I had planned on writing a long post on what one scholar of the Papacy, Michael Winter (following Pierre Batiffol), calls the three distinct “zones” of papal power and influence in the ancient Church: Metropolitan Italy, the Western Empire, and the Eastern Empire. But then I found this admirable summary by the patristic scholar, Brian Daley, SJ, posted online in an article called “Structures of Charity: Bishops’ Gatherings and the See of Rome in the Early Church.” And being the lazy (and often very busy) blogger that I am, I thought I would present the pertinent portion of Father Daley’s essay here for discussion.
The exercise of pastoral care and jurisdiction–in however wide or narrow a sense both words are taken–by the bishops of Rome developed rapidly in the two centuries that followed the peace of Constantine. Again, I can hardly do more here than sketch out some of the major lines of that development, as it is related to the growing understanding of the relationship between the popes and local councils in those centuries. However, the readiness of the popes of this period to act outside the local church of Rome, and the self-understanding with which they acted, varied noticeably with regard to the different parts of the Christian world. Language, historical connections between various churches, and the varying acceptance of a Christian imperial ideology in East and West conspired together to introduce variety in the way Roman ecclesiastical leadership was understood and exercised in different parts of the post-Constantinian Empire. One can distinguish at least three “spheres” in which differing degrees of papal influence were exercised: Italy and the adjoining islands, other parts of the Latin-speaking West, and the Eastern churches.
1) The area in which the Roman bishops understandably exercised the strongest influence among their colleagues was Italy itself, along with Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the smaller islands of the Tyrrhenian Sea: the churches Rufinus of Aquileia called the “suburbicariae ecclesiae.” This “super-metropolitan” or (in later language) patriarchal jurisdiction was confirmed by the Council of Nicaea as an “ancient custom,” and guaranteed there to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as well as the bishop of Rome. From the mid-fourth century, when the emperors sponsored Arian bishops in Milan and other northern Italian sees, this patriarchal sphere of influence was restricted to Italy south of the Apennines and the islands. Nonetheless, it remained the most clearly defined area of papal authority through the time of Gregory the Great. Within it, fifth- and sixth-century popes took the responsibility, usually through legates, to oversee the administration of vacant sees and to supervise the election of bishops by the local clergy and people. Their consent to each elected candidate in the region was required, and they would usually ordain those approved. The popes also acted as judges of all formal charges brought against Italian bishops. The more assertive among them, such as Innocent I or Leo, even took steps to unify both the orthodoxy and the liturgical practice of the local churches in the region along Roman lines.
2) A wider region in which the bishops of Rome also exercised growing influence in this period was the whole West of the Roman Empire: the Latin-speaking regions of Europe west of the Rhine and south of the Danube, North Africa west of the Libyan desert, and the Balkan region west of Thessalonica. Even in the time of Cyprian, as we have seen, the bishops of Rome were acknowledged to have the right and even the responsibility to involve themselves in disputes in the churches of Gaul and Spain, at least in extraordinary circumstances. The Synod of Arles, summoned by Constantine from all the Western provinces to deal with the Donatist schism in Africa, reported its decisions at length to Silvester, bishop of Rome, who did not attend, so that he could communicate them to the other churches. The Council of Serdica (343), an exclusively Western gathering after the Eastern delegations had withdrawn over a doctrinal dispute, confirmed the right of bishops deposed by local synods to appeal to the bishop of Rome and his synod, who could, if it seemed justified, require the local synod to give the appellant a second hearing. The Western Emperor Gratian gave this arrangement the force of civil law by a decree of 378, and his successor Valentinian III, responding to a dispute between Pope Leo and Hilary, metropolitan of Arles, in 445, simply laid it down for the Western Empire that “whatever the authority of the Apostolic See has sanctioned or shall sanction shall be law for all.”
Since the time of Pope Damasus in the 370s, the bishops of Rome had adopted the curial style of issuing rescripts in response to disciplinary or doctrinal questions from bishops outside Italy, letters that were presumed to have the same legal force as the decisions of local synods. Pope Siricius, in 386, sent to the African bishops nine canons enacted by a Roman synod, one of which required that no bishop be ordained without the knowledge of the Roman see. Presumably, the Africans were expected to observe this procedure in the same way as the Italians. The justification given in Pope Innocent I’s letter to Decentius of Gubbio, is Rome’s historic “priority” in faith: since all the churches in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the islands were either founded by Peter or by his successors, those churches should be ready to recognize Rome as “the source of their customs (caput institutionum).”
One important means by which the Roman bishops of the fifth and sixth centuries secured their influence in the more distant regions of the West was the appointment of one of the region’s bishops–usually the metropolitan of a major provincial see–as their personal legate or vicar. In 385, Pope Siricius delegated to the bishop of Thessalonica the power of confirming, in his name, all episcopal elections in the imperial prefecture of Illyricum (mainland Greece), always a sensitive border region, linguistically and politically, between East and West. Pope Zosimus (417-18) conferred a similar role–though without the title–on the bishop of Arles for southern Gaul, a practice formalized by Pope Vigilius I in the next century (545). Pope Simplicius commissioned the bishop of Seville as his vicar in Spain in the 470s, and Gregory the Great not only regularly appointed a Sicilian bishop to act as his vicar in the island, but sent his disciple Augustine to Britain in 596, to organize church life there on Roman lines as primate of the English.
These vicars were not meant to usurp the functions of local leadership, or to deprive the local churches of their self-government. As Leo I made clear to Anastasius, his vicar in Illyricum, his role was to see that the canons and traditions of the local church were observed. He was to convoke semi-annual synods, to judge disputes among the metropolitans of the region which they were unable to resolve among themselves, to prevent those metropolitans from unduly dominating church life in their provinces, and to serve as a channel of information to and from the pope. Leo rebukes Anastasius sharply, in a later letter, for being overly authoritarian himself in his oversight of the Illyrian region and for failing to observe the rules of subsidiarity. Still, Leo’s strong sense of a God-given responsibility to be, for the universal communion, “the guardian of the Catholic faith and of the legislation of our ancestors,” led him even to send a special vicar to Mauretania, where the Roman bishops had never exercised the same pastoral supervision as in Europe, to inquire into reports of the uncanonical election of bishops there. For him and for other fifth-century popes, the institution of a personal vicar among regional hierarchies of the Latin West was a concrete way of demanding accountability from local bishops for their canonical practice, and of expressing the universal pastoral oversight that the popes considered theirs by ancient tradition.
3) Much less clearly defined was the claim of the bishops of Rome to a right of pastoral supervision in the churches of the Greek-speaking East. As a rule, the popes of the early post-Constantinian period were far less ready to intervene in doctrinal or disciplinary disputes in the Eastern churches than they were in the West; yet a growing, if cautious, sense of the concrete and worldwide consequences of the Petrine legacy is evident in their correspondence.
This is shown in the willingness of bishops of Rome to receive appeals, in extraordinary cases, from Eastern bishops who had been deposed from their sees by local synods or even by Eastern patriarchs. In 340, Julius I had argued to his brother in the see of Antioch that Athanasius, as bishop of another Apostolic church (Alexandria), should not have been deposed without the consent of all Christian bishops, and that the ancient canons gave Rome the right to be first judge in cases concerning the see of Alexandria. John Chrysostom, under attack from enemies in Constantinople and from the hostile Theophilus of Alexandria, appealed to Pope Innocent I in 404, as well as to the bishops of Aquileia and Milan, to use their influence to get him a fair trial. Innocent responded by protesting vigorously to the Emperor and by refusing to recognize John’s successor. Pope Sixtus III, in 437, informed bishop Proclus of Constantinople that Idduas, the bishop of Smyrna, had appealed to Rome a sentence passed against him at Constantinople, but that he, Sixtus, had endorsed the decision. After the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus in the summer of 449, the three Eastern bishops who had been deposed at that contentious gathering by Dioscorus of Alexandria–Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus–all appealed to Pope Leo to overturn the decision at a synod held under his presidency at Rome, recognizing his “apostolic authority” as holder of the see of Peter. A century and a half later, in 593, Gregory the Great wrote to John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople, sarcastically rebuking him for feigning ignorance about two disciplined clerics who had subsequently appealed to Rome: “If you do not observe the canons, and wish to overturn the statutes of our ancestors, I do not know who you are!” John eventually wrote to Pope Gregory about the case, and at least one of the clerics was later exonerated by the Roman synod.
These instances, comparatively rare, of appeals to the popes for help, in major disciplinary disputes, by bishops of the Eastern churches, show at least traces of an ancient tradition recognizing the authority of Roman decisions even outside the Latin West. Papal letters from the fourth and fifth century occasionally show a similar willingness to make the Roman voice heard in doctrinal controversies in the East. Anastasius I writes to bishop John of Jerusalem during the dispute in Palestine over Origenism in 400-401, expressing his concern to preserve the gospel faith “among all my peoples” and to stay in touch, by letter, with “the parts of my body in all the various places of the earth.” Celestine I writes to the clergy of Constantinople in August 430, as the Nestorian controversy is gaining momentum: “Since you are our flesh and blood, I am rightly concerned lest the influence of a bad teacher turn your faith, which is proclaimed everywhere, from the path of truth.”
After his own strenuous diplomatic labors in securing the Christological settlement at Chalcedon, Pope Leo writes to Maximus, patriarch of Antioch, congratulating him on victory and thanking him for his readiness to keep Leo informed of the affairs of his church. As bishop of one of the three ancient Apostolic churches, “it is right, after all, that you should be a colleague with the Apostolic See in this concern.” When other bishops of East or West, even the bishops of Antioch or Alexandria, act together to preserve the gospel tradition, they do it, in Leo’s view, as participants in the most fundamental pastoral responsibility of the bishop of Rome, his “care for all the churches.”
In the mid-sixth century, the Emperor Justinian’s determination to unite the Christian world, after almost a century of Christological schism, led him to cultivate cordial relations with a succession of popes, and to affirm strongly their claim to universal pastoral leadership. “Everything that pertains to the state of the churches we hasten to bring to your Holiness’s notice,” he wrote to Pope John II in 533, “because we have always been deeply concerned to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See and the state of the holy churches of God. . . . Therefore we have been eager to subject and unite all the bishops of the entire Eastern region to your Holiness. . . . Nor do we allow any current matter which pertains to the state of the churches, however clear and obvious it may be, not to be brought to your Holiness’ notice, since you are the head of all the holy churches.” Justinian arranged for the visits of three popes to Constantinople, where they were received–sometimes graciously, sometimes violently–as heads of the universal communion of churches. In the end, Justinian treated the popes, too, chiefly as means towards his dream of a reunited Empire. But the rhetoric with which he addressed them, and the legal security, however tenuous, which he gave to their jurisdictional claims simply confirmed a direction of papal self-understanding which had been developing in the Western church for more than a century, and laid the groundwork in civil law for the medieval papacy.
This is all very interesting, but it misses the mark about why the divergence between east and west. The Pope was accorded this status SO LONG AS HE MAINTAINED TRADITION. This theme runs throughout even this short essay, as per the quotes below. The Pope lost this status in the eyes of easterners when he no longer served as the guardian of that which had been passed on. This is why the Filioque is so important as the demarcation point.
This “super-metropolitan” or (in later language) patriarchal jurisdiction was confirmed by the Council of Nicaea as an “ancient custom,”
As Leo I made clear to Anastasius, his vicar in Illyricum, his role was to see that the canons and traditions of the local church were observed.
Leo’s strong sense of a God-given responsibility to be, for the universal communion, “the guardian of the Catholic faith and of the legislation of our ancestors,”
“If you do not observe the canons, and wish to overturn the statutes of our ancestors, I do not know who you are!”
Ah, Stephen, there’s the rub! Thanks for cutting to the chase.
Part of the challenge is getting both Orthodox and Catholics to agree on certain facts about the Papacy and its development in the first millennium. But even when both sides come to substantial agreement about these things, we’re left with fundamentally theological issues.
Orthodox believe that the Papacy is a basically human institution. Perhaps at one time it was for the bene esse of the Church (and this might be a very generous Orthodox take on the matter), but it was certainly not of the esse of the Church. As such, it was as capable of falling into official schism or heresy as any other local church. And in fact, it has fallen into schism and even heresy (depending on which Orthodox you’re talking to, and how they understand the terminology of “heresy”).
Catholics, by contrast, believe that the Papacy, the office of the successors of the Apostle Peter, was willed by Our Lord Jesus Christ to be a permanent feature of his Church. Not only did the Papacy never officially fall into heresy or schism, but precisely because it was established by the Lord, and is supported by his Holy Spirit, it is of its very nature indefectible.
I can certainly see where both positions come from. I can see that no one side has a perfect slam dunk case. There are certainly apologetical and polemical excesses on both sides of the debate. But, at this point, I have to confess that if there is one position which makes the best sense of the data of the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the common life of the Church in the first millennium, I would have to say that the Catholic position has the advantage.
This is far from saying that there aren’t certain difficulties with the Catholic position, and with the way that the exercise of the Petrine ministry has developed. But I am far more inclined to accept the testimony of the first-millennium Popes about the nature of their ministry within the Church, and the supporting witness of the Fathers (both East and West) and the early Councils, than I am to accept the (in my humble opinion) reactionary ecclesiology of modern Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, I suppose I’ve said too much. 😉
It is right and important to note that the issues, and the method to their resolution, can only ever be theological–not historical, not scriptural, etc. History and Scripture of course inform the theology, but the way forward can only be theological. This is a point that Met. John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon has stressed again and again, noting that trying to “solve” the papacy by appeals to history, Scriptures, or the Fathers has only ever been fruitless. Thus he states categorically that “the primacy of the bishop of Rome has to be *theologically* justified or else can be ignored altogether.”
Now, I suppose I’ve said too much.
Not in my opinion you haven’t. 🙂 (Sorry for the awkward syntax–I sound a little bit like those ditzy characters Jean Harlow always used to play. But I suppose the more Harlowesque construction would be: “Not in my opinion you ain’t.” Yep. That’s even better.)
James Likoudis makes a further point. He asks: If supposedly the papacy went off the rails and “departed from the Orthodox Faith” at a certain point, then where is the ecumenical council that says so? The Orthodox acknowledge ecumenical councils as their highest authority on dogmatic and ecclesiological issues, right? Then, in that case, where is the ecumenical conciliar decree that declares the papacy schismatic and/or heretical? Where is the ecumenical conciliar decree that says Rome has broken from the rest of the Church? Please provide chapter and verse. 🙂
One more thing. Orthodox are forver telling us that the Pope / the Catholic Church / the West supposedly went off the rails and left the True Church at some point–and, depending on which Orthodox is telling us this, the point at which this departure allegedly occurred varies wildly: e.g., around the time of Origen; at the time of Bad Bad Augustine; when the Evil Franks entered the picture; during the Schism, etc. etc. etc.
Well (rhetorical question): Don’t they realize how Protestant this makes them sound? Every Protestant group–plus flakier groups like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses–makes exactly the same sort of argument. They all insist that the Catholic Church went off the rails and severed itself from the True Church at some point–and the alleged point of departure always varies depending on who’s making this claim. Our opponents can’t even agree on exactly when this Catholic Exodus from True Christianity actually occurred. (Heck, even the Orthodox can’t agree among themselves when, exactly, it occurred: I’ve heard some Orthodox claim it happened as early as Origen, while others say it warn’t till them durned Franks came along.)
When all the opponents of Catholicism are reading from the same play-book–and they can’t even agree on the details, yet–well, to me at least, it looks as if they all may be kicking against precisely the same goad. Or, rather, Rock. 😉
Diane
Of course it is simplistic to think of such a sad divergence as occuring at a single point in time. It takes time and a series of events to come to a point of “Hey, do these guys really believe in something different than we do?” And even when you are convinced of that, you still hope that it’s not true, or can be rectified. So maybe discrection is the better part of valor, in answer to Mr. Likoudis’ query about why no formal call.
But put yourself in the shoes of those easterners who, when they raised the question about the insertion of the filioque, were charged in return by the westerners that the east removed it? Wouldn’t you think, “These guys don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know. And the Pope is going along with this. Now what do we do?”
Here’s a follow up: This below from the blog of a RC priest, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, who is to be admired, often makes the same point about “these guys don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know” as easterners have long said about the west. Only of course this RC priest speaks about his fellow co-communicants today, but in several generations could be a real divergence. So what Fr. Z is going through is what easterners have been going through more or less since the filioque. Should Fr. Z call a council? Should he be called a Protestant? Really, such thoughts border on the infantile.
Dumb article on old Mass in Boston Ledger
But. Stephen, the point is not which date marks the supposed departure of Rome from the True Church. The point is that all of these Great Apostasy Theories–including the Orthodox versions–smack of Protestantitis.
Our Lord told Peter, “Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I shall build My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”
IOW, He promised His Church indefectibility–and He associated this indefectibility precisely with that Church founded upon Peter the Rock. (Please, let’s not get derailed into debates on whether “thou” in Matt. 16: 18 actually refers primarily or exclusively to Peter’s faith or confession; even most respected Orthodox scholars today concede that, syntactically and contextually, the Rock is Peter’s person, Peter himself.)
OK, then–He promised indefectibility to that Church He had founded upon Peter; He made this promise in the context of an extraordinary passage in which He conferred quite extraordinary powers upon Peter. The promise cannot be separated from the context, and the context is thoroughly Petrine.
If, indeed, the Petrine Church, the Church founded upon Peter and led by Peter’s successor, went completely off the rails and departed from the True Faith, then Our Lord’s explicit promise of indefectibility has been rendered null and void. The promise was associated with Peter the Rock and with the Church built upon that Rock…therefore, if that Church went off the rails, then the promise is false and hollow.
We know the promise cannot be false and hollow, because it was uttered by Our Lord, Who is Truth Himself. Therefore, all these creative Great Apostasy Theories founder upon the Rock of Matt. 16: 18. In effect, although not in intention, proponents of the Great Apostasy Theories call Our Lord a liar.
I do not expect this to sway you, Stephen; I am fairly sure, in fact, that you will have a jillion comebacks, including some very savvy and persuasive-sounding ones.
But I will ask one more time: If Rome supposedly went off the rails, where is the ecumenical conciliar decree that says so? Such a momentous (indeed, counter-Scriptural) occurrence should merit mention by an ecumenical council…non? If there is no ecumenical conciliar decree stating that Rome has departed from the True Faith and henceforth is no longer part of the True Church, then “by what authority” do you make such a claim? Protestants invoke the Bible–or, rather, their private interpretation thereof–when they claim Rome went off the rails in 100 AD or 300 AD or whenever. That’s a pretty flimsy reed. But what is yours? By what authority do you state that Rome has departed from True Christianity?
I am asking this quite sincerely, and I would be very interested in your answer.
God bless,
Diane
P.S. I do not quite understand your point WRT Father Z. The Church has always included both wheat and tares, and she has often passed through difficult, turbulent times. It has often seemed as if all was lost. (The post-Nicaea period was no picnic, I’m told. Not to mention the period leading up to Nicaea.) So, what is your point? That things look grim in some (by no means all) quarters of the contemporary Catholic Church? This is nothing new. So it has always been, yet the Church endures. Generation upon generation of critics have confidently predicted Rome’s imminent fall, yet “the Rock still stands.” Jesus said the gates of Hell would never prevail. (We have His Word for that.) But He never said they wouldn’t give it the old college try.
Diane,
I appreciate your sincerity and forthrightness. My point with Fr. Z is that I see a parallel between what he writes and feels vis a vis other Catholics, and how Orthodox write and feel about the loss of the Pope. He, and many like him, writes about Catholics who don’t know what he feels they should know; further, these Catholics also don’t know that they know what Fr. Z feels they should know. They are Catholic, but by virtue of many things do not know their Catholicism or what it means to be Catholic, at least as far as Fr. Z is concerned.
Orthodox went through the same thing with Catholics regarding the filioque – only a thousand years ago, and every generation since. For many generations, Catholics – and not just those in the pew, but legates of the Pope – really thought that Orthodox had removed the filioque from the Creed.
And it is of course a point of divergence to between East and West that the East does not link our Lord’s promise to ONLY the Bishop of Rome, but rather to every bishop who upholds tradition, and that at no point will there be a bishop who is heterdox. At the same time, Orthodox do hold the Bishop of Rome to be quite special, so I never understood comparisons to Protestants who typically have no historical sensibility about Rome. We claim him to once have been one of ours, and hope and pray that one day he will once again assume his great role as guardian of the the Holy Catholic Faith – as did those like Leo and Gregory did before him.
That’s the rub. I think I believe EXACTLY what Leo and Gregory believed, no more and no less, as does every Orthodox. And I think our case is easier to make than for Catholics to say the same. And most Protestants wouldn’t care about that, nor be able to make good on such a statement.
Forgive me, but I see a couple of problems with this description of what Catholics supposedly believe.
First, the Roman Church does not hold that our Lord made a promise to the Bishop of Rome. Peter, of course, had not yet stepped foot in Rome. The promise was given to Peter, who is clearly identified by Jesus as the “Rock” upon which the Church is to be built. If this promise applies to the Bishop of Rome, it is in a secondary and derivative sense. The Bishop of Rome is merely the “successor of Peter” and almost from the beginning the fundamental conviction of the Bishops of Rome has been that Peter continues to preside in his see.
Second, I’m not sure that the Roman position is as restrictive and exclusive as you say it is here. Perhaps someone can correct me, but I think that there is a sense in which a faithful Catholic exegete could very easily say that the “Rock” in Matthew 16 could be understood as Christ, as Peter himself, or as Peter’s confession. These are not mutually exclusive positions. They actually fit together remarkably well. Likewise, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with saying that, in a sense, all bishops or even all orthodox believers have a share in our Lord’s promise to Peter.
The Fathers of both East and West can be seen to have endorsed all three of these possibilities. This fact is often used by Orthodox and Protestant controversialists to “prove” that the Catholic position has no real patristic support. It seems to me that this objection fails to take into account the liberal (within the limits of Tradition) nature of patristic biblical exegesis. Context (both literary and historical) is very, very important here. For instance, around the time of the Arian controversy, a good number of the Fathers emphasize the confession of Peter as the “Rock” of the Church. Why? Because Peter’s confession was a confession of the Divinity of Christ, and speaking of this as the foundation of the Church is a way to score against the Arians.
Not only was there a diversity of interpretation among the Fathers, but very often individual Fathers can be seen to have adopted different interpretations of this particular passage, at different times and in different contexts. If I recall correctly, Augustine in different places adopts all three of the classic interpretations of Matthew 16. I don’t think that he was being schizophrenic, and context reveals why at different times he made the applications that he did. Against the Donatists he emphasizes that Peter is the symbol of the entire episcopate, but against the Pelagians his emphasis is on the connection between Peter and the Church of Rome.
The settled Catholic position is, however, quite clear in pointing out that the most natural, literal interpretation (confirmed by current biblical scholarship from all Christian confessions) is that our Lord identifies Peter as the “Rock” upon which he will build his Church. Again, this does not rule out other applications of the passage, since Orthodox/Catholic biblical exegesis presupposes different senses of Scripture and is remarkably tolerant of different interpretations, as long as these do not contradict or undermine the rest of the Tradition.
If I may be so bold, it is the anti-papal take on Matthew 16 which is the restrictive and exclusive one, since it seeks to exclude the interpretation which is the most natural and literal one because it is the one historically invoked by Bishops of Rome and those Fathers who turned to them for guidance.
Well, speaking personally, it’s been a great shock to me to find that the Byzantine rumors of the Papacy’s fall into schism and heresy have been greatly exaggerated. 😉 It’s been dangerously close more than a few times, but I don’t see where it’s abandoned its “great role as guardian of the the Holy Catholic Faith.”
Again, forgive me, but do you believe what they believed about their own ministry within the Universal Church as successors of Peter? It has also come as somewhat of a shock to me to discover what the pre-schism Popes of Rome (many of whom are venerated today as Orthodox Saints) believed about their own place in the Church. As an Orthodox I was taught that the pre-schism Western Churches, including Rome, were fully Orthodox; and that Rome in particular was a great pillar and guardian of the Orthodox Faith. Why should I believe the doctrine of the pre-schism Popes when they stood against Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, etc. and not believe them when they (and a good number of the other Fathers, East and West) spoke about the nature of their authority within the Universal Church?
Anyhow, I must get to bed. Apologies if I have offended!
Perhaps someone can correct me, but I think that there is a sense in which a faithful Catholic exegete could very easily say that the “Rock” in Matthew 16 could be understood as Christ, as Peter himself, or as Peter’s confession. These are not mutually exclusive positions. They actually fit together remarkably well.
I’m just a dumb layperson, so take it from whence it comes, but I think you are 100% spot-on here. As you point out, the Fathers saw Scripture as multivalent; thus, the same Father could maintain that the Rock was both Peter and his confession. But I believe they usually understood that Peter and his confession were inseparable. They did not understand “Rock-qua-Confession” as counter-posed to “Rock-qua-Peter.” Rather, as you say, they saw the two statements as complementary and connected.
Modern Scripture scholars doing textual analysis of this controverted passage have reached remarkable consensus: First and foremost, in the text itself, the Rock is Peter. To maintain otherwise is to twist the syntax into a pretzel. But I haven’t the energy to try to delve into that now…this ground has been covered a zillion times, as we all know. Let’s just say: References furnished upon request. 🙂
Likewise, I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with saying that, in a sense, all bishops or even all orthodox believers have a share in our Lord’s promise to Peter.
Again, agree 100%. We are all joined to the Rock and share in its Rockness. Furthermore, Matthew 18: 18 gives all of the apostles a share in the Power of the Keys. (But it remains significant that the Keys themselves were given to only one individual: Peter. Jesus used the singular in Matt. 16: 18-19 when addressing Peter and conferring the Keys upon him. I have seen so many convoluted attempts to evade the significance of this fact…but there it is. There’s no way around it.)
The papacy works with episcopal collegiality, not independently of it, as you correctly note.
I would say more, but brain-deadness prevents it. God bless!
Diane
Good to see you linking to Fr. Daley — he is a brilliant, brilliant scholar, a true and kind gentleman, and a faithful Christian — in spite of being a Jesuit.
CU wrote:
“and not believe them when they (and a good number of the other Fathers, East and West) spoke about the nature of their authority within the Universal Church?”
As you know, pre-schism Popes’ self-awareness of their role within in the church has some fluidity to it. And, awareness – to say nothing of recognition or even acceptance – of that role is a matter of debate still today even among Catholics! So why should Orthodox be held to higher standard vis a vis the Petrine office than Catholics?
More importantly, the nature of the changing understanding of the Petrine Office is nowhere near as set in stone as WHAT LEO AND GREGORY PRAYED. And Orthodox contend that what we pray – and so believe – is exactly what Leo and Gregory prayed and believed, and is different from what modern Catholics pray and believe, as blogs like Fr. Z’s make sadly all too evident. It is no more complex than that.
Dianeski says, “…the rock is Peter. To maintain otherwise is to twist the syntax into a pretzel.” Interesting that those in this world whose native tongue is Greek and who might, therefore, be presumed to understand Greek syntax very well indeed are…not Roman Catholic. Of course, this does not necessarily signify. Perhaps the unnamed “modern Scripture sholars” know Greek better than the Greeks. It could happen.
And Orthodox contend that what we pray – and so believe – is exactly what Leo and Gregory prayed and believed, and is different from what modern Catholics pray and believe…
Well, my fundamentalist friends “contend” that the universe is only 6,000 years old. That doesn’t make it true. 😉
Seriously, Stephen…I cannot speak for our gracious blog-host, but ISTM (forgive me!) that all you are doing is asserting. I do not see any evidence for your assertions. Could you provide documentatrion that “what Leo and Gregory prayed and believed” is identical with what today’s Orthodox pray and believe? Thanks in advance!
Diane
P.S. Irenaeus–LOL! As one whose parish used to be Jesuit-run, I hear ya, bro’! But there are some great Jesuits out there, too. During our erstwhile Jesuit pastor’s 14-year tenure, many visiting Jesuits passed through. They were a mixed lot, but some were exceptional–e.g., an Indian Jesuit currently engaged in missions work in the wilderness of Jamphedpur(sp??), India, where his life is in constant danger from militant Hindus—I am not making this up! There were also some wonderful young scholastics. When even the Jesuit scholastics are “trending conservative,” you know the tide is turning!
Stephen –
I tend to agree about a certain “fluidity” of doctrine about the Petrine Office in the first millennium. The institution of the Papacy itself developed, and the understanding of the Papacy (both on the part of the Popes themselves, and on the part of other Fathers) also developed.
For that matter, Trinitarian and Christological doctrines also had a certain “fluidity” in development, and certain aspects and details of this development are still discussed and debated today. But the fundamental dogmatic positions of the Church on the Trinity and the Incarnation are not up for debate.
Likewise, as it stands today, the Catholic Church does have a very clear dogmatic understanding of the Petrine Office (what John Paul II called the essence of the Office as instituted by Christ himself as distinct from the various ways, for good or ill, in which the Office has been exercised over the centuries). Certain details about the Papacy are certainly matters of debate today, but this is not to say that the fundamental Catholic doctrine of the Papacy is up for debate.
So, I don’t think that your question “Why should Orthodox be held to higher standard vis a vis the Petrine office than Catholics?” is a valid one. Catholics are held to a dogmatic understanding of the Petrine Office, an understanding that developed in the early centuries but is certainly complete in all its essentials in the thought of the pre-schism Popes, especially Leo and Gregory. Orthodox do not feel bound to this understanding, and historically, since the schism, Orthodox thinkers have gone to great lengths to develop an ecclesiology in which the See of Peter at Rome has no divinely ordained place.
I don’t understand your point about “what Leo and Gregory prayed.” Perhaps you could elaborate.
So why should Orthodox be held to higher standard vis a vis the Petrine office than Catholics?
I’m sorry Stephen, but you surely know that the Catholic Church has something that is called the Magisterium. That’s the only thing that is relevant when you want to discuss what the Catholic Church teaches. “Opinions” from all sides that fall outside of this are simply irrelevant.
is different from what modern Catholics pray and believe, as blogs like Fr. Z’s make sadly all too evident
Stephen, I don’t really understand how Fr Z’s article is of any relevance for the topic at hand. Are you implying that Fr Z is uncharitable in his article? Then say so and criticize him as a person. Or are you saying that what he says is true and that many Catholics have apostatized from anything which can be called true faith? This may be so in many sad cases, but it’s irrelevant for the Church as a whole, because, as I have said above, the Church has one voice and that’s the Magisterium. Or are you criticizing the Novus Ordo Missae – but then why don’t you say so?
I must say I simply don’t understand what you’re pointing at (and even, who you are criticizing!) – and neither does your explanation above make it any clearer to me…
Petra: Thsank you! You have articulated my own inchoate thoughts. I, too, am at a loss as to what the Father Z example is supposed to show. As you say, the opinions of apostate Catholics have no relevance to what the Church teaches magisterially. So, like you, I fail to see Stephen’s point.
And CU, thank you, too…those are excellent points about the early “fluidity” in the development of doctrines such as Trinity, Incarnation, and the esse of the Petrine office.
Stephen, would you mind terribly much if I asked a rather personal question? Please, if I am being a nosey parker, just tell me to go soak my head. 🙂
Are you a convert to Orthodoxy? If so, did you perchance come from a background with a heavy anti-Catholic / anti-papal emphasis?
No, I am not trying to “trap you” or prove a point. I am just wondering. Again, if I am out of line, please tell me to go soak my head. 🙂
Thanks!
Diane
Stephen,
I must confess that I, too, am confused on how Fr. Z’s blog ties into this discussion. Most of Fr. Z’s posts deal with matters of liturgical discipline, not matters of doctrine or dogma. Do you wish me to bring up a Greek Orthodox debate over whether services in America should be in English or in church Greek?
We Catholics are more than aware of the number of dissenting voices one hears in the media who claim the label “Catholic”, but as Petra notes, the Magisterium is really the only Catholic voice you need to be concerned with. Of course, you are free to say that if Rome were exercising the Petrine ministry robustly, such dissenting voices would not be heard. In which case, I would agree with you! 😀 But that again falls under the purview of more disciplinary matters and not theological issues.
Diane, no anti-Catholic background here of any sort. But like many Orthodox, I do take the Papacy very seriously. As one Catholic wit once said, nobody takes the Papacy as seriously as the Orthodox do!
Yes, I am aware of the Magisterium, but I must confess a certain confusion as to its operation. Many Catholics say, “Ignore what you see or hear elsewhere, what only counts is what the Magisterium says.” Yet how does one reconcile obvious contradictions that one sees and hears among Catholics about the Magisterium? And this is not just my observations, but those of many Catholics, among them Fr. Z. Catholics like Orthodox speak of “As we pray, so we believe”, meaning you can find out about our beliefs by attending and listening to our communal prayer. So what do you do when what is prayed and heard – and so believed – is not quite what the Magisterium teaches?
One can’t comment on just liturgical discipline without also touching on doctrine and dogma. And I would agree with the more traditionalist side of the RC Church that the Novus Ordo is clearly weak when it comes to communicating correct belief.
Plus, CU, just how exactly are Catholics held to a dogmatic understanding of the Petrine Office? What is this understanding? What happens to one if he does not abide by it? How can the rest of us know? Is he denied communion? How would he know that he is not abiding by it?
I’ve never even heard any prayers about the Papacy said by Catholics during a Mass. Now, that’s not to say it isn’t there in Catholics services, so I would be most interested to know.
In fact, there seem to be quite a lot of core Catholic beliefs that are, for want of a better word, extra-liturgical, meaning they can only be found outside of the work of the people. Or, in other words, the liturgical footprint of the Orthodox match exactly to all that we believe. Whereas the liturgical footprint of Catholics is smaller than all that you believe. So it is that I can say, if you read all that is available about liturgical services during the time of Leo or Gregory, there is nothing in what they prayed that is any different from what Orthodox pray today. Diane, if Catholics can say the same thing, then we truly have been talking past each other, and I would look forward to sharing communion with you next Sunday.
[…] June 25th, 2007 Great post full of history about the papacy at Cathedra Unitatis. […]
I believe EXACTLY what Leo and Gregory believed, no more and no less, as does every Orthodox.
Really, every Orthodox believes that the Pope is the bishop of all bishops by virtue of his inheritance of the special office entrusted to Peter? This is quite demonstrably what Leo believed, as evidenced in his Sermon on the anniversary of his elevation to the Pontificate. If the Orthodox really believe as Leo believed, it is hard to see whence the disagreement with the Catholics has arisen.
I can see that no one side has a perfect slam dunk case… But,… I would have to say that the Catholic position has the advantage.
This is far from saying that there aren’t certain difficulties with the Catholic position, and with the way that the exercise of the Petrine ministry has developed.
Indeed. It seems to me that the real difficulty with the Catholic position is the assertion in Pastor Æternus that the Pope
This seems rather at odds, for instance, with the example of Leo criticizing his legate for too-heavy-handed an intereference in local Illyrian affairs cited above. I realize that the claim is not absolutely insupportable in light of the affair with Leo and Anastasius, but it does seem that Leo’s response to Anastasius’ work is hardly in line with the sentiments expressed in the claims of Vatican I.
Re: Comment #3
Adam – Do you have a reference for the Zizioulas quote? Thanks!
Greg, you write:
“Really, every Orthodox believes that the Pope is the bishop of all bishops by virtue of his inheritance of the special office entrusted to Peter? This is quite demonstrably what Leo believed, as evidenced in his Sermon on the anniversary of his elevation to the Pontificate.”
My point is this is NOT what he prayed. We don’t say “As we sermonize, so we believe”. Nor do we say, “As we write a white paper, bull, rescript, imperial pronouncement, so we believe.” We say, “As we pray, so we believe.” And everything Leo prayed, and all Popes up to the use in Rome of the filioque, is what Orthodox pray to this day still.
Stephen
Actually, Stephen, I think that we (both Catholics and Orthodox) do say that what we sermonize and what we theologize is what we believe! Our God-bearing Fathers actually did preach sermons to the faithful and write theological treatises to defend and explain the Faith. Such sermons and theological treatises, not to mention the minutes and canons of church councils, do indeed have an authority in determining what we believe.
“Lex orandi, lex credendi” is, of course, axiomatic in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But I think that you are taking it to extreme lengths, to the point of specifically neutralizing or disqualifying any sort of theological discourse outside of the Liturgy itself. This is definitely not patristic. It is not Orthodox or Catholic.
Speaking of “lex orandi, lex credendi”, have you studied the Byzantine hymn texts for, say, Saint Leo, Pope of Rome (February 18), in which he is lauded as “head of the Orthodox Church of Christ … Senior among the honored supreme council … heir to the throne of the preeminent Peter”?
In fact, one could argue that all of the basic elements of the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy can be found more clearly in Byzantine hymnography for Ss. Peter and Paul and for the Popes of Rome venerated by the Orthodox Church than in the liturgical texts of the Latin Church (which are almost entirely scriptural texts, with very little gloss from extra-biblical compositions).
My point is this is NOT what he prayed. We don’t say “As we sermonize, so we believe”.
Since when is the sermon not part of the liturgy?
CU,
“Speaking of “lex orandi, lex credendi”, have you studied the Byzantine hymn texts for, say, Saint Leo, Pope of Rome (February 18), in which he is lauded as “head of the Orthodox Church of Christ … Senior among the honored supreme council … heir to the throne of the preeminent Peter”?”
Yes, of course, hence earlier my post about the high role the Popes held so long as they maintained the faith once delivered. And to the point about our liturgical footprint.
But where are the prayers that speak to universal papal jurisdiction? Or such related to Vatican I? Not in Orthodox prayer, but what about in Catholic? Is it because they are derivative, and so at best a logical construct, and not a part of the deposit of faith? That’s the rub. As Greg mentions, papal jurisdiction was always a multi-faceted, fluid dynamic that it is obvious from intra-Catholic dialogue – even within the Magisterium – still exists today.
And Greg, sermons are a part of the liturgy, yes, and an excellent teaching tool. But they are not part of the Roman Rite, or Liturgy of the Hours, or anything like that. So they do not carry as much weight at the end of the day.
Actually, CU, Orthodox do build all theological discourse on prayer life. When it is not, most theologians know that what they say will be discounted as speculation, opinion, more that sort of thing. No Orthodox theologian worth her salt would not link their writings to something liturgical. This is again a big difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, as it would seem Catholics theology has for some time been “free” from the liturgy.
Liturgy is the core, the foundation, the source that waters and feeds all else, and so we do not look on it as being restrictive. It is not an artificial construct of mine to score points on a blog; it is how we enter into life.
Stephen
Stephen
Stephen –
You’ve defeated me with all of the stereotypes, false dichotomies, platitudes, and non sequiturs. I give up. Congratulations. Perhaps someone else still has the strength to answer.
I have an idea: Let’s all get back to discussing “ancient spheres of papal jurisdiction”, or else stick a fork in this particular combox.
LOL. Sounds good to me. 🙂
Diane
[S]ermons are a part of the liturgy, yes, and an excellent teaching tool. But they are not part of the Roman Rite, or Liturgy of the Hours, or anything like that. So they do not carry as much weight at the end of the day.
I am still not sure that I can really get behind the distinction you are making between “sermon” and “prayer.” In the Roman rite it has long been our custom to make the sign of the cross before and after the sermon precisely because it is a prayer. In other words, Leo’s claim that he inherited from Peter an office of supreme jurisdiction throughout the whole Church is something which Leo prayed. To the extent that you do not pray the same thing (or believe it) you are praying (and believing) differently from Leo. This is not necessarily to say that the Orthodox are wrong in so doing, but it is to say that if the Orthodox really do pray as Leo prayed and believe as Leo believed, then it is hard to see how it is that they claim to disagree with the Catholics.