36. Catholics have also been challenged to recognize
and avoid an anachronistic projection of all doctrinal and institutional
developments concerning papal ministry into the “Petrine texts”, and to
rediscover a diversity of images, interpretations and models in the New
Testament. They have first of all recovered a more rounded picture of Peter. As
John Paul II notes in Ut unum sint (90–91), Peter was not only the
“rock” named by Jesus (Mt 16:18; Jn 1:42; Mk 1:42); but also a missionary
fisherman (Lk 5, Jn 21); a witness and martyr (1 Cor 15:5; cf. Jn 21:15–17; 1
Pt 5:1); a weak human being, a repentant sinner, rebuked by Christ and opposed
by Paul (Mk 8:33; Mt 16:23; Mk 14:31, 66–72; Jn 21:15–17; Gal 2:5). John Paul
II concludes: “It is just as though, against the backdrop of Peter’s human
weakness, it were made fully evident that his particular ministry in the Church
derives altogether from grace” (UUS 91). (The
Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the
Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint—A Study Document [Collana Ut Unum
Sint 7; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2024], 26)
37. Catholics have gained a new awareness of the different
interpretations of the “Petrine texts”, in particular of Matthew 16: 17–19. As
the Groupe des Dombes has shown: “From the moment they appear in
patristic literature at the beginning of the third century, the interpretations
of Matthew 16:17–19 are multiple: they apply the word addressed by Jesus to
Peter either to every Christian because of his faith, or to all the apostles
and to their successors the bishops, either finally to the person of the
apostle Peter, either because he himself is made the foundation of the Church,
or because his confession of faith is the foundation of the Church. But it is
never forgotten that the first stone on which the Church is built is Christ
himself” (Dombes 1985, 96). An ecumenical reading of Matthew 16:17–19 does not
oppose these interpretations but brings out three complementary dimensions in the
Church’s confession of faith: a community dimension, a collegial dimension and
a personal dimension (id., 103). (The
Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the
Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint—A Study Document [Collana Ut Unum
Sint 7; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2024], 26-27)
45. In the Latin Church the martyrdom and burial of Peter in Rome
was the basis of the application of the “Petrine texts” to the Bishop of Rome
from the beginning of the third century (see Tertullian, De Pudicitia 21,
Præscriptionibus adversus Hæreticos 22.4). According to the Groupe
des Dombes: “The reference to scriptural texts highlighting the role of
Peter appears in the early Church as a secondary phenomenon compared to a
primary practice” (Dombes 1985, 22). With Leo I (440–461), the correlation
between the bishop of the Roman church and the image of Peter, which had
already been implied by some of his predecessors, became fully explicit.
According to Leo, Peter continues his task of enunciating the faith through the
Bishop of Rome, and the predominance of Rome over other churches derives from
Peter’s presence in his successors, the bishops of the Roman See (see Leo, Epistle
98). Some see this conviction supported by the bishops at the Council of
Chalcedon in their approval of Leo’s Tome to Flavian: “This is the faith of the
fathers; this is the faith of the apostles; this is the faith of us all; Peter
has spoken through Leo” (cited in MERCIC 1986, 53). Others observe that
Leo’s Tome was accepted because it was seen to be consistent with the teaching
of Cyril of Alexandria, that is with the apostolic and patristic tradition:
“The Council was also careful to underline Leo’s agreement with Cyril: ‘Piously
and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril’ ” (St Irenaeus 2018, 7.6).
Nevertheless, from this time the decisive factor for the Catholic Church in
understanding the special position and role of the Roman See was the relation
of the Bishop of Rome to Peter: “Leo’s ‘Petrine–Roman’ ecclesiology will play a
determinant role in the subsequent orientation of ‘Catholic’ doctrine” (Dombes
1985, 26). The Orthodox–Catholic international dialogue describes this
theological development: “In the West, the primacy of the see of Rome was
understood, particularly from the fourth century onwards, with reference to
Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome among the
bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative that was his because he was
successor of Peter, the first of the apostles. This understanding was not
adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation of the Scriptures and
the Fathers on this point” (O–C 2016, 16). The German Lutheran–Catholic
dialogue succinctly captures the Western development: “In place of a local
principle (sedes apostolica), a personal principle appears (successor
Petri)” (L–C Germ 2000, 168). (The
Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the
Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint—A Study Document [Collana Ut Unum
Sint 7; Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2024], 31-32, emphasis in bold added)
