24. Also of importance are some of the papers in the festschrift for 0. Karrer: Begegnung der Christen, ed. by Roesle-Cullmann (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1959); in particular, K. Hofstetter, "Das Petrusamt in der Kirche des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts", 361-72.
[4] Cf. Hofstetter.
The terms AD and BC absolutely did not exist in the the First Century and wouldn't for some time. Luke would have probably used either the Jewish calender or the Roman calender (which dated everything from the founding of Rome).
From what I have read, Claudius's edict was in 49 AD. So, that does not mean that Peter could not have been in Rome between 42 and 49 AD. Moreover, the bishop of a city did not have to remain in a city in order to remain its bishop. So, if in 49 AD Peter left Rome and traveled (and it is thought that he did) through various cities for a time, that is fully compatible with his remaining the bishop of Rome.
-A8
If this were uniformly tossed then no Scripture would ever be taught. As there is no private interpretation of the scripture, (2 Peter 1:20) and faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God (Romans 10:17), Christianity would cease to exist.
As for all reality being an illusion, actually, according to the bible, it is not. You have the seen world, in which we live, and exist through laws, in an orderly manner, and you have the unseen world, the invisible (Romans 1:20, Col: 1:15,16, 1Titus 1:17, Hebrews 11:27 ) all created at the same time and both worlds are the Creation.
The pull and flow of the quantum fields may perhaps look like illusion, but the world is still the same world that was created by God, and a Buddhist or a Hindu contemplating his own mind, and thinking that all is illusion, does not disappear, and more importantly he does not "find" God, only his own mind's vain imaginings. God cannot "be found".
Slander is a sin. You should be real sure you're right when you slander a billion +
I'd rather you not judge me at all, but if you must then my preference would be for you to judge me on the basis laid out by Jesus Christ in Matthew 7, and further specified in Galatians 5:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23
Of course grace brings us to salvation. The Church doesn't teach otherwise. When you say you don't want to see people going to hell from reading a Catholic thread, it is insulting.
This is another argument from silence, and hence another fallacy.
= = = =
Perhaps a logical fallacy in a certain system of logic . . . for whatever that may be worth--which many times, is less than nothing . . . in that it leads to incorrect assumptions and conclusions AS WELL.
The assertions which are presumed or construed to be from silence, and therefore wrong . . . can quite often be TRUE. It's just that silence doesn't offer much to support them "objectively," whatever that means.
A person can call into question every piece of evidence, if you want not to believe something.
= = = =
INDEED!
ESPECIALLY on many threads hereon . . . re God's Anointing and Spiritual Gifts and their operation in the current era.
I very very strongly agree that God cannot be "found" by any mental reasoning, meditation or other effort of man. Nor can man be "good enough" to get to heaven - if he could have, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2:21)
I also very strongly agree with you that there is a "seen" world and an "unseen" - or a physical and a spiritual, an earthy and a heavenly. My point was one of confidence - if a person is more confident or sure of the physical than the spiritual he risks becoming a "doubting Thomas".
But then again, doubting Thomas was an apostle, too.
But if his commentary does not rely on the Spirit but rather is based on his own mental reasoning using maps, logic, committees, documents and the ilk - his comments are spiritually worthless to me for the very reason that God cannot be "found" by reasoning, meditations, etc. as you say.
The comments of such a one may be useful for other purposes however - science, math, history, philosophy, etc.
I have no desire to get into a banter of words with you today. God Bless you.
Perhaps you have more confidence then that a teacher of math, etc. is more competent than a preacher, even though you will have to take on faith most of what he teaches. After all, a teacher of math these days can teach imaginary numbers.
Truth is not subjective, but is always Truth. If the Holy Spirit abides in you, you will have no problem discerning Truth. In fact, it will be really easy to determine false prophets. Only when the HS is not indwelling does one run here and there to hear some new thing.
Matthew 16:18
WRONG, imho.
All believers with The Indwelling Spirit have sufficient authority to test the spirits and discern as well as they are able BY HOLY SPIRIT'S AUTHORITY WITHIN THEM.
Is such flawless and 100% pure 100% of the time in this fallen world with varying degrees of individual maturity and experience in such an exercise, process, action, discernment?
Of course
NOT ANY MORE THAN are the judgments about the writings of the early church fathers.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are the judgments about TRADITION.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are judgments about human organizations and their hierarchical structures.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are judgments about THE PONTIFICATIONS of hierarchical structured leaders.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are the judgments about THE CUSTOMS of hierarchical structures, their leaders and followers.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are the judgments about THE BLESSINGS of hierarchical structures and their leaders on followers and/or others.
NOT ANY MORE THAN are the judgements about THE PUNISHMENTS, EXCOMMUNICATIONS ETC. of hierarchical structures and their leaders.
As the OLD TESTAMENT AND NEW TESTAMENT DISPLAY ABUNDANTLY, RELIGIOUS LEADERS of EVEN GOD ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATIONS are extremely prone to flawed operations of even God given instructions.
ADD IN HUMAN generated assummptions and constructions on reality; add in demonic doctrines . . . and the flaws become enormous.
SMALL WONDER God has OFTEN withdrawn HIS ANOINTING from virtually every human organization that has existed beyond a few months to a year or so.
HINT: WE ARE ALL FALLEN CREATURES STILL IN A FALLEN WORLD, STILL SEEING THROUGH THE GLASS DARKLY. Even the most anointed amongs us. AND, God has clearly set things up that ALL US FALLEN CRITTERS NEED ONE ANOTHER to see more clearly EVEN BY HIS SPIRIT . . . to NEED one another far more than most are prepared to accept, much less submit to.
INDEED!
AMEN!
-A8
But [divine] inspiration can be assured only if the person's claims agree with the teachings of the Apostles and their ordained successors.
= = = =
That's NOT what SCRIPTURE SAYS.
When it comes to how to manage this life and my relationship with God, I'll stick with Scripture and Holy Spirit's leading into all truth. I've had more than enough flawed inputs by well meaning heirarchical folks--even the ones earnestly trying to do their best. The rest were beyond the pale by a wide margin.
Of course I will submit as Holy Spirit leads and respect Biblical, honorable spiritual authority. I won't give anyone carte blanche. That, to me, is unBiblical.
And, in my experience, has tended to be very destructive in results.
If the allegedly 'inspired' person's teachings contradict the doctrine of the Church, then they are not of God.
== == ==
NO. IF the supposedly inspired person's teachings contradict what God is saying and doing in that situation at that time . . . and/or with Scripture . . . then things are at best exceedingly suspect if not well over the line and likely from hell.
Wisdom is lovely to see.
DEFINITELY I lean very heavily on Scripture.
I've observed that all human leadership sooner or later is quite flawed enough to cause shipwreck even if unintentional.
Also, GOD MAKES CLEAR IN SCRIPTURE and
HAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IN MY LIFE
that HE WILL NOT TOLERATE
ANY LEADER
usurping HIS PLACE
in my life.
CHRIST DIED FOR RELATIONSHIP, INTIMATE FELLOWSHIP.
Proposing that a hierarchical leadership take the role described is
wellll . . . quite bluntly . . . taking Christ's metaphor . . .
equal
to placing an interloper between husband and wife in the wedding night bed.
No thanks.
Of course there was divine revelation before Christ was enfleshed, God spoke to the prophets throughout the Old Testament. But the indwelling Spirit, the Comforter of Pentecost had not yet been given. (John 14 through Acts 2)
INDEED!
My entire point of raising the scientific issues concerning matter was that I do not put confidence in matter. Matter is just one part of the creation – it is not the full revelation of God.
Indeed, God the Father has revealed Himself in several ways - in Jesus Christ first by whom for for whom all that is "is" (Col 1) - in the indwelling Spirit - in the Scriptures - and in the Creation (Psalms 19, Romans 1:20).
To take one piece of the fourth revelation and elevate it on par with the first revelation makes no sense to me.
INDEED. MUCH AGREE.
My testimony is that God alone is Truth. Reality exists according to His will – His direct will or His permissive will. There is nothing else of which anything can be made but His will. He is the uncaused cause of "all that there is." (Genesis to Revelation)
INDEED.
In my epistemology, looking for Truth anywhere except in Him leads to error. Putting confidence in material things of any kind leads to error. Putting confidence in other men leads to error.
ABSOLUTELY. That has been my abundant and painful educational experience as well as my reading of Scripture.
If you think that "reality is an illusion", then how can you affirm that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?
Angel-Gal: I know Him personally and have known Him personally for nearly five decades. He has confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit all that is written in the Scriptures – and a number of things outside of the Scriptures as well.
The same is true, for me. Well put. Thanks.
And you don't have authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.
Angel-Gal: I never claimed that authority. The sole authority for revealing Truth to Christians is the indwelling Spirit Himself:
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:13
A-G: For the record, A8, half of my family is Catholic. One of them is a deacon. All are Christian and I expect to see every one in person in the life to come. Likewise I expect to see you and many other believers of a variety of confessions.
A-G: In my view, the differences between us usually boil down to either (a) a believer’s epistemology or (b) his emphasis within the revealed words of God – whether the emphasis is on a particular apostle, a particular gift of the Spirit, election or free will, etc.
INDEED. WELL PUT. MUCH AGREE.
Thanks. Guess there's not much to add except to cheer! YEA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.