“In that case you’d have anarchy; you’d have destructive divisions within the Church.... or schism; such as we have today in the “Ortohdox” churches. It’s very interesting to note that when you research the history of the so-called “Orthodox” churches, you see the great Eastern Saints appealing to Rome again and again to help them heal rifts and dissentions within their own dioces. If the Holy See, the Supreme Pontificate, was not seated in Rome, then why were they appealing to him for help? They, (the various “Orthodox” churches), seperate themselves from the Pope, and they seperate themselves from each other as well.”
Well, that’s one of the more simplistic comments I’ve read on the subject! First, there is no schism in Orthodoxy. Second, while it is true that various Fathers for good or bad, selfless or selfish reasons appealed to Rome, they also appealed to other Patriarchs depending on whose ox was getting gored by whom. The four Eastern Patriarchates rather regularly smiled at Rome, said “That’s nice” and then ignored it. Sometimes they were wrong, sometimes they were right. Finally, there was never much question at all about which church held the first position within The Church. It was Rome because the Councils said so. The reason they said so, as the records of the councils make abundantly clear, was that Rome was the seat of the Empire at the beginning of The Church. You will note that when Constantinople was raised to second place, it was because it was the New Rome, not because +Andrew founded, according to tradition, that particular church. Frankly, to say that the passage in Matthew establishes a monarchial primarcy in the current tenant of the Vatican because he is the successor of +Peter applies with equal force to Antioch, which as a Petrine See has the older and better established, historically speaking, claim.
(iii) The function of Peter
Our Lord established His kingdom with officials through whom He could dispense His gifts of truth by way of doctrine, and of life by sacrament. The kingdom was to be in the souls of men since apart from that it could have borne no fruit; but it was not to be only in the souls of men. We must complete such phrases of Our Lord as “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you” and such phrases as “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a city upon a hill.” But for the protection of the truth and the preservation of the integrity of the channels of life, Our Lord made still further provision by choosing one of the Apostles and giving him special functions. When He first called the Apostles, He said to Simon, the brother of Andrew, “Thou shalt be called Peter”—a word which means “rock.” When the end of His time upon earth was drawing near, He made clear the reason for the change of names, “Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah; it is not flesh and blood, it is my Father in heaven that has revealed this to thee. And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:18-19).
At the Last Supper, when the dispute arose among the Apostles as to which would have first place in His kingdom, Our Lord settled it with the words; “Simon, Simon, Satan has claimed power over you all, so He can sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; when after a while, thou has come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethern” (Lk 22:31-32).
After His Resurrection, Our Lord appears among the Apostles and three times asks Peter if he loves Him. As Peter answers each question with an affirmation of his love, Our Lord utters the three phrases: “Feed My lambs,” “Feed My lambs,” “Feed My Sheep” (Jn 21:16-17). Taking any one of these episodes, we must see that the function entrusted to Peter was very great; taking them all together, we see it is enormous. In the first, he is to be the rock upon whom the Church (which Our Lord here calls also the kingdom of heaven) is to be founded. He is to have supremacy in the kingdom, for Our Lord promised him the “keys” which are a symbol of supremacy; and he is to have a final power of regulation and discipline, for his permissions and prohibitions are to be ratified in heaven. At the Last Supper, something is made explicit which before was certainly present but implicitly. He is to safeguard the unity of the brethern, whom otherwise Satan would scatter like chaff, because by the prayer of God his own faith would not fail, would be unfailable—which brings us to the very word infallibility. The third is the richest of all. Peter is shepherd the whole flock, the little ones and the great. He is to feed them. With what food? The spirit of man needs three kinds of food and Our Lord came to provide them. “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” So truth is food. “My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me.” So law is food. ‘The food I shall give is My flesh for the life of the world.” So sacrament is food. Peter must feed the flock with truth and law and sacrament.
Notice most particularly how in all this Our Lord, about to leave the earth, is conferring upon Peter His own special titles. Christ is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and He makes Peter the foundation. Christ is the key-bearer—”He bears the key of David so that none may shut when He opens, none open when He shuts” (Rev 3:7)—and He makes Peter the key-bearer. It is to Christ that the power belongs to hold these whom God has given Him, but He gives to Peter the charge of being a support to the brethern. Our Lord had said, “I am the good shepherd”—and He makes Peter to be the shepherd. All this is in line with what we have already seen about the Church as a whole. Our Lord was truthgiver and lifegiver, and the Church is to be truthgiver and lifegiver: that is to say, He will continue to give truth and life through the Church. Our Lord is rock and key-bearer and shepherd: He will continue all that each title implies through Peter. Church or Peter, it is all the same. Neither matters save as an instrument through which Christ has chosen to work.
This then was the provision Our Lord made for the souls of men that they might come to Him, be united with Him and receive His gifts till the end of time. His kingdom would grow as it moved outward and onward toward its two limiting points—all the nations of the earth and the end of time—and there would be some increase of complexity in its structure to meet new needs created by its growth. But all would be within the living framework He established upon earth—one kingdom with a smaller body of officials serving the great body of plain citizens, and among the officials one who is head over the rest and the servant of all. So the kingdom was, when the Holy Spirit descended upon it at Pentecost. So it still is. So till the end of the world it will be.
Theology and Sanity, Frank J. Sheed, ISBN 0-89870-470-7, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1993, Part III. Creation. 20. The Kingdom, (iii) The function of Peter, pp. 286-289.
On this point, not only was Constantinople raised up, but Ephesus, the Church of the Apostle St. John, was thrown down and stripped of some of its privileges and powers. Similarly, Jerusalem was raised up to the Patriarchal dignity by the Fathers from nothingness, and powers taken away from Antioch and given to Jerusalem. In the natural order of things, Constantinople is now gradually being eclipsed, and Moscow is rising.
At least on the level of the Patriarchates, it seems clear that the powers inherent in the office come from the general grant of authority Christ gave his Church, and the manner of organization Christ wished his Church to have, which is a centralized heirarchical organization following the local population and administrative tendencies of the land in which the particular Church is situated.
Frankly, to say that the passage in Matthew establishes a monarchial primarcy in the current tenant of the Vatican because he is the successor of +Peter applies with equal force to Antioch, which as a Petrine See has the older and better established, historically speaking, claim.
I don't think this follows logically at all. St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch, and was its first head. But after he left for Rome, his successor in Antioch could hardly be St. Peter's replacement if he had a universal office, since St. Peter was still alive, and the Church cannot have two heads. Therefore, Antioch could never be the sucessor of St. Peter to any sort of universal primacy, since two men cannot simultaneously hold a universal jurisdiction.