Customer Reviews

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a recent convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, I especially recommend this volume of essays, regarding the primacy of Peter, and, by extension, the primacy of the Pope, to any Roman Catholic interested in Orthodoxy. The essays are well researched and well balanced, and give the reader the Orthodox point of view regarding the claims of the Papacy, without resorting to polemics.

I also recommend the book "Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies" written by Fr. Meyendorff as well as "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware for anyone interested in the history of the Church.

I know John Meyendorff's work through many different texts, but I first discovered his work through this book. It was innocently lying on the table in the break room at the monastery were I was on retreat, and I thought I'd glance at it briefly to see the contents and then go on my way. Such was not to be - I read the book entire while I was on the retreat, and then purchased my own copy shortly thereafter.

This book consists of five essays (apart from a brief introduction), all dealing with the issue of the primacy of Peter. The issue is, in short, the interpretation and practice of the authority of the successors of Peter in Rome. This was one of the key issues in the East/West schism of 1054 (although not the only issue, as it is sometimes portrayed in simplistic history texts), and remains a key sticking point preventing reunion of the Eastern Orthodox churches with the Roman church. This book was originally published in 1963, around the time of the Second Vatican Council; the reprint in 1992 includes updates of two of the four essays, and includes a new essay by Veselin Kesich.

The article by Meyendorff himself deals with the image of St. Peter in Byzantine theology. He confines his approach primarily to the literature written after the schism to see the way in which Byzantine theology, often overlooked and unpublished in the West, continued a rather consistent theme toward the successors of Peter. He states that it was not generally known in the Eastern Churches that the Western Church was interpreting honourifics and acclamations as formal definitions of papal primacy. However, even the authority granted Rome was never due solely to any inheritance of the status of Peter, but also owed to the general historical situation of the primacy of Rome as a city - Meyendorff quotes Canon 28 of Chalcedon that gives old Rome authority because of its seat of the ancient Emperor and Senate. Many post-schismatic writings deal more with the Filioque clause than the idea of Roman primacy, and among those that address the role of the bishop of Rome over time, there is no clear consensus - some try to deny any authority to the bishop of Rome beyond that of an ordinary bishopric, while others do ascribe different levels of authority.

Theologian Alexander Schmemann is also a contributor to this text. His essay explores the idea of primacy in Orthodox ecclesiology. There are three different kinds of primacy - regional, church-based (autocephalous or other kinds of national/larger church structures), and universal. The second form is well-known in the Orthodox circles, but the first and third are virtually absent in terms of definition and application. Schmemann looks at some of the difficulties of Orthodox ecclesiology when combined with modern ideas like the nation-state, and explores the true seat of authority as that residing not in any particular figure, but rather in the synod of bishops.

The article by Nicholas Koulomzine looks at the historical view of Peter position in the early church, broken down into three successive units - Peter in the church of Jerusalem (found in the book of Acts), Peter at the beginning of the missionary work of the gospel (found in later Acts), and Peter after he left Jerusalem. Koulomzine stresses the missionary activity of Peter, and that his presence in Rome was not a long-standing one (he wasn't in Rome either during Paul's time there nor during the period when letters were written); also, Koulomzine also stresses that Peter's status as head of the apostles faded after he left Jerusalem. 'The Twelve no longer formed a collegium at Jerusalem, so the city lost its position as hierarchical centre. Given these new historical conditions, is it still possible to speak of the primacy of Peter?'

The essay by Nicolas Afanassieff looks at underlying issues in terms of what should be a principle concern of Christians of every complexion - the unity of faith in love. 'Unity of faith still reigns within the Orthodox Church, but without union in love; and neither exists between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches.' Afanassieff states that all churches possess catholicity (which is a contentious issues in and of itself), but that those who possess authority are those acting in love. Afanassieff's essay is perhaps the most controversial of the pieces here, both for the Orthodox and the Catholic. Perhaps that is why it is the longest.

Veselin Kesich's essay is new to the collection, and takes advantage of a generation of scholarship in terms of biblical studies and theology. He looks specifically at the New Testament and early church traditions rooted in this text. He draws on the early church fathers as well as particular bishops in his study both of general authority as well as particular Petrine authority.

This is an important book in terms of ecumenical dialogue between East and West on the issue of the primacy of Peter.

This collection of essays is vitally important to educate Orthodox Christians on what primacy means for our Church. Many Orthodox will be shocked to learn that, yes, there is a need and a justification for primacy, that there is a persuasive case for that primacy to reside in Rome, and that our model of individual churches based on nationality is both harmful and contrary to Tradition.

This is not to let Rome off the hook, however. The Roman Catholic Church has badly played the issue of primacy for many centuries and even now generally does not appreciate the compelling Orthodox arguments against primacy as defined by Rome. This book therefore also should be read by RCs interested in healing the schism and returning church governance to its authentic origins.

A few quotations from each essay will serve to distill the main points:

Nicholas Koulomzine, `Peter's Place in the Primitive Church':
--It was the Twelve, still in Jerusalem, that dispatched Peter and John to Samaria.
--Peter always held first place among the Twelve, but the role he played in the Church was still bound up with that of the Twelve and Jerusalem.
--Peter's work, after he left Jerusalem, was no longer tied to a single place on the map, or to a special church.
--The community [at Jerusalem] led by James, the brother of the Lord, is the earliest, chronologically, of all the local churches to be revered by all, but without direct authority over the other churches.

Veselin Kesich, `Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition':
--The evidence points to the preeminence of the Church in Jerusalem and her leaders, rather than to the primacy of any Apostle, either Peter or James.. . In authority and power they were equal; there were no degrees of power in the circle of the twelve.
--Every bishop in the apostolic church who occupies the place which Peter occupied at the Eucharistic gathering, and who performs the pastoral duties which Peter performed, is the successor to the apostle. . . If there was any teaching concerning Peter's supremacy, it was not known to Paul.

John Meyendorff, `St. Peter in Byzantine Theology':
--The Byzantines unanimously recognized the great authority of the old Rome, but never understood this authority in the sense of an absolute power. The fact of the Pope's traditional definition as the successor of Peter was by no means denied, but it was not considered as a decisive issue. In the East there were numerous `apostolic sees': was not Jerusalem the `mother of all the Churches'? Could not the Bishop of Antioch also claim the title of successor to Peter?
--The Byzantines [considered] the Church of Rome vested with primacy among other churches, a primacy analogous to the one that Peter had among the apostles, [but] this Roman primacy came not from Peter, whose presence had been more effective and better attested in Jerusalem or in Antioch than in Rome, but from the fact that Rome was the capital of the Empire. [At the same time,] the primacy of Rome, which was established by general consensus, is useful to the Church but must depend on the confession of Orthodox faith.

Nicholas Afanassieff, `The Church Which Presides in Love':
--The basis of priority is neither power, nor honor, but only the authority that flows from love and is made manifest by love. The church-in-priority may make mistakes in the very act of coming to the rescue of churches in need and especially of churches in error; that is why the witness of the other churches is needed. Its grand mistake is wanting to impose a sovereign will or put itself above other churches.

Alexander Schmemann, `The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology':
--The fatal error of universal ecclesiology [is that it] identifies primacy with power, transforming the latter from a ministry in the Church into power over the Church.
--An objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local `centers of agreement' or primacies, the Church had also known a universal primacy. The ecclesiological error of Rome lies not in the affirmation of her universal primacy. Rather, the error lies in her identification of this primacy with `supreme power.'
--Primacy is a necessity because therein is the expression and manifestation of the unity of the churches as being the unity of the Church.

Overall, this work is highly recommended for insight on what arguably is the most important issue facing Christianity.

After such a long division, large diaspora communities of Western Orthodox Christians and their ever-growing numbers of converts have proven the need once more for the Orthodox Church to write (in English) about Orthodoxy's relationship to Rome, and about what it perceives to be Rome's errors. This book combines essays from several authors who cover different aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology and who give an Orthodox vision of primacy within the Church of Christ.

My favorite essay in the entire book is the one written by Fr. John Meyendorff entitled, "St. Peter in Byzantine Theology" which uses many quotations from contemporaries at the time of the schism and beyond it to illustrate the Orthodox Church's view of St. Peter, how it viewed each Bishop as occupying the Chair of St. Peter, and what exactly that meant. That essay alone is worth the price of the book, but the others are also outstanding and thoughtful.