Eastern and Western Christianity
both understand the succession of Apostle Peter differently, explaining the
same text in two distinct ways. Nevertheless, John Meyendorff argues an
interesting case, using the patristic tradition. He states:
‘St Peter had received from the
Lord Himself the solemn promise: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build
my Church” (Matt. 16:18), and this logion
of Jesus was preserved, in St. Matthew, the Gospel of the church of
Jerusalem, where Peter presided over the Eucharist and was the spokesman of the
Church against which “the powers of hell shall not prevail.” But the Church-the
same Church-was to be established elsewhere and others inherited also the
promise given to Peter.
As early as St. Ignatius the
image of the episcopate is associated with the image of the “rock” (To Polycarp
1:1). With Cyprian of Carthage the idea that each bishop, as the head and
pastor of his local church, was a successor of St. Peter and the “rock” of
faith was expressed quite clearly. Most scholars agree that for Cyprian the
succession of Peter is in no way limited to Rome. Every local church is “the
Church,” and as such inherits the promise given to Peter. “God is one,” he
writes, “and Christ is one, and one is the Church, and there is one chair,
founded on Peter by the Lord’s command.” (Eph. 43:5). This understanding
follows necessarily from a “eucharistic” conception of the Church. If each
local church is the Church in its
fullness, the “catholic Church,” it must indeed be identical with that
Church which was mentioned by Jesus Himself in Matt. 16:18, the Church founded
on Peter.
Careful reading in the patristic
Tradition, both Greek and Latin, indicates that this understanding was by no
means limited to Cyprian, but prevailed in the minds of the major theologians.
There was no formal elaboration of the idea, however, because “ecclesiology”
was never treated systematically. St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the power of
the keys transmitted by Peter to the bishops (De Castigatione, P.G. 46:312 C), and even Pseudo-Dionysius sees in
Peter the prototype of the order of the “high priests” (Eccl. Hier. 7, 7). In
the later period, especially after 1204 when a Latin patriarch was confirmed as
bishop of Constantinople by the pope, Byzantine theologians began to use the
argument against Rome: the pope is not the only
successor of Peter, but all the bishops share equally in that dignity.’[1]
For more information on this interesting
topic see: J. Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (London:
Faith Press, 1963), pp. 14-29.
[1]
Meyendorff, John, Living Tradition, (Crestwood,
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), pp. 49-50.
No comments:
Post a Comment