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.
I do not know if the Catholic Church has "an official position" on the length of Peter's bishopric in Rome, or on the starting and ending years of his bishopric. My hunch is that the Church leans on historical scholarship to determine those dates accurately. What is important for the Church is that he was at Rome and that he was martyred there.
-A8
ummmm....(hanging head in shame and staring at the floor)
Could you please tell me what week it is in the Liturgy of the Hours? I kind of fell off the wagon, trying to climb back on, would help if I knew where to start.......
hoping you answer this before I get up tomorrow morning......
Works for me.
Thanks.
I think it's exceedingly unfortunate and sad when organizations-of-man-dogma rewrites history.
All the more so when such things obscure or hinder daily dialogue and priority for intimacy with GOD ALONE.
The Church has always recognized Gnosticism as a heresy. See, for example, Robert Spencer's article, Knowing the Gnostics. Or read Michael Horton's In The Face of God. Horton is a Presbyterian (whom I had the privilege to meet a number of years ago), and his book does a very good job showing the gnosticism in contemporary American Evangelicalism. Another good book on this subject, but a bit older, and written by a Catholic, is Ronald Knox's Enthusiasm.
-A8
Great point about the rending of the curtain in the Temple!
John 4:19-24 is quite clear that our worship is not tethered to a geographic location but rather is to be “in spirit and in truth.”
I don't think gnosticism is an adequate word to describe the chasm between Catholic and non-Catholic beliefs concerning ecclesial hierarchy.
In that link (Catholic Encyclopedia) the term has a sketchy history and blurry meaning but is summed up as "salvation by knowledge" which would be anathema to most non-Catholic Christian confessions known to me.
Gnosticism is not a new topic. I'm 59 years old. By God's grace? mercy? . . . something, He blessed me with a markedly above average IQ. I have enjoyed learning and studying virtually all my life.
I do not believe in Gnosticism. I have never believed in Gnosticism. I will not ever believe in Gnosticism.
My assertions on this thread have nothing to do with Gnosticism. Constructions on reality to the contrary will have to bear their own responsibility for wholesale distorting of what I write and what I believe.
I do not accept that any leader in Rome was chosen of God to be pre-eminent over all Christendom. I will never accept historical revisionism that purports to support that.
To me, it is not Biblical. It will never be seen by me as Biblical.
I see no rebellion against Godly appointed, ordained or anointed leadership in good honorable Biblical Protestant groups SEEKING GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST AND FOREMOST.
Actually, if there's rebellion, it's against obeying Christ in hearing His voice; following His Voice/Spirit; obeying Him and The Father and Spirit over any other authority of any kind.
Yes, God sets in place spiritual authority and we are right to submit to them. We are also exhorted to submit one to another.
Spiritual authority which takes unto itself undue pride, undue station, undue position, undue "lording it over" other believers is in rebellion against God.
Christ's model was quite the opposite. He called us to His model--not the model of human organizations throughout history.
The history of the early church is that Rome won many political and armed battles to presume for itself a lording it over all Christendom. I consider that a very UnBiblical and UNChristlike turn of events that has plagued Christendom for centuries.
Extrapolating Christ's statement to Peter comparing his weakness to the faith Christ would build his church on is not the remotest adequate extrapolation or inference to build a huge edifice of man's organizaion upon and pretend it's God's will.
These are historical facts in my construction on reality. No amount of badgering; no amount of bad historical revisionism; no amount of misconstruing Scripture; no amount of elaborate extrapolations and inferences based on one questionable reading of one phrase in the whole of Scripture; no mile high pile of traditions or customs or ecleastical pontifications and pomp and circumstance will ever . . . EVER . . . supplant
1. historical fact.
2. GOD AND GOD ALONE AS WORTHY ALL PRAISE AND SUBMISSION
3. the very Biblical egalitarianism of The Cross and the priesthood of all believers . . .
4. the Scriptural command to avoid calling earthly mortals Father etc. in the lofty ecleastical sense . . .
5. the need to follow leadership which is anointed and to quit following it when the anointing lifts--at least to quit giving such leadership unqualified submission and support when the anointing leaves.
6. prayerful discernment testing the spirit and attitude that any and all believers and others around me operate in as well as I endeavor to check myself on such matters routinely, ongoingly.
= = = = = = = =
Of course God doesn't NEED anything from us, per se. He chose to create us for intimate fellowship.
But certainly He is well able to remove anointing and even individuals from positions and even from organizations as well as from this life.
Sometimes, God CHOOSES to involve flawed humans in such matters. I have no need to argue with Him. HE DOES HAPPEN TO BE GOD ALMIGHTY.
There was a pastoral couple in the AofG church a block from my BA university. The short story is that they had a hugely important mission field at their door step and instead abused and dismissed college students very unwarrantely and unBiblically. After a needless suicide after such dismissiveness, I was furious.
I found Holy Spirit rising up within me most fiercely at such travesties in the name of God. I overheard myself praying that the couple would be changed; moved away OR taken out of this life within a year. In less than a year, they were moved and then both graduated from this life. I expect to see them in Heaven.
But their anointing had long gone--particularly in that position and role. They were at best a sbumbling block to what God wanted to do in that area. Too truly, they were significantly worse than a mere stumbling block.
That's not the only such phenomena I've been compelled to be a part of. I expect to see far more such in coming months and years. There will be many events like Annanias and his wife.
GOD IS NOT TO BE MOCKED. HIS WAYS ARE TO BE RESPECTED AND SUBMITTED TO. HIS WAYS ARE BEYOND FINDING OUT.
THEY ARE CERTAINLY BEYOND PACKAGING INTO ANY . . . AS IN
ANY
MAN'S ORGANIZATION. THAT WAS TRUE OF PRIOR TO NOAH. IT WAS TRUE OF NOAH'S ERA. IT WAS TRUE OF EVEN MOSES' ERA--GOD WAS CONSTANTLY KNOCKING THE SIDES OUT OF BOXES HE HIMSELF HAD ORDAINED. IT WAS CERTAINLY TRUE IN DAVID'S ERA AND LATER.
Man's organizations quickly descend into RELIGION instead of intimate dialogue and RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD.
= = = =
Again, there is not a shred of Gnosticism in my theology nor in my relationship with God nor in my relationship with other Christians. Failing to see that at some point is not my problem. I do not enjoy being repeatedly beat over the head with a falsehood.
May I say BRAVO to this post? And AMEN as well!
= = = =
I MUCH AGREE. Thanks.
We are in the 1st week ;-)
THANKS TONS for your encouragements. Much appreciated.
And your example as well.
Thanks much.
That unwarranted slam of Gnosticism rather egregiously inaccurately . . . gets wearying.
Faith and reason are complementary but reason can never substitute for faith.
-A8
But those were the words of Jesus spoken to Peter!?! What justification do you give for you disregarding Jesus' words? They are in the Bible, after all.
But it can and does trump your 'authority' to interpret God's Word.
-A8
Nevertheless, I dismiss it out-of-hand because there is no ipso facto as it suggests here:
That is the difference - spiritual hearing is nothing man can develop for himself, it is a gift of God.
More accurately, because it contradicts your interpretation of Scripture.
Exactly what verse or verses of Scripture, according to your interpretation, are incompatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Church?
-A8
-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.