Catholic
theologian and priest J. Michael Miller wrote the following where he admitted
that the papacy and the primacy thereof was a gradual development over time:
Gradual Emergence of the Papacy
Traditionally, theologians assumed that after
the death of Peter every bishop of Rome was are of the special authority which
he inherited as the successor of the chief apostle. Although this succession of the bishop of Rome to the chair of Peter
had not been universally recognized in the earliest centuries, it was
sufficiently testified to in the writings of the Fathers. Catholic apologists
explained the paucity of historical
evidence for the exercise of Petrine authority on the grounds that there
was little reason for its use. Nonetheless, primatial Petrine authority, they
said, was “always ‘there,’ claimed and recognized, just waiting to come into
greater prominence” (James F. McCue, “The Roman Primacy in the Second Century
and the Problem of the Development of Dogma,” Theological Studies 25 [1964] 161). This traditional explanation
emphasized the continuity between the promise and conferral of Petrine primacy
by Christ and its perpetuity in the Pope. No Catholic apologist maintained that
there was a time when papal primacy did not exist.
Contemporary
theologians, however, are more sensitive than earlier apologists to the
problems posed by the lack of conclusive documentation from the early Church. they are reluctant to build their dogmatic explanation on a
questionable historical foundation. Like the textual critics, many
theologians take the most difficult reading of the available data. They do not thereby
necessarily deny the value of the testimony of the early Fathers such as
Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus. So much the better if these
Fathers can provide a witness for the exercise and recognition of papal primacy
in the primitive Church. Nevertheless, the meaning of their writings is so
disputed that these Fathers do not provide the desired historical proof for the
continuity between Petrine and papal primacy.
Once scholars have accepted, as Church
historian James McCue does, that “there
seems to be no reason to suppose a priori that the post-apostolic Church was
immediately in such full possession of itself, of its own structure, that it immediately
asserted (or assented to) the doctrine of the primacy of the bishop of Rome,”
(Ibid., 163) do they therefore
conclude that the papacy is merely a human institution? The majority of
theologians do not think so. Just as a certain amount of time was required for
the formation of the scriptural canon, so a certain amount of time was required
for shaping definitive ecclesial structures. The primatial function of the bishop of Rome emerged slowly. Yet,
as Patrick Granfield summarizes this position, “since the development was
directed by God and manifested a decisive and enduring element in the Church,
it can be said to be divinely instituted” (The
Papacy in Transition [Garden City, 1980], 102).
Since a
decentralized episcopacy seemed to function adequately in the early
post-apostolic community, no particular office of unity was then required. According to McCue and others, the need for the papacy arose when
divisions in the episcopacy made it apparent that a single head of the body of
bishops was necessary for the good of the Church (McCue, “Roman Primacy,”
191). At this time, the bishop of Rome began to fulfill the ministry which
Jesus had conferred on Peter. (J. Michael Miller, What are they saying about papal primacy? [New York: Paulist Press,
1983], 36-37, emphasis in bold added)
One should
compare and contrast this with the statements of many Catholic apologists and
even Catholic documents, such as Chapter 4 of Pastor
Aeternus (1870)
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman
Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes
also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the
constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils,
particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and
charity, have declared it.
