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.
Like I said....you must have been talking to yourself. I sure don't see what it is you are referring to. I do know, from rereading those posts that you were becoming quite agitated. But most Romans do this when they can find no scripture to back up their false doctrine.
Because we are proud and full of joy to be part of the Church that Jesus established. And we also want others to convert to His Church and be ONE with us like He commanded.
Gathering people into His Church is being EXTREMELY focused on Jesus.
Any heretic can claim to have the Holy Spirit. (And throughout Church history, heretics have claimed to have the Holy Spirit.) The gnosticism that the Church has always condemened as heretical disconnects form and matter, separating "word from witness", and grace from sacrament. In this way gnosticism denies the relation between Apostolic succession and authentic ordination. However, the one ordaining cannot give what he does not have. We know that the Apostles had the authority from Christ, and so we know that those ordained by the Apostles (and those in sacramental succession from the Apostles) have this authority. But those who do not have ordination from the Apostles, what authority do they have to tell us what the Gospel is, what the contents of the NT are, and what the proper interpretation of the Scriptures is? How do we know who has the Spirit? Gnostics claim that we know by a 'burning in our bosom', an entirely subjective experience. Another form of gnosticism claims to test the spirits by comparing a claim to the Scriptures. But this form of gnosticism presumes that it already knows the canon of Scripture, the authoritative interpretation of Scriptures [even though there are 20,000+ Protestant sects], and that there is no living Magesterium. So this form of gnosticism just pushes the subjectivism back a step, to the determination of canon and interpretation. It plucks the canon out of ahistorical thin air, ripping it from the hands of the Apostles and bishops by whose authority it was established and accepted.
The "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church", has always rejected gnosticism. She determines who has the Spirit by way of succession. (cf. 1 John 4:6). The NT has authority in virtue of the authority of those who wrote it, approved it, and ratified it. Protestantism has no way to determine the NT canon. Each Protestant can determine for himself which texts belong to the NT. Don't like a book in the NT? Rip it out. Wish to add Chicken Soup for the Soul?, just stick it in. Without a living Magesterium, you are your own authority. You get to determine for yourself not only the interpretation of Scripture, but the very texts of Scripture. Just as you can make your own customized teddy bear, or Mini-Cooper, if you are a Protestant, you can make your own customized Bible. Why not? Who is to say what the canon is? You are not under the authority of all those fourth and fifth century bishops, so why do you follow them with respect to the NT canon? You are not under the authority of Luther and Calvin, so they don't determine for you what the canon must be. BUILD YOUR OWN CANON. Just as you can find 'Build your own Bear' stores in the mall, it is merely intellectual inertia and lack of creativity that we have yet to see Protestants open "Build your own Bible" stores in the malls.
-A8
Where's that in the Bible? Are you an ordained bishop?
How so?
I am not a bishop; I'm just telling you what the bishops say. I have no ecclesial authority. But the bishops do. If you think I am misleading you regarding what the bishops teach, feel free to ask the bishops, or to show me where what I am saying differs from the teaching of the bishops.
-A8
Very true. We are most fortunate to be under the authority of Scripture, by the grace of God alone.
"...the restoration of the church is the work of God, and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description. Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of action, either from the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that his gospel be preached. Let us obey his command, and follow whithersoever he calls. What the success will be it is not ours to inquire. Our only duty is to wish for what is best, and beseech it of the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with patience to whatever that result may be." -- John Calvin
I am a member of the Church, just not the one you attend. Again, why all the focus on affiliation rather than Jesus?
According to whose interpretation? That of the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Episcopal, Baptist, Pietsts, Menonites, Shakers, Puritans, Amish, Charismatics, Methodist, Assemblies of God, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Four Square, Christ of Christ, Unitarian, etc. etc.???
They all claim to be under the authority of Scripture, but they all disagree with each other. So who is really under the authority of Scripture?
-a8
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Christ did leave us a book.
St. Peter was the chosen one of God to take the gospel to the Gentiles.
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God MADE CHOICE among us, that by MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Did God change His mind? I think not. St. Peter was above St. Paul in authority in the Church and sent St. Paul out as a helper to spread this message.
"Go thy way, for he [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to BEAR MY NAME BEFORE THE GENTILES, and Kings, and the children of Israel".
What makes him MORE chosen than St. Peter or any of the other Apostles that spread and bore His name before Gentiles and the children of Israel?
Focusing on the identity of the Body of Christ is not mutually exclusive with focusing on Jesus. (The Church is the Body of Christ.) You seem to talk as if Church unity does not matter to Christ. Read Christ's high priestly prayer in John 17.
-A8
I gave you an answer.
I'm not unaware of John 1:1. But I'm still not understanding you. It sounds like you are saying either that Christ Himself wrote the NT, or that Christ (i.e. the Word) did not ascend into heaven. Are you saying either of those, or are you saying something else?
-A8
Well, some must be because God tells us He will not lose any of His sheep and that He will bring them safely home.
Men are known by their fruits. I prefer the fruit of the Reformed faith which, to me, is most faithful to Scripture and most clearly articulates God's revelation of Himself and reassures us most mercifully of our acquittal before God by the finished work of Jesus Christ upon the cross.
Well, speaking of false doctrines, you've called the Trinity a heresy in other threads. Anyone who would call the Trinity a heresy CAN'T possibly believe that Jesus is God.
Well I'm not a member of the catholic church but I am a member of his church. Luke 17:20. The Kingdom of God is within you.
Christ is the NT.
Or Luke 1:1
Those first two words capture the essence of Protestantism: "I prefer".
You go where the 'leaders' believe and teach what is most faithful to what you think Scripture says.
You are your own authority. If you didn't agree with the Reformed folks, you could just go on down the street to the Anabaptists, or up the street to the Lutherans, or just start your own church in your living room. In this way, Protestantism is Church of Self.
-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.