Wednesday, March 11, 2020

J. Michael Miller on the Gradual Emergence of the Papacy and the Primacy Thereof


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.