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.
As David said, God is everywhere. And, He's eager to meet those who truly seek Him.
He's not at all picky about the locale, either.
About finished with lunch and headed back to the pottery studio. Will get to your great post later.
I outlined my reason(s) on my last post on the topic.
I also don't find straw dogs very attractive.
I'm sorry to have misunderstood you. I thought that is what you were saying in #1511.
-A8
7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace
8that He lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.
9And He made known to us the mystery of His will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
11In Him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.
15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,
16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
17I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know Him better.
18I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which He has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,
19and His incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength,
20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.
22And God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be head over everything for the church,
23which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way.
Amen.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
Yet God created man a mortal and our very purpose is to love and glorify God. There are instances in the Bible where some mortal men "walked with God". Moses spoke with Him "face to face". Many of us, if not all, who are Christian, would gladly give up all our mortality and material goods for our love of the Lord. The plan of salvation and Christ becoming mortal is the reason for this creation. Angels desired to know these things and look at us with wonder.
If, as you say, all of it is illusion, then it must be a cosmic joke and God is not being honest with us. However, we know that God does not lie, so your epistemological hypothesis,(ergo!) if you are a believer, must be rejected.
You're a character Quix. I sometimes wonder at your asking God to "take people out", though.
AMEN!!! All history leads up to and flows from the cross on Calvary. It is the reason for our existence.
If, as you say, all of it is illusion, then it must be a cosmic joke and God is not being honest with us. However, we know that God does not lie, so your epistemological hypothesis,(ergo!) if you are a believer, must be rejected.
God didn't just whisper His truth into the ears of prophets. He spoke through human language, set down in Scripture in black and white for all the world to read and know and believe.
I love the story of Lazarus because it is so profoundly gracious to our human minds. Christ said he could have cured Lazarus before he died. But instead, He says it is actually BETTER for his followers that Lazarus was truly DEAD and molding before Christ raised him up to life again. Better for us, so that we might thoroughly understand and believe. It was important to Jesus that the truth was made clear to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him." -- John 11:14-15"Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
This is a good example of the phenomenon in which I was raised. If one agrees with the "word", then it is from God. If one disagrees with it, then it is a "false word". What leaders of such systems *really* want is for the people to follow them, to do as they say, all the while telling them (while sweeping the contradiction under the rug) that they just want the people to "trust God alone". The whole system is just self-worship dressed up in 'hearing from God' language. Gnosticism is the error of Lucifer, Eve, Korah, Simon Magus, Luther and Benny Hinn. In each case the legitimate divinely appointed authorities [incarnate divine representatives] are spurned, and the agent takes to himself 'spiritual authority' and privilege he does not have, and attempts to get others to follow him. Knowing that he has no legitimate divinely instituted authority, he tempts us by telling us to listen to God alone, but then he tries very hard to get us to listen to him. Gnosticism was the first and greatest heresy the early Church faced. And now again in these times, it has returned with a vengeance. As in the Garden, once again it is luring man away from the Church's legitimate authorities to that great elixer of knowledge falsely so called, a 'higher', private, secret, 'spiritual knowledge' that can be had through oneself, by oneself, in oneself, directly 'from the Spirit'. But the Spirit only comes from and through Christ, that incarnate Christ who gave authority to incarnate men (and one in particular) to shepherd His Church until He returns, and who among them and through them instituted material sacraments by which we truly receive the Holy Spirit. The gnostics offer us the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; Christ through His Church offers us the fruit of the tree of life through the sacraments and especially the Eucharist. But we already see the fruit of the tree of the 'knowledge' of good and evil, in the destruction of Christian unity into 20,000+ sects, with further fragmentation occuring on a daily basis, contrary to Christ's prayer in John 17 that Christians would all be "perfected in unity". Led astray by gnosticism each person becomes his own God, as Eve sought to do, in direct imitation of her temptor the devil. Only when we return (in repentance and confession) to our divinely appointed authorities will we be "perfected in unity".
-A8
No sweat.
But I'm beginning to wonder if my clarification added any to understanding.
It sounds or feels like there's been no change in the understanding of the hearer about what I was trying to say. If so, that's sad, to me.
AMEN AMEN AMEN
to your excellent posts.
I pray such prayers with plenty of caveats.
Persistently they are of the form . . .
Change them into Believers submitted to you; Move them away from the situation and their opportunities to be destructive . . . or take them out of this life--whatever best serves you and your Kingdom, Oh, Lord.
I figure that's more than sufficient opportunity for Him to act on prayers He instructs us to pray yet exercise His preferences across a fair range.
What has been shocking to me . . . are the number of times he's selected the latter.
Of course, I haven't prayed such prayers except in situations where the situation has gone on for years and years and gotten outrageously horrific. Perhaps God was sort of waiting around for SOMEONE to take it seriously in prayer.
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal . . .
Thanks for your kind msg.
I think! LOL.
I never even considered praying like that or was ever taught to. God's will in those matters may best be left up to Him.
There is no private interpretation in scripture and scripture interprets scripture. We are taught to be as Bereans and to search the scriptures to see that the things that are taught us, are true.
Your vaunted magisterum are just men, and you have no idea whether they are indwelt by the HS or not. You just take their word for it that they are.
As for unity, unity is not Ecumenism.
Who interprets the Scripture that interprets Scripture? Since there cannot be an infinite regress, the buck has to stop at private interpretation somewhere.
If within Protestantism there is no "private interpretation", but only Scripture interpreting Scripture, then why are there 20,000+ contrary interpretations of Scripture within Protestantism?
-A8
Every word righteous.
The whole counsel of God is not exactly a dime store flash in the pan sort of understanding--most of the time--whether directly from God or over time through a variety of channels.
I was once in a Communist country. College students asked me what they should do in a certain risky but popular situation. I counseled them to pray earnestly and pray some more. We all knew they were talking about risking at least their careers and likely their lives and families.
I said IF after praying earnestly as long as they could manage given events, then to take the matter to the most mature Christians they knew and ask them to pray and then come together again and give them Godly counsel.
And then to pray some more. Perhaps fast and pray.
And if they still felt led of the Lord to do the risky things . . . then go to some precious wise old saints with whom they tended to frequently disagree but whom they knew to have a close relationship with God. And ask them. And pray some more.
IF THEN, they felt led firmly to do the risky things, TO DO THEM FULLY AWARE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO PAY THE ULTIMATE PRICE . . . AND CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD BE WORTH IT--IF THEY COULD DO THAT, THEN GOD BLESS THEM. That doing right and Godly things carrys right and Godly harvests
One student not a Christan but who's family background was Christian went out and did an exceedingly courageous wonderful thing and paid very dearly. He did not regret his decision at all though it cost him enormously in suffering.
I Cor 12-14 is the Biblical model. We are to be iron sharpening iron. We are to submit one to another. We are to help bear one another's burdens. AND AT THE END, WE ALL STILL SEE THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY. That includes the head of the Roman group as well as the newest baby Christian. That includes all of us. It evidently pleases God to set it up this way.
It certainly keeps us humble and seeking Him.
Yes, many folks of a certain kind of psychology can give up on the dialogue, the dance, the tension of not having everything pinned down in obsessive compulsive specificity and certainty. Such folks tend to find very rigid, narrow, fossilized religious codes and groups to become a part of. Often they feel much more comfortable and in control.
But it's a delusion; an illusion.
Whether illusion or not, Life is very, VERY complex. Lots of explanations will seem right unto man yet lead to death.
The Israelites were much more comfortable and felt much safer having Moses pin down all the detailed specifics rather than each individual having to face God alone at the tent of meeting.
But that's not God's preference. He wants the individual dialogue AND HE HAS REQUIRED THAT WE NEED EACH OTHER--PEERS TO PEERS. I think it's about humility and learning to Love as He Loves.
This is a good example of the phenomenon in which I was raised. If one agrees with the "word", then it is from God. If one disagrees with it, then it is a "false word".
Yes, there's plenty of that in Pentecostalism. AND, THERE'S PLENTY IN NONPentecostalism--even in Romanism. It just happens in different venues, at different levels, with different ranks of leaders. It's still a human group seeing through a glass darkly and making pronouncements.
Sometimes I think the quakers had it best . . . wait until God moves on the whole group and makes consensus obvious supernaturally--even if it takes all night or all week.
The times that folks and even groups get it wrong is perhaps not the most surprising thing. It's the number of times that individuals and groups following I Cor 12-14 get it right. That's amazing in this complex world. Certainly amidst many Godly truly spiritual counselors there is wisdom and life.
But mostly, organizations foster deadiliness.
What leaders of such systems *really* want is for the people to follow them, to do as they say, all the while telling them (while sweeping the contradiction under the rug) that they just want the people to "trust God alone".
Romanism has plenty of such contradictions as well. There are more stereotyped, hierarchically buttressed and supported; enforced, applauded standard responses to mollify the sheep ABOUT such contradictions but there are plenty of them around.
Certainly leaders love followers following them. It's a very human thing very exemplified in the Roman group, as well--perhaps to the max. There's so much dust and wailing trying to demand all Christendom to follow them yet again.
Occasionally one finds someone who truly wants all they know to follow GOD ALONE. That person is priceless as they are led of The Spirit. Oswald Chambers was such a one.
The whole system is just self-worship dressed up in 'hearing from God' language. Gnosticism is the error of Lucifer, Eve, Korah, Simon Magus, Luther and Benny Hinn.
A long line of Popes was left off that list. And probably most of the Roman Bishops and Cardinals.
In each case the legitimate divinely appointed authorities [incarnate divine representatives] are spurned, and the agent takes to himself 'spiritual authority' and privilege he does not have, and attempts to get others to follow him. Knowing that he has no legitimate divinely instituted authority, he tempts us by telling us to listen to God alone, but then he tries very hard to get us to listen to him. Gnosticism was the first and greatest heresy the early Church faced. And now again in these times, it has returned with a vengeance. As in the Garden, once again it is luring man away from the Church's legitimate authorities to that great elixer of knowledge falsely so called, a 'higher', private, secret, 'spiritual knowledge' that can be had through oneself, by oneself, in oneself, directly 'from the Spirit'.
Certainly such ills plague the church--THE ROMAN BRANCH as much as any. But ORGANIZATIONAL GNOSTICISM IS NO ANSWER.
God's will in those matters may best be left up to Him.
= = = =
Of course I leave His will up to Him with a specific request that He effect His priority in the matter.
THANKFULLY, it's not like the Old Testament where He might have instructed the pray-er to carry the sentence out! LOL.
Methinks too much is being made of a pretty open ended prayer. Just because one option is graduation from this life is no sign the prayer limits God in any respect.
But it does follow God's instructions about spiritual warfare and about taking the battle to the enemy, so to speak.
Well said.
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.