Peter & Succession (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.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, why does one person's will respond and the other's doesn't?

Or why were you and I born in a nation where the Gospel is preached, and so many aren't?

The answer is right there in the Scriptures:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? - Romans 9:18-21

LOTS OF FOLKS FEEL FORCED to conclude lots of things.

Whether force is, in fact, the case or not varies with each situation . . . sounds like an illusion, in this case . . . perhaps worse.

I rarely produce command performance lists of Scriptures hereon. I'd have thought that was evident, by now. I'm not very clear which word is proving so difficult.

However, assumptions that non production of a list of Scriptures on demand = lack of such Scriptures is akin to the assumptions about TRADITIONS OF MAN; DOCTRINES OF MAN being Biblical, trustworthy, remotely related to truth etc.

Fascinating.

It appears that you are trying to get these "four ways" [in the particular order in which you list them] from Scripture. But that suggests that you think Scripture alone is our authority (because otherwise, you would seemingly not limit yourself to appealing to Scripture as a source of doctrine). In other words, although you claim not to affirm "Sola Scripture", you seem to be working under that very assumption.

Hardly! One more time with feeling:

God the Father has revealed Himself to us in these four ways:

1. Through Jesus Christ who is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person, by Whom all things that were made, were made and for Whom they exist. (Hebrews 1:3, John 1, Col 1 etc.) If you know Jesus personally, you have the first, most direct and most important revelation of the Father.

2. Through the indwelling Spirit who leads us into all Truth (John 14-17). He reveals Christ to us, personally. If you abide in Christ (John 15) and follow the Spirit's leading (Romans 8), you will have the "mind of Christ." (I Cor 2)

3. Through the Scriptures. Not a jot or tittle of the law and prophets will pass until fulfilled and the new heaven and new earth begins. The indwelling Spirit brings the Scriptures alive within you, revealing Christ in all of this.

4. Through Creation (Psalms 19) - and we are all accountable for noting it. (Romans 1:20) Creation speaks to us that God is.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

And please note that the Magesterium is nowhere to be found on that list, neither are any other doctrines and traditions of men (Calvin, Arminius, Joseph Smith, etc.) --- because... when we wander beyond the teachings of Christ, we leave God behind.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. - Mark 7:7

Calvin *is* in that list, though not by name. That is because the assumption behind the construction of your list is "sola scriptura", a belief that came from Martin Luther and John Calvin. Each of your four ways quotes and appeals to Scripture. That shows the philosophical belief underlying the methodology by which you constructed the list. You are following the tradition of the Protestant Reformers without even knowing that you are doing so.

-A8

You are the one insisting that that a person cannot resist the Holy Spirit. Now what are you saying, that they didn't resist the Holy Spirit but rather the Truth that he revealed? Jeepers!

And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. - Acts 6:10

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye. - Acts 7:51

Both statements are true! They were unable to resist listening to Stephen and they were also guilty of always resisting the Holy Ghost after which allegation by Stephen they stoned him to sleep.

All of their "earthly efforts" to understand God's Word would come to nought. That's exactly why the most learned of men can dismiss it as fairy tales of some halfwitted wandering tribe. Simon Magus sought to buy the HS. You can't just become "spiritual" because you desire to. And of course, if God wants you to receive His Spirit and be elect, you aren't able to "resist" the actual Spirit either.

I agreed with you all the way up to the underlined part. A person can hear Christ spiritually and not believe, he can reject Christ, he can say "no."

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. - John 12:47-48

And with that you've managed to break two Religion Forum guidelines: 1) reading the mind of another poster and, 2) accusing another poster of dishonesty.

I am not Calvinist - for days now I've been having an intense sidebar in opposition to Calvinist doctrine on this very thread - even while posting in another sidebar with you.

The revelation in Scripture (point 3) is cited in points 1, 2 and 4 in support of the fact that all four revelations work together as one, but in that order of authority and completeness.

Speaking of Sola Scripture and Catholicism, how would you characterize yourself using this template from the Religious Tolerance website? (more on the link, this is just the header)

Biblical inerrancy (freedom of error) as understood by Roman Catholics

The term "inerrancy" is rarely used by Roman Catholics or by Eastern Orthodox churches. However, the concept of inerrancy is present in many of their beliefs about the Bible.

The teachings of the Church have evolved over the years. Various Catholic sources have given apparently conflicting views on the nature of biblical inerrancy:

Some claim that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant -- without error. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God was influencing the writers, then he would not have led them into error. This appears to be the consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20th century.

Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that of limited inerrancy. This views the Bible as being without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among 19th century Christians.

Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have agreed with liberal Protestants by rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc. Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular writers among the general public.

Indeed, rejecting the Truth the Spirit has pointed them to is a willful, i.e. voluntary, act.

But then the question must be asked -- does the Spirit point everyone equally?

And if the answer there is yes (which most Arminians assert) then the difference must lie in the individual.

But then the question follows -- who made us to differ?

And we all know the answer for that one.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

Sola gratia. By grace alone. Not by him who runs or him who wills, but by God who shows mercy.

CHAIN OF GRACE

To be led by the Holy Spirit is not to be sinless. It is, however, to finally begin to hate our sins and wish to flee from them. We won't be able to completely, of course. We are human beings, after all. Human beings are not God. Human beings sin.

But if we are led by the Holy Spirit, we will be sanctified in our Christian walk by Christ within us. We will sin less and less, knowing more and more how abhorrent our transgressions are to God who has shown us mercy.

It is our RC FRiends who think we must die in a state of sinlessness in order to merit heaven.

Protestants know that no one can merit salvation and that our redemption has already occurred by Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins. We have been redeemed.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus" -- Ephesians 2:4-6

There is a popular song on Christian radio that sings this verse:

For I am crucified with Christ, and yet I live -
Not I, but Christ that lives within me!

Though I can't explain it fully, I trust in the Spirit we share that you will understand when I say, I had an epiphany of this truth as never before yesterday as I heard it. I've heard and read the lines a hundred thousand times, but this time was new. I realized more acutely than ever before that at the moment of my confession, on my knees and broken, beseeching a God I had only a seed of faith in, my life was indeed, in actual fact, laid down, and is no longer, and from that very moment, a split second in time, I have lived because of and in the resurrection life, the power, the very person of Christ Jesus - solely, completely, exclusively. My literal life is literally no longer mine; the "I" I was is that person nailed to the cross with the Jew, and the life I live, and have lived since that second of history, is literally Christ's Life. I can't explain better with words. Even in the realization I could barely vocalize a thanksgiving through the tears; I was physically and emotionally overcome by the realization of the power in me, and the plan of Almighty God. I trust you will know exactly what I am saying.

Even now we live in glory.

Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
~John 11:40
"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
~John 17:22-26

And with that you've managed to break two Religion Forum guidelines: 1) reading the mind of another poster and, 2) accusing another poster of dishonesty.

Careful. I never attempted to read your mind. The 'sola scriptura' assumption that lies behind your methodology is one that is there objectively, whether you realize it or not. So, I'm not claiming that you are aware of it mentally. Likewise, I am not in any way accusing you of dishonesty. I believe you that you are not a Calvinist with respect to predestination. But one can be a Calvinist in one respect while rejecting some other aspect of Calvinism.

The revelation in Scripture (point 3) is cited in points 1, 2 and 4 in support of the fact that all four revelations work together as one, but in that order of authority and completeness.

You don't appeal to "Jesus" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to the "Spirit" to back up these four ways. You don't appeal to "creation" to back up these four ways. You appeal only to Scripture to back up these four ways. Therefore, whether you realize it or not, your methodology is 'sola scriptura'. In that respect, your 'sola scriptura' methodology (in constructing and defending these four ways) actually contradicts your 'four ways theory', because (1) all four ways are based on one way [i.e. Scripture] and (2) two 'higher' ways ["Jesus" and the "Spirit"] are based on a 'lower' way [i.e. Scripture].

-A8

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.