Primus inter Pares

First published @ http://radio-awakening.com/index.php/133-primusinterpares

What's Wrong With Apostolic Succession?

One of the main arguments in favour of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) vs. the multitude of Protestant denominations has recently been their inherent Apostolic succession. The Protestants, seeing that they cannot beat those old traditional churches in this field, tend to reject the importance of Apostolic succession – and the very concept in general. And they're right – in the way they see it.

Let's see what the concept of Apostolic succession teaches.

Basically, the idea is that present-day bishops, as the successors of previous bishops, going back to the early days of Christianity, have spiritual and ecclesiastical power by this unbroken chain of ordinations stemming from the Apostles. However, according to early Christian sources, an Apostle could not stay in one place for more than a couple of days, while a bishop is 'married' to his see. Thus, the ministry of the Apostles was somehow unique in the Church, and bishops inherit just their ecclesiastical power, not their ministry.

Still, there is a couple of things that we have to mention in order to understand what the Apostolic succession – and the teaching of Apostles with regard to the Church – really means.

First, we see in all early Christian manuscripts that during the first three centuries of the Christian era (the time of persecution and martyrdom) every diocese was self-governed and each bishop was equal to the rest of the bishops in terms of ecclesiastic authority[1]. This was natural due to the fact that they did not have cell phones or the Internet – and because of constant struggle for survival. When the persecutions finally ended in 313 AD, the bishops of the main cities of the Roman Empire gained more authority and ecclesiastical units bigger than a diocese (i.e. Metropolia, Patriarchates) were established. However, there was no single bishop who would be considered the bishop-in-chief. Even the most influential bishop of Rome was regarded as primus inter pares (i.e., first among equals).

Why Does Rome Claim to Be the Final Authority?

Unfortunately, in the course of history, human pride and infirmities, combined with the natural position of the Roman bishop as the highest Church authority in all the vast Western part of the Empire – and the only political figure capable of resolving arguments between Barbarian kings and giving them a real feeling of belonging to the much-admired Roman culture - led to the development of the un-Christian doctrine of domination of the Roman Popes and their ability to execute their power not just within the borders of their own vast Patriarchate, but also in all other Churches. They claimed that it was thanks to Apostle Peter who was the Prince of Apostles and later the first bishop of Rome that they had this power. This claim has several weak points, and let us underline them:

1.Apostle Peter was NOT a bishop in the modern – and even not-so-modern – sense of that word. See the beginning of    the present article for explanation of this point.

2.Apostle Peter was the bishop of the Church in Antioch BEFORE he was the “first bishop” of Rome. Does it mean that Antioch (now a small town in Syria) must be the sole authority for all other Churches?

3.Apostle Peter did NOT preside during the very first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). St James did. Does it mean that Apostle James was the Prince of Apostles, and thus, the Jerusalem Patriarchate the sole and infallible authority for all other Christian Churches?

Given that, and the joint witness of the writings of the first millenium of the Church history[2], we come to the conclusion that the claim of Rome to be the only authority for all Christians is ungrounded.

Ecumenical Councils as the Alternative Way of Problem Resolution in the Church

Okay, okay. How can Christians stand up to the multitude of challenges plaguing the modern world: rampant immorality, melting of the original Christian doctrine and merging it with non-Christian teachings in a syncretic way, widespread poverty and injustice – if they do not have the central authority giving an ex cathedra answer to all their questions?

We have already mentioned that there was no concept of papal primacy in the most part of the first millenium of the Christian era. However, the challenges that the Church had to answer to could hardly be called smaller than those it has to find answers to nowadays: rampant immorality in the pagan societies of ancient Greece and Rome is no secret to all interested in history; the number of heresies and sects trying to use the Christian teaching as the basis for their own doctrine was countless, just as it is now. Assuming that the Church was able to preserve the integrity of its teaching and structure, we should look at how they managed to do that.

The answer lies in Acts 15: 5, 6 “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Following their example, the Church held a number of Ecumenical Councils, starting with the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325, where doctrinal matters were discussed. The Popes were not present on every one of these Councils due to long distances and dangerous roads. They sent their representatives (legates) who were entrusted with the right to agree on the decisions of the Councils on behalf of the Pope.

Moreover, - and this is essential to mention if we are to understand the principle of how the Ecumenical Councils worked – the Councils did not 'invent' new dogmas, contrary to the public perception. They reinstated them and bore witness to the original teaching of the Church[3]. And this is hard to overestimate! Because after the so called 'Great Schism' in 1054 (even though this date is arguable) the Roman Catholics held a number of what they called “Ecumenical Councils”, with virtually not one Eastern bishop present, and added several important doctrines to the original Christian teaching, viz., the purgatory, the Treasury of Merit; the papal infallibility and the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1854[4]. These newly invented teachings, stemming from a very 'legal' understanding of the work of Christ and salvation, have never been supported by the East, just as they are rejected by Protestants. It is noteworthy that the Tübingen Lutherans, seeking for a church authority to go to after leaving the Roman Catholic Church, wrote to Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople[5], enquiring about the faith of the Eastern Church.

The Eastern Orthodox church, traditionally divided into a number of self-governing Patriarchates, yet unified in common faith, has been loyal to the original teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and thus to the faith given to us by the Holy Apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ himself so it is the most likely claimant of the title of the One Holy Apostolic Church that the Nicene Creed refers to.

---

[1]     St Jerome wrote, "Wheresoever a bishop is -- whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii).  The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty do not make a bishop more exalted or more low. Besides, they are all the successors of the Apostles (ceterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt).” (Jerome, Ep 146 to Evangelus, Migne PL 22:1192, Giles page 154)

[2]    Let's name just a few: In St. Augustine’s Retractions, he writes,
       In one place I said... that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock... but in fact it was not said to Peter, Thou art the Rock, but rather Thou art Peter. The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, the Rock ...Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.(13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)
       Again he says similarly in the same work,
       Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.
      This quote is so important because of the importance of the teachings of St Augustine to the Church in the West and the fact that he was a 'Westerner' himself.

[3]   Take, for example, this quotation of St Cyril of Alexandria in his Third letter to Nestorius, found in the Acts of the III Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, “Following in all points the confessions of the holy fathers, which they made with the holy Spirit speaking in them, and following the direction of their opinions and going as it were in the royal way, we say that...”

[4]   In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

[5]    For more detailed information on their dialogue, see Augsburg and Constantinople: The Correspondence between the Tübingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession. By George Mastrantonis. The Archbishop Iakovos Library of Ecclesiastical and Historical Sources 7. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Press, 1982. xix + 350 pp.