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.
Thank you diego...excellent research that will make a great study.
I didn't think I stuttered in the above. FOLKS WHO LIVE AND WALK AS THE ABOVE ARE IN ALL THE REMOTELY BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS. I've met a number of Roman Believers who fit such criteria. But most believer in most to virtually all Christian organizations DO NOT MEET SUCH CRITERIA BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE in the way they live. And, too often, that has included me.
So who are the discerning? You, I suppose?
It depends on a number of issues.
1. What is God doing in the situation.
2. How heavy was the anointing. In many situations, the anointing is so heavy, one would have to be dead to miss it's being lifted and gone. Even the unsaved immediately sense it.
3. How close to fitting the criteria above is the individual doing the sensing, perceiving AT THAT MOMENT IN THAT SITUATION? The very spiritually sensitive and VERY FULL OF HOLY SPIRIT can detect very subtle transitions and departures of Holy Spirit's anointing.
4. How distracted vs tuned in is the person doing the sensing, perceiving?
Out of the 20,000+ Protestant sects,
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . The Roman organization is not a denomination but we are sects? Comes across as cheeky uncute. Hereafter, I'll feel little to no compunctions about referring to the Roman organization as a denomination or a sect.
you and your fellow [let me guess, Pentecostals] are the discerning ones? My point is that each sect thinks its own members are the discerning ones.
See above. I'm talking about spiritual realities--not spiritual assumptions and biases. I'm talking about WHAT GOD LITERALY DOES AND DOESN'T DO IN A GIVEN SITUATION AT A GIVEN TIME with given people . . . not stereotypic assumptions and biases and pontifications. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT GOD DISCERNABLY, DETECTABLY DOES . . . reality--sometimes tangible reality.
Who determines who are the "discerning"? Second-order discerners?
I'm not talking AT ALL ABOUT LABELING FOLKS AS DISCERNERS OR NONDISCERNERS. I'm talking about INDIVIDUALS IN ALL CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE ROMAN DENOMINATION, DOING EFFECTIVE DISCERNING whether one is a "lowly" toilet cleaner worker or a 'high ranking' religionist. And in my experience, it's usually the so called 'lowly' who discern best.
You see how this leads either to an infinite regress, a viscious circle, or an arbitrarily determined starting point (e.g. me and all those who think just like me; *we're* the discerning ones).
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, NO!!!!! I DON'T SEE THAT, AT ALL! The starting point is not arbitrary. The starting point is Scriptural, reality based, operationally defined; literal reality based; often overtly clear; common phenomena in all denominations of any serious Biblical foundation at all.
That is why I said that the gnostic position you advance
EXCUSE ME! I advance no gnostic position. It MAY be construed as that by folks who are, from my perspective, using words in interesting ways from rubber dictionaries. But that's not my reality.
It's interesting that it's not OK to describe some folks' orientations, organizations hereon as perceived by the writer IF that differs from how the individual claims is reality. But the shoe is not on the other foot. The same courtesy is not extended. Smells like a double standard, to me. And it stinks.
I'm talking about HOLY SPIRIT REALITY VERY IN TOUCH WITH, IMPARTED TO; INDWELLING MAN; WITH TANGIBLE REALITY; WITH HUMAN AGENTS.
removes the possibility of determining objectively who has the anointing. Because it is entirely subjective,
HOGWASH. Holy Spirit is the most objective participant observer there is. He is Truth, Author of Truth. Tuning n to HIS TRUTH is not at all undoable. Primarily one has to be obedient and live a largely obedient, broken and contrite spirited, Spirit-Filled life as well as one can, by God's Grace, manage.
Assuming one meets the criteria for Holy Spirit to operate in one's life to that degree, such discernment is fairly automatic, instant, quite detectable, quite clear. In some subtle situations, a beginner might misconstrue but in maybe even a majority of situations, a vast majority of folks meeting the criteria will instantly get the message in their spirits, their inner person, via The Spirit's still small voice or a feeling, an impression that is characteristic of Holy Spirit and unmistakable.
And, I believe in the coming months and years, God will be doing such grand, very overt things . . . it will be obvious to the man on the street.
And the evil forces have come raging onto the world stage in these end times . . . and will be doing more so . . . such that when God's Anointing leaves, the cold, chilling, black, ugly, darkness will overtly descend over the situation in many, many cases.
your position reduces to "everybody has the anointing", which means in practice, that nobody has the anointing.
NOT MY POSITION. NOT MY REALITY. NOT REMOTELY ACCURATE.
Respecting one another's constructions on reality flows both ways, BTW.
Well done.
No, the rock upon which He built was the faith within Peter. The same faith of Christ and believers today. Without it, no matter how obedient to the Church, nor how studied one becomes, it will still count for lacking in righteousness in final judgment.
Meanwhile, through faith in Christ we all have the ability to resist temptation.
Very well put.
I case you didn't know, if you watch the video of the New Testament, you will clearly see our Lord calling Peter a "little rock" and then pointing at a boulder and saying that He would build His Church on that rock. This passage is really an insult of Peter you see. As is the passage where Peter is told to tend His sheep, another insult because Christ thought Peter incapable of doing anything other than tending to livestock.
But as I said, it's all right there in the video, I'm sure Jack Chick sells it, you might also order a video on how to hold a bunch of venomous snakes at the same time.
Many modern folks have seen The Risen Lord as Paul did.
And, PERHAPS some have walked, do walk in such an anointing. I'm still pondering that issue. I certainly don't think that everyone who places "Apostle" on their business card is an Apostle. I think the word has been exceedingly watered down in the modern era.
No because God appointed us one, and it was Christ.
= = = =
Sounds pretty Biblical, to me.
The rest of the post I'm responding to came across as pretty deliberately insulting.
Read up the thread and see what it was in response to. To say that God "appointed" Christ invalidates the Trinity.
everything
= = = =
Guess I missed the all inclusive words on the part of those not of the Roman sect.
Though, now that it's mentioned . . . I do recall a number of the Roman sect using such all inclusive words. Not sure what that means.
It is about Jesus Christ.
And ONLY Peter
= = = =
Brazen extrapolations and inferences are very hazardous things to build even minor doctrine on.
Christ said some things ONLY to John the Beloved. I wonder what layers of extrapolated, inferred doctrines we could build on such ONLY statements.
Yes, indeed. Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit.
Of course, many folks have covered over their spirits with so much focus on fleshly concerns of the world, it's a wonder if they've had so much as a post card from their spirits in years, decades.
Which Jesus? The Jesus of the Mormons? The Jesus of the Muslims? The Jesus of the Unitarians?
-A8
I have not referred to ANY Protestant denomination as a "sect" and I find it insulting that a member of any denomination that was founded sometime after the early 16th Century would call the Catholic Church a sect.
Go to Rome and see for yourself, the evidence is clearly there. Whether you accept the Papacy or not, whether you accept that Peter was in Rome or not, it is impossible to argue that Christianity came to Rome and the middle of the First Century and has been there ever since.
As is probably well known . . . the meanings of the different words in the original is not reflected in the quote.
And, our two sides, are highly unlikely to come to agreement of the meaning of that verse, this side of Heaven, short of Holy Spirit's miraculous and convincing declaration to all and sundry.
-A8
No. That sort of phrasing is in Scripture in a place or two. Nothing can invalidate The Trinity.
Have been to Rome. Spent days there. Enjoyed the Vatican and Tivoli gardens.
I find the contentions mentioned exceedingly flawed.
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.