Wednesday, June 19, 2024

Excerpts from "The Bishop of Rome" (2024)

   

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)