Posted on 08/21/2007 5:01:42 PM PDT by NYer
1. At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".1 In answer to the Holy Father's invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996. Its Proceedings have recently been published. 22. In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter". 3 In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy. In preparing the present text, which appears in the Appendix of the above-mentioned Proceedings,4 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has used the contributions of the scholars who took part in the symposium, but without intending to offer a synthesis of them or to go into questions requiring further study. These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.
I. Origin, Purpose and Nature of the Primacy 3. "First Simon, who is called Peter". In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom. 4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church; In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors", 5. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power. The Second Vatican Council, in turn, reaffirmed and completed the teaching of Vatican I, Therefore, "when the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also 'vicars and ambassadors of Christ' (Lumen gentium, n. 27). The Bishop of Rome is a member of the 'College', and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry". 6. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.
II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms 7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency" The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation. 8. The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is "one and undivided" 9. Given its episcopal nature, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is first of all expressed in transmitting the Word of God; thus it includes a specific, particular responsibility for the mission of evangelization, The Roman Pontiff's episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office; 10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter's Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur". 11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it", 12. "The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing". The concrete contents of its exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate. Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff, and, vice versa, the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy. 13. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church. 14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ. 15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith". When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic". NOTES: 1. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, n. 95. 2. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998. 3. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in ibid., p. 20. 4. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Considerazioni della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in ibid., Appendix, pp. 493-503. The text was also published as a booklet by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 5. Mt 10:2. 6. Cf. Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1: 13. 7. Cf. Mt 14:28-31; 16:16-23 and par.; 19:27-29 and par.; 26:33-35 and par.; Lk 22:32; Jn 1:42; 6:67-70; 13:36-38; 21:15-19. 8. Evidence for the Petrine ministry is found in all the expressions, however different, of the New Testament tradition, both in the Synoptics - here with different features in Matthew and Luke, as well as in St Mark - and in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine tradition, always with original elements, differing in their narrative aspects but in profound agreement about their essential meaning. This is a sign that the Petrine reality was regarded as a constitutive given of the Church. 9. Cf. Mt 16:18. 10. Cf. Lk 22:32. 11. Cf. Jn 21:15-17. Regarding the New Testament evidence on the primacy, cf. also John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, nn. 90ff. 12. St Ambrose of Milan, Enarr. in Ps., 40, 30: PL 14, 1134. 13. Cf. for example St Siricius I, Let. Directa ad decessorem, 10 February 385: Denz-Hun, n. 181; Second Council of Lyons, Professio fidei of Michael Palaeologus, 6 July 1274: Denz-Hun, n. 861; Clement VI, Let. Super quibusdam, 29 November 1351: Denz-Hun, n. 1053; Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307; Pius IX, Encyc. Let. Qui pluribus, 9 November 1846: Denz-Hun, n. 2781; First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 2: Denz-Hun, nn. 3056-3058; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, Chap. 111, nn. 21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882; etc. 14. Cf. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Introd.: SChr 10, 106-107; St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33. 15. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 20. 16. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19. 17. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051; John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 88. Cf. Pius IX, Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 16 November 1864: Denz-Hun, n. 2888; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, nn. 3305-3310. 18. Cf. Jn 17:21-23; Second Vatican Council, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1; Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, n. 77: AAS 68 (1976) 69; John Paul Il, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 98. 19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n 18. 20. Cf. ibid., n. 23. 21. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3061; cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, nn. 3112-3113; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, n. 3310; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 27. As Pius IX explained in his Address after the promulgation of the Constitution Pastor aeternus: "Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adiuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in caritate, et Fratrum, scificet Episcoporum, iura firmat atque tuetur" (Mansi 52, 1336 A/B). 22. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 95. 23. Cor 11:28. 24. The ontological priority that the universal Church has, in her essential mystery, over every individual particular Church (cf Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, 28 May 1992, n. 9) also emphasizes the importance of the universal dimension of every Bishop's ministry. 25.Bull Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3059; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22; cf. Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307. 26. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, nn. 3060, 3064. 27. Cf. ibid.; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22. 28. Second Vatican Council, Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 1l. 29. Cf. Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 13. 30. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9. 31. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 93. 32. Cf. ibid., n. 94. 33. Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114. 34. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz.-Hun, n. 3051. 35. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94. 36. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Grande munus, 30 November 1880: ASS 13 (1880) 145; CIC, can. 782, §1. 37. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 14. Cf. CIC, can. 781. 38. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068. 39. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1. 40. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94. 41. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25. 42. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063. 43. Congr. for the Doctrine of the, Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 14. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1369. 44. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 48. 45. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const., Lumen gentium, n. 15. 46. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 97. 47. Ibid. 48. Cf. Lk 5:8. 49. Cf. 2 Cor 4:7. 50. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 102. |
Oh yes, studying.
Look at how the Jews study Scripture. In the temple with a reader. I would take this as instructing Christians to act more like the Jews in their study of the OT (and then as the NT was put together in the 4th century, the NT as well).
I believe in my last post I clarified I was speaking of the OT. I realize they did not have the NT.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mnd, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those thngs were so.
What scripture were they studying? Was it just the Jewish “leaders” that were allowed to study them?
Why would Paul say to study the scripture’s to show thy self approved unto God if people did not have access to them?
Becky
Yes, the Scripture they were studying. But of course in “study groups”, such as Paul found when he crossed to Europe and met Lydia in Phillipi “praying” with the women on the river banks.
In Deuteronomy 6:8-9, speaking of teaching children, God commanded:
Thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt “write” them upon the posts of thy house on on they gates.
Other people were writing scriptures down then just scribes. They many not have had the whole but if the people were command to write them on their gates, they could write, which means they could read. Families were writing scripture down to study. It was commanded. IMO, this is telling us families had scripture wrote down to study.
Becky
And they knew a lot of things but little to nothing about Peter's alleged sojourn in Rome. And after nearly 2000 years even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits: "...we possess no precise information regarding details of his [Peter's] Roman sojourn."
So Uncle Chip judges Irenaeus incorrect. Nice. Somehow Uncle Chip knows more about the founding of the Roman See than a guy who knew some of the very people who were there when it happened.
Irenaeus knew nobody who was there when it supposedly happened or he would have named and quoted him. Even Catholic scholars like F. A. Sullivan readily now admit this:
"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.' Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul." [Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 35,147]).
We discussed this on a previous thread. The article says we possess no details of Peter's sojourn. But the fact that he was there was widely known, which is what is at issue here.
Anyway, it's not correct that *no* details were preserved. We have plenty of details of Peter in Rome. The problem is that they are in apparently spurious records whose historical worth is very uncertain at this point.
Take the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. They may well be spurious, but they are early nonetheless, and one cannot assume that just because they are spurious that they do not contain references to events that really happened. If anything, a forger would try to keep the general outline of the story as it was known just to have it more easily pass as genuine. Say I was pretending to forge a work by Churchill...I would do my best to include real events from his life, and in the process, include lots of true historical details about WWII, Yalta, etc.
So that's where the writer (I think) gets his "no *precise* details"...we're not sure what is genuine and what isn't. The tradition of Peter debating Simon Magus at Rome is pretty consistent, and is met with time and time again throughout multiple sources....so I'm not prepared to say it is wholly fabulous. The audience before Nero is more suspicious, but that's another thing that was reported. Likewise Peter's ordination of Linus, Cletus, and Clement. And of course, Peter's martyrdom itself, which is the strongest tradition out of all of them.
Irenaeus knew nobody who was there when it supposedly happened or he would have named and quoted him. Even Catholic scholars like F. A. Sullivan readily now admit this:
Irenaeus had known Polycarp at Smyrna, and Polycarp was a disciple of St. John. Furthermore, Irenaeus' letter to Pope Victor shows a pretty intimate familiarity with the history and liturgical practice of the Roman See:
Among these (Victor's predecessors) were the presbyters before Soter. They neither observed it (14th Nisan) themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet, though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed. ... And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp ... nor Polycarp Anicetus ... . But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace"As for F. A. Sullivan, what can I say. Lots of Catholics out there that seem to have imbibed much of the hypercriticism of the German school: in which nothing ever is what it says. He's one scholar.
Ergo, it would be foolish to take the lack of voluminous documentation of Peter's activities in Rome as serious proof of his non-presence. Unless that is the case you desperately want to prove.
Try to step outside that box you've constructed for yourself. Leave all that post-Reformation, anti-Catholic baggage behind and check it out. See if you can time travel to a place where there was no Luther, no polemics against Rome, no catchphrases like sola scriptura. Just new and emerging communities. Proving who was where and when seems a little beside the point, doesn't it?
Very well stated!
Might I ask if anyone has links they could share to the provinances of the titulus from the cross and/or the Turin Shroud?
There’s some links in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
Including a link to a C-14 study that determined the wood was probably only about 1000 years old.
What strikes me about “Acts” is how fragmentary it is. Peter, who has played a major role just disappears from the scene after he is delivered from prision. He simply “goes elsewhere.” From Galatians, we may gather that he immiately went to Antioch. But Luke makes no futher mention of his actions. Although Sunday School lessons give us the impression that we know a lot about Paul’s “journeys,” Luke gives us only a sketchy account of many years of activity. More is devoted to his account of what happened to Paul after he returns to Jerusalem for the last time and how he ended up in Rome. There Luke simply drops his pen. It has been speculated that Luke intended to pick up the story with Peter again, or to recount Paul’s travels to the West. We don’t know.
Similar results on the Shroud. The real mystery is how anyone could have created the image, or why its negative image is so refined,
Actually the Shroud dating was problematic. They may have pulled the fiber from an area that was rewoven, throwing off the result. So the jury’s still out on that!
www.shroud.com
is the place to go for all that stuff. More than you’ll ever want to know probably!
I was admittedly disappointed to see that C14 result on the titulus...I’m no epigrapher by any means but the letter forms looked suitably ancient when I saw it in person. There is some speculation it is a copy of an original...who knows!
If you’re in Italy and have a chance to go to the Church that it’s in (santa croce), by all means do so though. It also has reputed nails and a big piece of the cross. I was a perfect agnostic when I went, and I knew these things could well be fakes but to see that stuff in the flesh...man...they sent shivers down my spine all the same.
thanx
Yep, that was a concern that was raised, whether the fire elevated the level of C14. There was also some talk about a “bioplastic coating” that was over some of the strands.
But those theories have kinda been put to rest and (this is from memory so I may have it wrong) the main focus right now is on whether the piece that was taken was from an invisible reweave. I think even the C14 study people admitted that there might be a problem in that regard.
The C14 test was an anomaly...the rest of the Shroud doesn’t jive with it. Textile experts, art experts, the sticky tape pollen samples, the real blood on the thing.
If it is a forgey, it’s the cleverest ever done.
Rome’s Pre-eminence has never been questioned. That the Patriarch of Rome had any authority outside of his jurisdiction is what Orthodoxy disputes. He NEVER had any authority outside of his own territory, unless it was to settle a dispute, which was done on more than one occasion, historically. The only entity with the power tomake decisions regarding doctrine and dogma are the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. If Clement was genuine, or needed, then WHY was his First Epistle not added to the canon of scripture?
He deserves to be treated the way he does, mainly due to his un-Orthodox ways. Patriarchs CAN be deposed. And he has zero authority, other than over the Greek Church.
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.