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.
That's usually meant as a demeaning, insulting, assaultive attack on Pentecostals.
I don't think the above is new information.
Actually, that group or groups . . . comprise an incredibly small percentage of Pentecostals. Should we ascribe to all of the Roman Believers things extremely smalll splinter groups within the Roman hierarchy outrageously do?
I suspect some of us would disagree.
I agree that the priestly role of the presbyters is not laid out clearly in the NT. But if you study early Church history, you see that these 'presbyters' were the priests.
Remember that in the original Last Supper, the drinkers all "passed the cup" one to another. This specifically recognizes Jesus as our singular High Priests, while all the rest of us priests are peers at the foot of both the cross and the throne.
Remember who was passing the cup: Apostles. We are not Apostles. Did you baptize yourself?
-A8
-A8
I don't think we use the term 'Pope of Rome'. We believe Peter to be the first Bishop of Rome, which is the Office of the Pope. The early Church Fathers considered Rome to have primacy.
I didn't think I stuttered in the above. FOLKS WHO LIVE AND WALK AS THE ABOVE ARE IN ALL THE REMOTELY BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS. I've met a number of Roman Believers who fit such criteria. But most believer in most to virtually all Christian organizations DO NOT MEET SUCH CRITERIA BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE in the way they live.
Amen, quix, and isn't it amazing that in our inferior minds, and with whatever intellect we have, it becomes virtually impossible to explain the annointing to someone who has never experienced it or walked in it?
Interestingly enough, my husband was from a church that didn't believe in the gifts of the spirit and he didn't even know what the annointing was. Well, ya know, when he began to pray, repent, obey and ask God for HIS best and HIS will, not only did my husband become a changed man, he began to see and understand that God's Best (and certainly His Annointing)is NOT kept in that tight little box that his former church was putting God in.
Through this process, I, too grew and learned that there ARE people in all remotely Christian orgainizations, that when walking as you stated above, can live a life that is spirit-led and recognize the annointing when it comes and when it departs.
The Holy Spirit is so very much alive and when Jesus left us with the promice of a Comforter, He wasn't talking about some far off mist that was somehow watching over us. He is alive and active and can be a part of your everyday, or should I say THE BIGGEST PART of your everyday life, if you are willing to lay it all down for the Lord.
I've known and know quite a number of anointed folks.
It's quite conceivable that lots of Roman brothers and sisters hereon do as well.
So Catholics are going to hell?
The early Church Fathers considered Rome to have primacy.
= = = =
I think that would depend on which early Church Father was under discussion . . . and then it would depend on in what context and over what issue(s).
But Angel-Gal is the early church father in my network. Perhaps she will correct me.
But Angel-Gal is the early church father in my network. Perhaps she will correct me.
= = =
ERRRRR, She is the early church father EXPERT in my network! LOL.
Just thought it was worth repeating.. *g*
How do you know that they are anointed?
-A8
Which early Church Fathers do you think rejected the primacy of Rome?
-A8
If we use the meaning of “anointed” as one chosen of God (in contrast to being sprinkled with oil/perfume by other men) - in other words, specially blessed by Him, I’d like to offer my mother as an example of an anointed one.
We all have the grace of faith, but she was given the gift of faith. When she prayed, she simply laid her burdens at the Cross, believed Him and never picked them up again. And miracles happened all the time in her life.
Examples of anointed ones in Scripture: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, John, Paul
INDEED! Very well put. For some reason, perhaps Christ's analogy between marriage and His Love for The Church Universal . . . it might be somewhat like trying to describe the joyous intimacy of marital relations to a computer chip. Doesn't compute. Not enough information. No experience.
Interestingly enough, my husband was from a church that didn't believe in the gifts of the spirit and he didn't even know what the annointing was. Well, ya know, when he began to pray, repent, obey and ask God for HIS best and HIS will, not only did my husband become a changed man, he began to see and understand that God's Best (and certainly His Annointing)is NOT kept in that tight little box that his former church was putting God in.
INDEED! PRAISE GOD! INDEED! INDEED!
Through this process, I, too grew and learned that there ARE people in all remotely Christian orgainizations, that when walking as you stated above, can live a life that is spirit-led and recognize the annointing when it comes and when it departs.
PRAISE GOD FOR YOUR KIND CONFIRMATION! YEA GOD!
The Holy Spirit is so very much alive and when Jesus left us with the promice of a Comforter, He wasn't talking about some far off mist that was somehow watching over us. He is alive and active and can be a part of your everyday, or should I say THE BIGGEST PART of your everyday life, if you are willing to lay it all down for the Lord.
INDEED! PRAISE GOD FOR HIS FAITHFULNESS!
LUB,
It isn't fear, but a concern for souls.
I assume you are talking about me. How do you know that I have never "experienced [the anointing] or walked in it"?
-A8
The earliest believers centered on Jerusalem as the "seat" for guidance - as we saw when Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem to clear up a doctrinal dispute among the Gentiles.
Later notables in the church centered on Rome as the "seat" for guidance. Many since the sixteenth century considered no geographic location as a "seat" at all. And in these last days, some are reconsidering Jerusalem as the center.
Scripturally speaking it is impossible to argue against Jerusalem. Historically speaking it is impossible to argue against Rome.
And both, btw, are noted for seven hills which is not only curious but appears in Revelation as a significant location for end time prophesy. (I'm thinking it is Jerusalem, btw.)
Spiritually speaking it makes no difference at all.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. - John 4:19-24
I wasn't aware that my prose above was that obscure or obtuse.
Perhaps my cohorts can help out.
PING TO THE END TIMES/DREAMS/VISIONS/PROPHECY PING LIST:
Can Anyone put the anointing stuff any better than I have in posts:
#'s 795; 798; 804 !!; 843 !!; ??? PLEASE DO, IF SO!
And for the fourth time (maybe the fifth, I'm losing track) you are unable or unwilling to cite any discrepancies.
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.