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.
20,000+ contrary interpretations
= = =
Forgot one again . . .
20,001+ contrary interpretations. Let's not leave the Romans out--they have abundant examples in their long history.
I agree, but that's probably because we are using the term 'Ecumenicism' in different ways.
What exactly do you think it means to be "perfected in unity"?(John 17:23)
-A8
That's just a nutty slander, A8.
And there is no "infinite regress." It ends in the word of God being rightly divided by men of faith. It does not end in men of faith rightly dividing the word of God.
That's a big difference.
"...The authority (of Scripture) is found in the sovereign God Himself. The God who "breathed out" the words through human writers stands behind every statement, every doctrine, every promise and every command written in the Scripture..."
It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern that we need massive overlays of men and magisteriums to interpret it and dispense it, as if it could be bartered away for a price.
"Buy the truth, and sell it not" -- Proverbs 23:23
"It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern..."
______________________________
What did Jesus say?
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Jesus didn't mention any middle men who would think for us.
The number is probably much higher. Every one has his own interpretation of passages of Scripture; that is in large part why there are so many different sects and independent groups. If you start putting all the permutations and combinations together the number is probably in the millions.
It ends in the word of God being rightly divided by men of faith. It does not end in men of faith rightly dividing the word of God.
Using the passive voice instead of the active voice does not make the act different. The notion that it does is mind-boggling. What you said is equivalent to saying: "The cake is being cut by her, *not* she is cutting the cake." Do you really believe that those are two different acts??
It is all there. God's will is not so difficult to discern that we need massive overlays of men
So why all the Protestant sects? It is the big elephant in the room that you are denying when you state that we don't need any men or magesterium to interpret it.
-A8
The truth is found in Scripture, not in men.
So why all the Protestant sects?
The truth is not in all of them, but it is among them. Our task is to discern it, with eyes and ears given by God for that which He has purposed from before the foundation of the world.
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:13-20"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
There aren't. That's just something Catholics want to believe and make them feel that having other men interpret for them, is better than a holy priesthood made up of believers.
and here come the lawyers, adding opinion after opinion, until you get massive texts of legalese in which no one can make sense, then here come the pharisees to not teach us anything, just lay burdens upon us (now I know you'll like this Quizx!)
If the buck-stopping point is the Word of God being interpreted by men, that is not "Scripture interprets scripture". That is man interpreting Scripture.
A8: So why all the Protestant sects?
Dr.E: The truth is not in all of them, but it is among them. Our task is to discern it, with eyes and ears given by God for that which He has purposed from before the foundation of the world.
Notice that you didn't answer the question. Telling us that the truth is in all of them does not tell us why there are many instead of one, since (in your opinion) we do not need men or magisterium to interpret Scripture.
-A8
How is your end of the project going. Take a breather once in awhile; it helps especially when digesting all that verbose rhetoric from some of the writings of "the Fathers". I have only the Book of Acts and the Epistles left, then it will be your turn to begin posting what you have learned from "the Fathers". The List of what we have thus far is below:
1] The Books of the Old Testament --- No Evidence
2] The Apocryphal Books --- No Evidence
3] The Gospels --- No Evidence
4] Book of Acts of the Apostles --- searching now
5] The Epistles --- next
6] The Patriarchs ---
-A8
"Comprehensive" can be relative.
Teleios 8:67,1161 tel'-i-os Adjective Definition brought to its end, finished wanting nothing necessary to completeness perfect that which is perfect consummate human integrity and virtue of men full grown, adult, of full age, mature
Just one, and of course.
I'm gonna put Uncle Chip right on it.
Telling us that the truth is in all of them
I do not believe the "truth is in all of them."
I said the truth is among the various Protestant faiths, but many are misguided or flat-out wrong.
All believers who possess Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are among God's elect. That faith is evidence of their salvation, not a cause of it. That's what Scripture tells us.
God's sheep are found in many disparate locations. Even among the RC church, no doubt. But I assume God will further amplify their understanding and eventually bring them into a more Scripturally-sound, Reformed Christianity.
Just so, but the sheep which are Christ's are one flock, with one Shepherd. It's one church. Not too many Christians appreciate the Shema as Jewish people do, but it is meant for all Israel.
The Whole Shema in Deut.6:4-9:
4- "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD;
5- and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.
6- And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart;
7- and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.
8- And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.
9- And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
I have more evidence showing that Peter was never in or about Rome to add to your exhaustive research!
1. Mentioned before (posts 1438 & 1450)....Peter commissioned to be Apostle to the Circumcised [Matthew 10:5-6][Galatians 2:7-9].
2. Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans He had been chosen to bring them the "Good News"....not Peter. [Romans 15:16]. If Peter had already been in Rome.....can you see Paul writing this????
3. Paul himself told the Romans it would be He....not Peter who would found their church [Romans 1:11]. The letter to the Romans is thought by scholars to be written in about 55/56 A.D. and here Paul is saying that he wishes to establish a harvest among them. Does this sound strange to you if Peter had been shepherding the Roman Church for 15 or 20 years at this point?
4. In addition, Paul explains, He does not want to build upon another man's foundation [Romans 15:20]. Again, would he be saying this to the Romans if Peter was already there.....and in charge?
5. Already mentioned (posts 1438 & 1450) in Romans 16 Paul salutes many folks in Rome....Peter not included. Where is Peter?
6. When Paul was taken prisoner to Rome....some four years later, the brethren of Rome came to meet him [Acts 28:15]. Where is Peter?????
7. When Paul got to Rome He summoned the Jews [Acts 28:17] and they had heard little about this new sect and wanted to hear more [verses 21-22]. Don't you think that by 60 A.D. that the Apostle Peter, being a Jew himself as well as their designated Apostle, would have mentioned something about Our Saviour......if he had been in and about Rome?
8. Paul remained in Rome in his own house for 2 years [Acts 28:30] writing four more books (mentioned earlier in 1438 & 1450) never once mentioning Peter.
9. He was released but back again as a prisoner about four years later(A.D. 65). At his trial it is noted in [II Timothy 4:16] that no man stood with me....all men in Rome forsook me and he prayed to God that they be forgiven. Well, I guess that Peter must have forsaken Paul.....if he had been in and about Rome.....at that time!
10. Paul says in II Timothy 4:11 that at this time only Luke is with him. Where is Peter?????
Paul wrote to Rome, was in Rome, wrote at least four.... maybe six epistles from Rome, and at the end not only has he ever mentioned Peter, but says, "Only Luke is with me!"
What I have posted here is Biblical.....not tradition and the Bible says that Peter was ministering to "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." [Matthew 10:5-6][John 21:15-17][Matthew 15:24]
What a great post! Especially the points made above.
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.