Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[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.

[1000 silverlings]

And therefore, all revelations of God are more sure, more valuable, more trustworthy to me than any other source of knowledge – whether sensory perception, logic, mentors, opinions of experts, etc

But, what exactly are "all revelations of God"? This is an old bugaboo isn't it?

Cults everywhere rely on "revelations of God".

Christians rely on the Word as spoken by the prophets, and, because of the spiritual gifts given to some by God and the HS of course, we can have assurance that our prophets are from God, plus we can test the spirits.

With personal "revelations", (and I do believe there are some from God,) one can't admit them into doctrine, for that is never their purpose. Now without insulting any specific group, there is a sect I'm sure you are aware of, that uses personal revelation from everyone, but especially its leader, and just look at the mess it has become.

[wmfights]

"When our Lord was speaking to Paul [Acts 9:3-9] he never mentioned the word "rock". "
_____________________________

You've really got me going on this! The scholarship both of you have provided has been terrific. So based on a misinterpretation of Matthew 16: 17-19 the church in Rome began claiming Peter founded it so they could claim "special" authority. IOW, that their Bishop was the "top" Bishop. When did Rome begin to assert this position? If for example it was after the persecutions in the early 300's I can see how they might be able to, since 240 years had passed.

[1000 silverlings]

They have to keep reading in Matthew:

20:25

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

20:26

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

20:27

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Christians rely on the Word as spoken by the prophets, and, because of the spiritual gifts given to some by God and the HS of course, we can have assurance that our prophets are from God, plus we can test the spirits.

Amen! Think how long and hard Paul labored to impress upon believers the solid assurance of their faith; the tangible and real salvation they had received by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which some had witnessed with their own eyes.

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore." -- Hebrews 7:22-28

[1000 silverlings]

Amen, Doctor

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

But there persists something in mankind that likes the authority to try and "call fire down from Heaven" and just will not accept that Jesus did a complete and finished work.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Kerryusama,

Thank you for your post. I don’t think that what you are describing matches my experience of the Catholic Church. If it did, I would be in complete agreement with you in rejecting it. Respectfully, is it possible that the reality of the Catholic Church differs from you perception of it?

I’m not familiar with your beliefs. Just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding you, I’d like to ask a few questions related to your post:

“The result of the first controversy you post is that Paul decides to give the offender the death penalty since, because he cannot stop sinning, it is better for him to be dead and hope to be judged well at the resurrection."

Are you saying that that the individuals in question were killed by the early Christians, and that was done at St. Paul’s command?

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Quix,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough post. I enjoyed your post, and will take time to reflect upon what you have written. I think you have a very interesting perspective, and I’d like to learn more about that. I hope we will have time in future conversations to discuss your views.

For the time being, I would like to respond briefly to a few of the points you made.

I think a very important point is implied in your posts--theology and personal belief need to match up with the individuals experience of reality. If I understand you correctly, you’re pointing out the importance of being honest with ones self, of avoiding self-deception and hypocrisy. I agree, if our spiritual beliefs do not match up with what is true, we have a problem. The call to faith contains within it a call to personal honesty.

Your perspective on the need for the Holy Spirit to lead the Church is also very important one, and I think you raise some obvious concerns about how Church organization and hierarchy function. I think that’s an area where dialog is very important. One of the reasons why we need unity within the Church is to ensure that such dialog takes place. If I understand you correctly, you have a commitment to a Charismatic understanding of the Church, one that is consistent with St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12-14. These Scriptures contain an extraordinary teaching about the primacy of love in the Christian life, and in the life of the Church. They also describe the gifts of the spirit, including gifts such as prophesy and speaking in tongues. Views related to these gifts are often lacking and perhaps overlooked within the broader Church. One reason that unity is important is it creates the opportunity for collaboration and dialog among Christians with strong understandings of particular parts of Revelation. It’s a problem when the Church is segregated so that each faction is only describing one part of the Elephant to itself.

“I Corinthians 12-14 answers that question conclusively for all time in the Church age. The New Testament offers no better description of God's solution for that; God's plan and design for that.”

It sounds like what is being described in 1 Cor 12-14 contains many elements that one would expect to find in many Charismatic or Pentecostal Communities. Clearly there is a Biblical precedent for the style of worship. I’m not familiar with such communities, and would like to learn more about them, and am looking forward to hearing your views. It is also important to recognize, however, that these practices occur in a hierarchical organization, and it is an organization in which leaders use the charism of leadership to benefit and guide the community. The Epistles are instructions written by authorities to communities under their charge. For example, Paul admonishes the Corinthians in 1 Cor rather strongly, and it includes instructions to excommunicate two Christians living in an incestuous relationship. There is a also a biblically mandated imperative to obey rightfully established leaders. The discussion of the Church in 1 Corinthians 12-14 includes a description of the role of the gifts of the Spirit within the Church. It also important to recognize that it contains a description of the Eucharist immediately prior to this description in 1 Cor 11; 23-32. St Paul also instructs the Corinthians to maintain the traditions which he has passed on to them, either orally or in previous correspondence which we no longer have “Be imitators of me, even as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor 11: 1,2.) Now in your post you point out that leaders have often failed their flocks. No argument there, the authors of Scripture took great pains to point out that the Apostles failed the Church on numerous occasions. Nonetheless, there is still a Church, and the Apostles were still the rightful leaders of the Church. We cannot dismiss the authority given to the Church by Christ because of the failings of individual leaders anymore than we can dismiss the mission of the individuals within the Church because of failures on the part of those individuals who call themselves Christians.

Christ established a Church with the authority to determine what is and what is not authentic Christian belief. That is a prerogative that we see exercised repeatedly and emphatically in the New Testament. The Church of the New Testament also possesses and exercises the authority to excommunicate, to establish moral standards and church practice, and has a Sacramental function. You bring very important points to the discussion with regards to the individual’s relationship to God, the necessity of love within the Church, and the necessity for the Church to submit to the Will of God. These are consistent with an organized and unified Church community, not opposed to it, since Christ himself founded a visible, cohesive and hierarchical Church. As St. Paul says “Now you are the Body of Christ, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, and speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all Apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess the gift of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.” (1 Cor 12: 27-30)

I'll close here. By the way, you've mentioned in your posts that you are a teacher. If you don't mind my asking, what do you teach?

[InterestedQuestioner]

Uncle Chip,

Just to be clear, you and Diego1618 have produced no evidence to support your position that St. Peter was never in Rome.

Several hundred posts ago, Adiaireton8 very clearly stated a preference to postpone any further conversation with you until you demonstrated an interest in honest and sincere dialog. Nonetheless, you’re continuing to write lengthy posts to him. Since he appears to be ignoring you, you’ll surely not mind if I receive the benefit of your thorough and exhaustive research.

Where does Scripture say St. Peter died?

[InterestedQuestioner]

.30Carbine,

Thank you for posting that beautiful Scripture.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But there persists something in mankind that likes the authority to try and "call fire down from Heaven" and just will not accept that Jesus did a complete and finished work.

Yep. Some people enjoy being authoritarians.

Did you ever see that old Cary Grant movie, "None but the Lonely Heart?"

In it, Grant says most people like to be led around by someone else, and instead he's "looking for a dog that does not seek a master."

Our only master is Jesus Christ. And we are led by His will, and not our own clever choice to follow Him or the many false facsimiles put in our way.

[Uncle Chip]

Please be patient. A few minor changes are necessary to the great thesis of this thread. We're getting an answer back from the magisterium as to whether we can add the "SAINT" in front of "PETER" in the title of the thesis. These decisions take time.

For the benefit of those who just joined us, let me recap up to this point:Awhile back Adiaireton8 and I had a deep discussion about the search for "genuine truth" and decided on a joint venture in pursuit of an ecumenical thesis that is consistent with the topic of this thread regarding the great legend of Peter's Bishopric in Rome.

My part of the thesis was to present the evidence for Peter's Roman Bishopric in the Holy Scriptures and his part was to present the evidence for Peter's Roman Bishopric from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. I would post my evidence first, followed by his. No links, no verbosity, no editorializing, no commentary, just the pure words from the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves.

After we post our evidence, it is open to challenge from a jury of our peers who are free to be as critical as they like. The evidence we present must stand up to inquiry and scrutiny without collapsing. So feel free to be blunt and honest with your questioning and comments. Hold nothing back.

As soon as we hear from the magisterium, it will be on its way. Thank you for your patience.

[Quix]

So, Guess I have to start implementing a PREFACE LINE . . .

WARNING . . . RANDOM SPONTANEOUS QUIXISMS MAY CAUSE HAZARD TO KEYBOARD OR MONITOR . . . READ AT YOUR OWN RISK . . .

That do?

Would be sorry . . . but I have to replenish the sorry stock at 7/11 fresh out . . . for such cases.

[Quix]

More historical accuracy. Are you angling for a History Chair at . . . welll, probably not Cambridge. Probably not Harvard . . . Would you believe CBN?

[Quix]

Absolutely uniforms!

Modified burqas. White window screens for girls. Black flowing robes for boys and girls. Gold braid on the cuffs of the real bullies. Black skull caps for girls. Shows we're truly charitable toward all. Who knows, maybe the Jihadi's will shoot us last.

[Quix]

Wow.

More rational, factual, historically accurate, Biblical truth.

Wonderful.

[Quix]

CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED

I have a conviction . . . perhaps a bias . . . perhaps an impression or sense . . .

that

in coming months and years . . . WHEN AND IF we keep our eyes, focus on Christ . . . we will have direction, guidance, protection, provision . . . which may lead some to martyrdom and others to safety from place to place.

But those who don't, will be out of this life altogether much sooner . . . and much less . . . attractively.

[kerryusama04]

Wrong thread.

[Quix]

Wow, after trying to read that I'm convinced that paragraphs are the work of the Holy Spirit.
= = =

Indeed . . . though maybe just one of His . . . minor sighs or whiffs?

[Quix]

Yes, personal revelations . . . especially unscreened by truly anointed humble folks . . . are a great hazard.

I do expect God to clean that mess up . . . still waiting.

[Alamo-Girl]

But, what exactly are "all revelations of God"? This is an old bugaboo isn't it?

Not at all, 1000 silverlings!

Again on this thread I assert strongly that God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways:

1. Through Jesus Christ who is the brightness of His glory, the express image of His person – by whom everything that was made, was made, and for whom it exists and by whom it subsists. (Hebrews 1:3, Col 1)

2. Through the indwelling Spirit who reveals Truth to us and leads us. (John 14-17, Romans 8, I Cor 2)

3. Through the Scriptures, the truth of which are authenticated by Jesus (Matt 5) and by the indwelling Spirit - which is to say, the first two revelations.

4. Through Creation itself. (Psalms 19) And we will be held to account if we fail to notice at least this much of His revelation (Romans 1:20)

And concerning "personal revelation" the first and most important one that we Christians - every single one of us - receive is that "Jesus Christ is Lord". That doesn't come from our own mind, it comes from Him. God cannot be found by the reason-only sort, Christ is foolishness to them (I Cor 2)

We are the "elect" or "called" or "drawn" or the ones with "ears to hear":

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. - John 8:43

The ones to whom Christ was speaking had physical ears which were registering the pressure waves (sounds) and their brains were working. They were hearing physically, but they were not hearing spiritually.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

As to the revelation of the Spirit, if a person does not have it, he is not reborn, he is not one of Christ's.

And if he has been reborn, but refuses to listen to the Spirit, he is in deep trouble:

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:5-9

IMHO all of these points should be the basics, milk, to every Christian.