An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of [a universal] primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local “centers of agreement” or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy . . .
It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – “presiding in agape,” according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.
From The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, John Meyendorff, ed., pp. 163-164 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992)
Okay, CU, I’m a little confused about how the Orthodox understand Roman claims of primacy. There seems to be this frequent reference to “Juridical primacy” What is meant by this?
As a Catholic, with minimal understanding of Orthodox or ecumenical issues, here’s what I would expect would be necessary for reunion with our Orthodox brothers:
1. Acceptance that when the Roman Pontiff, in union with Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, makes an Ex Cathedra definition on matters of faith and morals, then he speaks infallibly (i.e. Vatican I)
2. Acceptance that no canon of an ecumenical council is valid unless accepted by the church of Rome (in particular, the infamous “Canon 28″)
3. Requiring acceptance by the Holy See before an individual is elevated to any Patriarchy
4. Requiring permission from the Holy See before any eparchy is erected within the geographical domain of the historical Latin church.
I presume the various Orthodox patriarchies would have similar lists (potentially conflicting) of expectations from Rome. (Disestablishment of so-called “uniate” churches likely among them.)
What isn’t clear to me is what of these four items is considered a “Juridical Primacy,” and what the nature of the objections are to these items. Can you help me better understand my Orthodox brothers’ concerns?
First of all, there appears to be more diversity of opinion among Orthodox about Rome and universal primacy than many polemicists will like to admit. The Schmemann quote, as well as writings on the issue by Zizioulas, L’Hullier, Afanasiev, and Clement, illustrate this quite well. It seems to me that “Orthodox ecclesiology” is not a monolith, and in fact, could almost be described as a “work-in-progress”.
My understanding is that the Orthodox definitely have problems with (1) and (3).(2) and (4), in a reunited Church, should not pose any real problems; but, then again, I’m sure that some Orthodox will have problems even with these.
DelReyVA
Items 1-3 would be considered “juridical primacy” (although I myself prefer to use “primacy” and “supremacy” as contrasting terms to express the distinction, rather than contrasting “juridical” primacy with some other sort of primacy). Item 4 is juridical in nature also, but since it is concerned with the Pope’s primacy within his own Patriarchate, it would not give rise to the same sort of objection that the first three items do.
Item 1 is “juridical” not so much because of the claim of infallibility itself, but because of the ex sese clause, which denies to the wider Church any role in the recognition that an infallible definition has taken place. To take an historical example, I should think that the Tome of Leo might well be regarded as an ex cathedra pronouncement according to the definition of Vatican I. But the Fathers at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome simply on Leo’s authority as Pope; they studied the Tome to determine that it was orthodox. Only then did they declare Peter has spoken through Leo. Leo did, in fact, speak for Peter and proclaimed the orthodox faith; but there was, and is, no a priori guarantee that he would do so. Thus the Council had its own role to play in recognizing the orthodoxy of Leo’s definition. So the Tome of Leo may be regarded as ex cathedra, but not ex sese.
The juridical character of items 2 and 3, since they have to do with the Pope’s purported supremacy in terms of canon law and the Church’s polity, I take to be obvious. Item 2 indicates that the canons of the Church are subject to the Pope, not the other way around; and item 3 gives to the Pope a jurisdiction outside of his own Patriarchate. The Orthodox reject both of those.
The principle underlying item 4 is that no Church should establish eparchies, dioceses, or parishes (or otherwise exercise jurisdiction) in the canonical territory of another Church. That principle is absolutely accepted by the Orthodox (although it is sometimes honoured in the breach). But it does not apply only to the Church of Rome, but to all autocephalous Churches (or, to use RC terminology, all true, particular Churches).
This principle is the basis of the Orthodox objections to the Eastern Catholic Churches (I won’t use the “U” word); and it is the basis for Moscow’s objections to the establishment of Roman Catholic dioceses within Russia. So the Orthodox would accept item 4, with the proviso that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Cathedra Unitatis,
I believe you are mistaken if you think the Orthodox would not object to item 2 in a re-united Church. The Orthodox have always affirmed that they would accept a certain primacy for Rome, but only within the framework provided by the ecumenical canons. That means that Rome in a re-united Church must be subject to the canons, not supreme over them. If Rome can pick and choose which canons she will accept and be subject to, then she is not really subject to the canons at all.
That’s a non-starter for the Orthodox. East and West continued in communion with one another for centuries after Chalcedon, but the East always honored canon 28 and regarded Rome as subject to it, despite her rejection.
Chris,
On (2), I’m not saying that Rome would be “supreme over” the canons. I simply meant that in a reunited Church canons claiming ecumenical authority would have to be endorsed by the entire Church, including the Roman Primate.
An instance of the East unilaterally enacting canons without the consent of the Western Patriarchate would be the so-called “Quinisext” Council in Trullo. Are you saying that Rome was truly subject to these canons, even though they were designed to destroy Rome’s own well-established liturgical customs?
It’s not always the big bully Rome abusing the Eastern Churches! Trullo was an obvious political maneuver against the entire Western Church.
CA,
I’m well aware of the checkered history of the Trullan canons.
The principle I’m referring to is that one cannot “pick and choose” what one is going to accept as having “ecumenical authority”. Rome recognized Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, and certainly regards its doctrinal definition as having ecumenical authority. But she does not recognize all the canons of Chalcedon as having ecumenical authority. What that means is that, for Rome, “ecumenical authority” does not derive from the ecumenical character of a council; “ecumenical authority” is granted by Rome, pure and simple.
Thus for Rome, the Chalcedonian definition is authoritative not on the basis of the ecumenical character of the council of Chalcedon, but simply on the basis of its acceptance by Rome. The Chalcedonian canons that Rome does accept do not owe their authority to the authority of the council, but simply to their acceptance by Rome. That’s the implication of Rome’s rejection of individual canons of the councils.
From the Orthodox point of view, a council is either ecumenical or it is not. If it is, its doctrinal definitions are matters of dogma and its canons have ecumenical authority — because the Church has come to recognize that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the council. Both the canons and the doctrinal definitions derive their authority from the authority of the council itself.
As regards Trullo:
Trullo was billed as a “continuation” of Constantinople II & III, which was called to make up for the fact that those councils issued no disciplinary canons. In my opinion, it was a flagrant attempt to “borrow the glory” of those two ecumenical councils. It’s hardly surprising that Rome reacted with hostility.
But the authority of the Trullan canons doesn’t depend on that questionable claim of ecumenicity for the Council in Trullo itself. Their authority rests on the fact that they were accepted — and given ecumenical authority — by Nicaea II, a council whose ecumenicity is acknowledged by all.
Nicaea II, in its canonical legislation, sort of “gathered together” canons from all sorts of sources (Trullo, the “Apostolic Canons”, and lots of local councils, East and West) and gave them “ecumenical imprimatur”. The canons of the seven councils, plus the canons from other sources endorsed by Nicaea II, form the basis for the Orthodox Pedalion to this day.
I stand by my argument that, in a reunited Church, the East should not be allowed to make unilateral decisions for the universal Church without the assent of Rome. This has nothing to do with any claim that Rome is above the Church, or above the canons, or anything else.
Trullo was simply cited as an example of the East acting as if it alone could create ecumenically-binding decisions without the assent (and completely against the will) of the first see of Rome and the other, Western half of Christendom.
That’s not going to work in a reunited Church, any more than the Orthodox East would ever be content to let Rome to make unilateral ecumenical decisions without consulting the other Patriarchs and heads of autocephalous Churches.
DelReyVA,
It occurs to me Fr Schmemann, in his comment about the West interpreting the evidence for Petrine primacy “in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning”, means that the East never regarded Rome’s leading role in doctrinal and disciplinary matters as being binding in all possible instances.
If I recall correctly (it’s been a while since I’ve read it), Olivier Clement in You Are Peter makes the argument that the Orthodox East viewed the intervention of Rome as something extraordinary and even charismatic, rather than juridical and normative.
I don’t think that these approaches (we’ll call them “juridical” and “charismatic”) are mutually exclusive. They could be complementary, and in fact, in the first millennium, for the most part, they were complementary.
CA,
I stand by my argument that, in a reunited Church, the East should not be allowed to make unilateral decisions for the universal Church without the assent of Rome.
That’s fine, as long as it works both ways (sauce for the goose, etc.). But you know as well as I that, for Rome, it does not work both ways. That’s what ex sese means.
Also, it has to be said that the Church’s ability to make dogmatic definitions (not speaking, for the moment, of canonical matters) cannot be held hostage to the assent of any particular See. Chalcedon would never have been seen as ecumenical and binding if it had depended on the assent of Alexandria; and if Constantinople III had been held when Honorius was Pope and Sergius was Patriarch, it never would have gained the assent of Rome or Constantinople. And we should all be Monotheletes.
The Church’s guardianship of the Apostolic Tradition is not a matter of outward polity, be it by majority vote, unanimity, or the supremacy of a particular See. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit, Who blows where He wills. As Dr Lossky said, “there is no external criterion of Truth”.
That’s fine, as long as it works both ways (sauce for the goose, etc.).
It’s not a matter of sauce for the goose. It’s not a matter of working both ways. It’s a matter of what Christ intended when He established His Church. Silly me, I happen to think Matthew 16: 18-19 gives us a pretty good indication of that.
There are two themes running through Scripture, are there not? On one hand is the word to Peter, “You are the Rock”, upholding the freedom of the Spirit to speak even in one individual against the world if necessary…think of Athanasius contra mundum or of Maximus the Confessor. Certainly there have been popes who have been bearers of the Light in remarkable fashion.
There is also, however, the promise in 1 John, “You have an anointing…you know the truth”. It is the plural. The anointed Body of Christ, as a whole, will recognize Truth when it appears.
It would seem that Catholics have tended to stress the first manifestation of the Spirit’s blowing, and Orthodox the second. The point is, both should be together, a mutual recognition of the Truth as in the first Jerusalem Council, where Peter spoke, but everyone unanimously agreed. Peter should not be apart from the gathering, nor the gathering apart from Peter.
I hope the day will come when there is wholeness on both and every side, and that the scandal of schism will be ended. Cathedraunitatis, thanks for reminding us yet again of Olivier Clement’s book, which I will try to get soon.
I don’t think Matthew 16 gave Peter carte blanche to put himself above the Church…he gave proclamation as part of the Church, within a conciliar Body, not as the monarch of the Church ala “Dictatus Papae”…our King is Christ.
I agree that it does come down to this issue. Is the Roman primacy something willed by the Lord for his Church? I don’t know, but I am working my way through the issue.
Matthew 16 gave Peter carte blanche to put himself above the Church
I don’t think so either, and I very much doubt that this is a proper Catholic view of the Papacy. Let’s be fair as much as possible.
he gave proclamation as part of the Church, within a conciliar Body, not as the monarch of the Church
I do agree that an analogy likening to the Pope to a King is unfortunate. However, I don’t hear many Catholics talking like that these days. Especially since Vatican II, I see the doctrine of the Papacy becoming much more balanced.
our King is Christ
Yes, indeed! Did you know that Roman Catholics have a feast called “Our Lord Jesus Christ the King”?
I agree that there is movement toward more conciliarity in some ways, but remember that at Vatican II Pope Paul VI forbade the bishops to discuss priestly celibacy or contraception, and reserved those issues to his own judgment. Thank God the tiara is no longer used since John Paul I, but I think we still have a ways to go before the echoes of those words die out: “Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that you are Father of princes and kings, Ruler of the world, and Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ”. I hope you can admit that “Dictatus Papae” and its claims was excessive in the direction of papal supremacy. As one who loves history, though, I wonder…if it has happened once, what will prevent it from happening again?
Yes, thank God for popes like John Paul and Benedict. But it was not always so.
“It’s not a matter of working both ways. It’s a matter of what Christ intended when He established His Church. Silly me, I happen to think Matthew 16: 18-19 gives us a pretty good indication of that.”
Not to be rude, but this proves that you have not read what the Fathers have to say on this issue. Instead of simply reading Eternal Pastor and Satis Cognitum into the text, read how the Fathers exegete this and other relevant Petrine texts. Often the foundational premises of the RC papal theory are outright denied. Observe how Cyprian of Carthage interprets Matthew 16:18:
Cyprian teaches that the episcopate is the Rock upon which the Chuch is built, the passage describes the office of the bishop in general not simply the papacy in particular:
1. Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, DESCRIBING THE HONOUR OF A BISHOP AND THE ORDER OF HIS CHURCH, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith. [Epistle 26]
I’ve often wondered about the protestant impulse among some Roman Catholics to view the Gospels according to one’s own interpretation, a la the quote above
“It’s a matter of what Christ intended when He established His Church. Silly me, I happen to think Matthew 16: 18-19 gives us a pretty good indication of that.”
Only the Church via the Holy Spirit knows what Christ’s intent is.
“I very much doubt that this is a proper Catholic view of the Papacy. Let’s be fair as much as possible.”
Why do you doubt this? You need to read Eternal Pastor, Satis Cognitum and Lumen Gentium *very carefully* to get a handle on the Catholic position, ascertain its necessary conditions and theological presuppositions. This is actually the first step one should take if one sincerely seeks to get to the truth of the matter; afterwards, one should find the best scholarly and influential works for and against the RC papal theory. The only thing you’ll need the internet for is to find and purchase the relevant materials.
Why do you doubt this?
Let’s look at your claim about the RC position:
Matthew 16 gave Peter carte blanche to put himself above the Church
The authoritative documents you cite do not say that Peter has “carte blanche to put himself above the Church.” Let’s be fair by citing, as much as possible, the actual texts, rather than attempt to summarize them with one-liners.
Also, the tutorial about how to study the Roman Church and how to use the internet is unnecessary. I can find my way around a library and the internet fairly well.
Only the Church via the Holy Spirit knows what Christ’s intent is.
True enough, but I’m pretty sure that Diane’s interpretation is not merely her own but has a pretty substantial pedigree in the tradition of the Church.
Cyprian teaches that the episcopate is the Rock upon which the Church is built
Actually, to be more accurate, Cyprian teaches that the Rock upon which the Church is built is the Apostle Peter personally. Cyprian teaches that the Lord established one man as the Rock of his Church so as to symbolize the unity of the episcopate. Every bishop, he says, sits upon the chair of Peter the Rock.
At the same time, however, Cyprian could also affirm that the Roman Church had a special relationship to Peter and his Chair, and that the Church of Rome was (1) the ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est (the principal Church which gives rise to the unity of the priesthood) and (2) the Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem (the mother and root of the Church catholic).
See Afanasiev’s discussion of Cyprian here.
The “Rock” can be or is Christ himself, the person of Peter or the faith of Peter; my point is that this passage does not pick out the RC papal theory and neither does the exegesis of the text by the Fathers as it does in Satis Cognitum. The assertion that “the Roman Church had a *special relationship* to Peter and his Chair” is extremely ambiguous without context and could be construed to mean *anything.* One’s understanding of these statements will be determined by one’s ecclesiology, because we cannot put primacy before ecclesiology.
Concerning whether or not “Matthew 16 gave Peter carte blanche to put himself above the Church,” I’ll that is a negative take on the dogma. The point though is that the Pope is OVER the Church and the rest of the bishops as Peter was OVER the Church and apostolic college of his time; he alone was given the keys and the special perogatives and jurisdiction that came with it:
“2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” ["Pastor Aeternus"]
While I personally have some questions about Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I, I do not see in the quote above any claim that the Pope is “over” the Church. All I see is a very strong affirmation of the role of the Pope in the Church vis a vis the clergy and faithful of the entire Church, and the role of the Roman Church among the local particular Churches.
Father Patrick already explained the reasoning behind my claim:
“I think that there is an importance of primacy in Orthodox(Catholic) thought. This primacy is properly referred to as Petrine Primacy and Rome is certainly a centre of this primacy. I also believe that the structures of the Church as regulated in the Canons are not merely practical implementations but reflect and maintain important theological understandings of the Church.
This is that there is one Bishop, who is Christ. All Bishops are in a Mystery the concrete presence of Christ in the Church in His capacity as “high priest”, “teacher” and “master”. There is no Christ of Christ and rightly no Bishop of Bishops. The Roman Catholic system gives the impression, whether or not it is formally taught, that the Pope has an exclusive, or greater, manifestation of Christ compared to the other Bishops; he is set apart as “The” Vicar of Christ and somehow a “Christ of Christs” or Bishop of Bishops.”
If the Petrine charism conferred upon the Pope and the perogatives/powers of that office are not at all tied to the sacramental life of the Church, then he rules OVER and ABOVE the Church, separate from it(s sacramental life.) Our doctrines of sacramentology and divine commission/apostolic succession precede the papal theory both chronologically and theologically. We must first ask what is the basis and nature of episcopal authority and how each bishop’s office and activities relate to the person of Christ before we construct a special theory of papal primacy.
The Fathers sometimes also identified the Rock with Peter’s confession (or faith) or with Christ without ever denying that the primary identification of Rock is with Peter himself. In fact, several of the Fathers made it clear that Peter and his confession / faith are inseparable.
Modern Scripture scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, non-polemical Orthodox) agrees that the Rock of Matthew 16:18 can only be Peter himself. (Not that it cannot be applied to his confession, of course; but that is not what the text itself actually says.)
One has to make absolute hash out of the syntax of Matthew 16:18 in order to make “Rock” mean “Peter’s confession,” a phrase not even found in Matthew 16:18. Grammar, syntax, Hebraic parallelism are all violated by such a polemical Orthodox / Protestant reading of the text.
“Modern Scripture scholarship (Catholic, Protestant, non-polemical Orthodox) agrees that the Rock of Matthew 16:18 can only be Peter himself. (Not that it cannot be applied to his confession, of course; but that is not what the text itself actually says.)”
If the word “rock” can be applied to Peter’s confession of faith as well as to his person (as you freely admit in your post), it follows that the term can be applied to more than Peter himself.
Diane,
The “Rock” can be Christ, Peter’s confession or the person of Peter himself (the Fathers interpreted this in all of these different ways.) Peter’s person and confession are inseparable? Sure, but so what? My intial comment was in response to your remark to Chris Jones which implied that the RC papal theory was a necesary clear inference from Matthew 16:18, and I think that this is demonstrably false. Matthew 16:18, at best, provides you with a foundational premise or necessary condition of the RC papal theory, nothing more.
Michael B., if you think it’s demonstrably false, I fear you’ll have to take it up with the best and brightest Scripture scholars from your own communion as well as from my own.
As we all know, the Fathers did not always apply rigorous textual criticism to Scriptural passages. They were not Scripture scholars in the modern sense, although some of them, notably Jerome, certainly anticipated such scholarship. The Fathers not only did textual analysis but also saw certain key verses as mulitivalent–as having alternative, complementary (but not contradictory) meanings. It was in this sense that some Fathers could identify the Rock as both Peter (its primary meaning) and his confession (a secondary, related meaning–more of an implication, really). But no Father (not even Augustine in his Retactationes, so beloved of anti-papal controversialists) ever denied that the Rock was Peter. And quite a few Fathers explicitly stated that the Rock was Peter.
Contemporary Scripture scholars concur that the Rock necessarily must be Peter. This is the primary meaning of the text, the literal meaning, whcih takes precedence over all other meanings. Scripture scholars (including Orthodox scholars [as opposed to mere polemicists]), base this reading on the passage’s grammar and syntax, and especially on the Hebraic parallelism–which is completely violated if you insist that the Rock is Peter’s confession or (pace Augustine) Christ Himself.
At a neighborhood Bible study some months ago, I saw Baptist evangelist Beth Moore (on DVD) trying to explain away Matthew 16: 18-19. She claimed that, as Jesus pointed to Peter, He said, “Thou art tiny pebble.” Then as He pointed to Himelf, she claimed, He said, “And upon this Rock I will build MY Church.” What laughable eisegesis! For one thing, if Jesus had been trying to distinguish between Peter’s pebbleness and His own Rockness, He would have said “BUT upon this Rock,” not “and upon this Rock.” Secondly, there is not the slightest indication in the Scriptural text that Jesus was doing this pointing-every-which-way thing. Beth was simply reading all this into the text–essentially reading her own prejudices and a priori conclusions into the text–rather than heeding what the text actually says.
I respectfully submit that Orthodox polemicists do precisely the same thing. Fortunately, though, the more respectable Orthodox scholars have given up on such silliness. They concede that the Rock of Matthew 16: 18 is Peter and can only be Peter. They do not necessarily infer the Vatican I papacy from this…but they do at least concede that the Rock is Peter.
May I suggest a fascinating little book, very readable and incisive, that deals with some of these questions? It’s Father Stanley Jaki’s little monograph The Keys of the Kingdom, and it pays special attention to verse 19 as well as verse 18. Highly recommended.
God bless….
Diane
It seems to me that the three different interpretations – Peter as Rock, Peter’s confession as Rock, and Christ as Rock – are not mutually exclusive. One cannot separate Peter from his confession or from his Lord, nor Christ from Peter or Peter’s confession of Christ as Son of the living God.
However, I am impressed by the modern scholarship to which Diane refers. The most natural and literal reading of the text seems to be that Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built.
Protestants and Orthodox shouldn’t have a lot to fear from this reading, since as William B. points out, it only provides the “foundational premise or necessary condition” for the understanding of the Petrine office at Rome. Opponents of the so-called “papal theory” will do better to focus on church history, patristics and ecclesiology.
Diane,
My only point of contention was that the RC papal theory is not a necessary inference from Matthew 16:18; that is it. If we agree on that, then there is nothing left to debate. As CU explained, “the three different interpretations – Peter as Rock, Peter’s confession as Rock, and Christ as Rock – are not mutually exclusive.” Peter being the Rock does not imply the falsity of Orthodox ecclesiology anymore than it *implies* truth of the RC papal theory. Indeed, to judge between those two we must focus on “church history, patristics and ecclesiology.
The best book I know of on the history of (the concept and the development of) papal primacy is “Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present” by Klaus Schatz, a Roman Catholic historian who lays everything out on the table and is completely honest and unbiased as far as I can tell.
I am sure that Diane is well read as far as modern scripture scholarship is concerned, but modern biblical scholarship is not a monolithic structure that unanimously supports the claims of Rome to primacy, and to hold that this is the case is nothing more than a generalization.
Oscar Cullmann, for instance, accepted a form of Petrine primacy as truly scriptural, but clearly rejected the claims of Rome as far as inheriting this primacy is concerned. Moreover, many Eastern Orthodox theologians and biblical exegetes accept the idea that Peter held a type of primacy in the Church, but they would deny that that primacy is uniquely passed on to the Roman Church, because in Eastern ecclesiology all bishops are successors of all the Apostles, including Peter. Along these same lines, Gregory the Great recognized that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch all possessed a historical succession from Peter, and that they — in some sense — singularly possess his primacy.
The issues involved in this discussion are far more complex that some of the posters (especially on the Roman side) want to admit.
God bless,
Todd
Peter being the Rock does not imply the falsity of Orthodox ecclesiology
I agree; but, given this, one would also wonder why some Orthodox apologists (like Fr Andrew who has commented on this blog) feel the need to rule out “Peter as the Rock”, which a consensus of biblical scholars today believe is the most natural and literal reading of Matthew 16:18-19.
I’ve read Klaus Schatz’s book, and I’ve found it to be a very helpful scholarly overview.
Certain Orthodox apologists need to rule out Peter as the Rock for the same reason certain Catholic apologists think that every patristic reference to St. Peter implies or vindicates the claims of Vatican I. Bad arguments and knee-jerks reactions abound…
>While I personally have some questions about Pastor Aeternus and Vatican I, I do not see in the quote above any claim that the Pope is “over” the Church. All I see is a very strong affirmation of the role of the Pope in the Church vis a vis the clergy and faithful of the entire Church, and the role of the Roman Church among the local particular Churches.
Sorry, CU, this seems to me a gloss on VI, and not what VI actually says. It says ex cathedra decrees of the Pope on matters of faith and morals are irreformable of themselves, and do not depend on the consent of the rest of the Church. Satis Cognitum defines the “communion” of the bishops with the Pope as being subject to and in obedience to him. You’ll have to explain to me how these do not set the Pope over the rest of the Church. Joe
Diane said:
>Silly me, I happen to think Matthew 16: 18-19 gives us a pretty good indication of that.
Silly me, I happen to think Acts 15 might be relevant also. Joe
Me, too, Joe. And at the Acts 15 Council, Peter spoke first (at which the whole assembly fell silent), and Peter gave the dogmatic pronouncement (i.e., that henceforth no special legal burden should be laid upon the shoulders of Gentile converts). To which everyone present acquiesced. James then agreed with this and (in his capacity as local ordinary) made provisions for implementing it. He also added a few practical provisos, which the early Church apparently considered so incidental that Paul does not even record them in his epistles–not even when he refers to the Jerusalem Council. These practical rules certainly were not enforced for very long.
In short, Acts 15 provides a perfect picture of Petrine primacy in action, in tandem with episcopal collegiality. With all ddue respect, Sure looks like Catholic ecclesiology to me. But then, it would, wouldnt it? After all, it’s in my Catholic Bible (not just in Protestant or Orthodox ones). And I’ve never known any Catholic polemicist or scholar who wanted to remove it or explain it away. Rather, we seem to be agreed that it helps buttress the Catholic case.
Diane:
>To which everyone present acquiesced.
After James made the decision, yes.
>James then agreed with this
He agreed with Peter, yes. Then he made the decision.
>And I’ve never known any Catholic polemicist or scholar who wanted to remove it or explain it away.
Well, that’s just what you’ve tried to do.
If the roles of Peter and James were *exactly reversed*, Catholic apologists would be trumpeting it from the rooftops as a conclusive illustration of the Petrine primacy. Joe
I believe Joe is correct here. Every version of the Bible I check for Acts 15 appears to say that “the assembly fell silent” so they could listen to Paul and Barnabas’ testimony. It would only be reasonable that Peter — as the one who had been given the vision from heaven and the experience with Cornelius — should speak powerfully, but it is still the case that James (not Peter) gave the verdict, “krino, I judge, I decide”.
What I find striking is that all of them — apostles, elders and people — are in one accord (verses 22 and 25), as a sign of unity in the Spirit. If Peter is using his keys here, it is in the midst of the Body and in thoroughly conciliar fashion.
After Pentecost, Peter seems to have been the leader of the Church, but when James, the brother of the Lord, joined, he appearently took over the leadership. In addition to the Council, consider also Paul’s words about how Peter at Antioch was afraid of the men sent by James to watch over the brethren.
To speak of James as the “local ordinary” strikes me as anachronistic, and a reflexion of reading things with contemporary Catholic eyes. The Jerusalem Church was the allimportant Mother Church, which lost its preeminence because of the murder of James and of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Therefore, the Roman claims that Matthew 16:18 means that the Bishops of Rome as successors of Peter should have universal jurisdiction, seems to be a non-sequitur. Peter himself was not the leader of the universal Church. So how can his successors claim this leadership?
Joe is incorrect, Michael. So are you.
More later. I cannot keep up with y’all–you seem to have more blogging time than we papists do.
After Pentecost, Peter seems to have been the leader of the Church, but when James, the brother of the Lord, joined, he appearently took over the leadership.
Per, yours is one of the more extraordinary pieces of exegesis I’ve seen in a while, I must say.
Eviddence, please, for James’ universal primacy over the infant Church.
Eagerly awaiting your response…
Diane
Diane,
Look at Galatians 2:11-14. When some men from James came to Antioch, not only Peter, but also Barnabas and the rest of the Jews stopped eating with the Gentiles. Apparently, James’ clout reached to Antioch. This is very hard to explain if Peter was regarded as the primate of the Church. If Peter had set up his see at Antioch, leaving James as the local ordinary at Jerusalem, why would he fear some visitors from him?
Per, it has nothing to do with “clout.” Nor does Paul remotely imply that it does. Otherwise, why would he himself defy the Jamesian Judaizers? Are you saying that James’ alleged “clout” extended to Peter but not to Paul? This is an astonishing reading indeed.
Peter was influenced. That’s all the text says…it goes no farther. I respectfully submit that you are reading things into the text that simply are not there.
Popes can be influenced, just like anyone else. They are human beings, not demi-gods.
But Peter most certainly was NOT subject to James’ authority…any more than Paul was. Do you know of any respectable Scripture scholar who would maintain otherwise? If so, I would greatly appreciate seeing said scholar’s argument.