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.

I honor and respect passion towards God. That is very fitting and admirable, to me.

I think a lot of us are prone to getting our knickers in a twist out of our own stuff and out of our RELIGIOUS stuff instead of out of our PASSION TOWARD AND FOR GOD.

I think that Roman oriented threads are a lot like Calvinist, Pentecostal, Trinitarian, Sabbitarian etc. threads wherein a group seeks to emphasize or highlight or put forward or defend their spiritual distinctives. But a lot of time, it's their personal pet biases, RELIGIOUS distinctives [as opposed to and vs truly spiritual ones--and it's not the topic per se but the heart attitudes, I think, that make the difference.

Certainly we are called and challenged in Scripture and by Christ's character and by the excellent RM to follow Christ--even to follow the RM's great example, bless his tireles sheart . . . and to make our words as gracious as we can manage.

I also think we are called by Christ's example and Scripture to have pretty thick skins and to avoid undue offense and even a lot of deliberate offense. Offense can be sent. Offense can be assumed to have been sent when it wasn't. Offense can be out of balance with a 1,500 lb response to a 1.5 ounce stimulus.

But offense blesses no one.

Sometimes satire and hyperbole help highlight certain points or arguments and sometimes seem more than a little fitting. Sometimes they add needed humor. But like as not, they are more hazardous and more of a mixture in motive than they are worth.

I've probably been more assaulted by deliberate harsh, viscious personal attacks hereon than most Freepers I know. I haven't always responded with graciousness. I haven't always turned the other cheek.

But I've been pretty good at avoiding whining, most of the time, about the personal attacks.

And, by God's grace and the patient example of the tireless RM, I've learned to remove personal stuff from virtually all my posts. I virtually never attack anyone's personhood, sanity, heart etc. anymore. I'm very thankful for my mentors hereon in helping me grow up in that regard, at least a little more.

A lot of us can be passionate about our football team, baseball team, music idols, political idols etc. And, it's good we can be excited about some things in life. Apathy is deadly.

But I think that passion about any human group is often misplaced, at least out of balance. Even passion about mostly correct human groups is usually out of balance, ill placed.

GOD ALONE IS WORTHY.
GOD ALONE IS WORTHY.
GOD ALONE IS WORTHY OUR DEEPEST, MOST INTENSE PASSIONS.

And we really don't need to defend Him. We may need to defend our rights to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. But He is beyond defense.

And if our organizations, even super correct organizations, are not demonstrating God's miraculous confirmations in the individual hearts and lives of their members and reaching out--to a hurting world--ongoingly, routinely, then I doubt seriously that they are very worthy of our passion, much at all.

I think that there are likely individual congregations in most all the remotely Scriptural Christian organizations wherein God is moving mightily and blessing people supernaturally ongoingly. And, probably, the opposite is true in the same Christian organizations.

Stereotypes are lesser or greater inaccuracies--virtually never wholesale true about all the groups in an organization--especially a Christian organization.

So I think humility about my own organization is highly in order and highly wisdom.

I've been around Pentecostalism all my life. I know it's outrageous flaws. But I also know much about the outrageous flaws of about every other commonly known Christian organization. None are immune. To pretend otherwise seems, to me, to be uninformed or blind to the truth due to bias or whatever.

It is normal to be devoted to one's chosen group. There are many reasons we are devoted which have little to do with Biblical faithfulness. And, if one is going to bother with a Christian group, I hope one can be devoted to it or change groups. This is not, after all, tiddledee winks. These ARE eternal issues we wrestle with in our Christian groups.

But if our organizations are worth anything TO GOD OR TO MAN, then they are reasonably quite beyond needing our getting all proud and puffed up about defending this or that aspect of them. We can't add any to our height or insure the length of our days. Regardless of how strident, fierce, justified, loud, haughty, angry, self-righteous, . . . . whatever . . . our defenses of our particular group or organization . . . such defenses are highly unlikely to add or subtract anything even very noticable to the organization and less so even to The Kingdom of God. At best such is likely to be chaff. Why all the intense emotion about what will likely be functional chaff even if it's not theological chaff?

Pride, Ego is an inadequate and self-belitting motivation. The need to be right is similarly inadequate as a motivation and likely to be born of insecurities better taken to The Cross and put on the altar with a plea for wholeness and healing from our Lord Jesus.

A lot of us get the grandiose notion that our splendid prose will win hearts and influence people. Apart from Holy Spirit's inner working in the hearts, spirits and minds of our readers, our best, even most saintly prose will be utter chaff.

And the more fierce hostile stuff will be worse than chaff, on average, if not virtually all the time.

If our goal is to become like and demonstrate Jesus, such is the opposite direction. We are rarely in the position of driving the money changers out of the Temple here. And I have yet to see a single case of feeling God anointed and appointed someone to do so . . . unless it's the current tireless RM, Bless his courageous soul.

I disagree with many hereon fiercely. Some of the doctrines I see posted hereon seem to me to come straight from the pit of hell. But those on the other side feel similarly about stuff they disagree with.

And, we are just not appointed to throw lightening bolts and fire and brimstone at one another hereon. Some may personally feel it's their gifting and calling but I have yet to feel the slightest confirmation in my heart and spirit--even about my own urges to do so.

There will be an abundance of fire and brimstone and lightening bolts in the coming months and years . . . at the hand of God Himself and of His Angelic hosts. We need not presume upon their roles nor hasten such horrors amongst us hereon.

And, then there's JimRob. I think all of us have tended to minimize his standard of ALL CONSERVATIVES, FREEPERS are brothers and sisters based upon the Constitution and upon JimRob's standards, goals and policies hereon. As I understand him more and more, HE REALLY DOES DESIRE AND EXPECT US TO CHARITABLY FEEL GRACIOUS AND ACT GRACIOUSLY TOWARD ONE ANOTHER BASED ON OUR SHARED VALUES AND GOALS--ABOVE ALL OUR OTHER VALUES AND GOALS.

That's a rather minimally high Christian brotherly standard. Why do we Christians make such a poor showing of exemplifying it? He asks so little of us in return for giving so much to us with FR.

We track mud through his living room. We scream about the color of the paint on the walls. We don't like his decor. We carp about some of his friends and relatives. And mostly, he asks us to just get alone and support one another in our shared goals. And we fail so miserably at that so often. It's a wonder his keyboard is not chronically shorted out by tears.

Therefore what?

I don't know. Just sharing my heart. I love Roman believers and feel a great kinship with a fair number of them. I'm aware of the flaws. I'm aware of a lot of predictions and pontifications about end times stuff related thereto.

BUT ALL OF US SEE THROUGH THE GLASS DARKLY.

And none of our organizations; none of our congregations are flawless. NONE.

We have such a precious, priceless forum here. But it is routinely trashed and stinks worse than a barnyard because of how we treat one another. And yet we claim to be Christian. Something's very wrong with that picture.

I'm not looking down my nose at anyone. I'm must groping around about the issues. I think we can do better. We must do better if we truly Love Jesus.

If we don't truly Love Jesus, then what are we doing calling ourselves Christians and daring to pontificate on the forum under the label "Christian?"

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.