Stuhlmiller, Wayne J. H.

English

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 5 | Issue 4 Article 210-1-1979The Bishop of Rome in a Reunited ChurchWayne J. H. StuhlmillerFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Articles is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationStuhlmiller, Wayne J. H. (1979) "The Bishop of Rome in a Reunited Church," Consensus: Vol. 5 : Iss. 4 , Article 2.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol5/iss4/2THE BISHOP OF ROMEIN A REUNITED CHURCHWayne J.H. StuhimillerAt no time since the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580 AD have rela-tions between Roman Catholics and Lutherans been as cordial as they are today. Itis apparent, from recent discussions between scholars of these two traditions inNorth America, that there are broad areas of agreement in their understanding ofthe ecumenical creeds, the christological center of the faith, the sacraments, andministry. On the basis of this agreement, Lutheran and Catholic scholars haveturned their attention toward the more difficult issue of discovering means of ex-pressing our unity as the universal Church of Christ and achieving a common min-istry.' It is within this context that the question of ecclesiastical authority, and partic-ularly papal primacy, assumes renewed importance. For Lutherans, the discussionof the possible role of the Bishop of Rome in a reunified Church demands clarity onthe Lutheran understanding of “authority” within the Church, the historical relation-ship of the apostle Peter to the papal office and its implications for papal primacy,and the attitudes toward the papacy among the Lutheran reformers.A LUTHERAN UNDERSTANDING OF 'AUTHORITY"'^Within Lutheranism, the only authority exercised by the Church is that whichJesus Christ exercises through His redeeming action; the authority of the Church is1. For a comprehensive discussion of Roman Catholic-Lutheron dialogue on this topic, see Paul C.Empie, and T. Austin Murphy, editors. Papal Primact^ and the Universal Church, Lutherans andCatholics in Dialogue V (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974).2. For a more complete discussion of the ideas presented in this section, see E. Kinder, "TheAuthority of Christ in His Church," Authority; and the Church: Papers and Discussions at a Confer-ence between theologians of the Church of England and the German Evangelical Church, edited byR.R. Williams (London: SPCK, 1965), pp. 35-46.1718 Consensussoteriological in function. Article XXVII of the Augsburg Confession of 1530 ADstates:Our teachers hold that according to the Gospel the power of the keys or thepower of bishops is a power or command of God to preach the Gospel, to remitand retain sins, and to administer the sacraments.This power is exercised only by teaching or preaching the Gospel and by admin-istering the sacraments either to many or to individuals, depending on one’scalling.Therefore, ecclesiastical and civil power are not to be confused. The power of thechurch has its own commission to preach the Gospel and administer the sacra-ments. Let it not invade the other’s function . . .The Church is sent into the world by Christ, as he himself was sent by the Father,on a redemptive mission which it pursues with the authority of Christ. However,Christ remains the Head of the Church. Raised, exalted, living, and present, he dis-charges his authority through his Church’s redeeming ministry of the gospel. Theauthority remains his, exercised through the Holy Spirit and operative through thegospel.The nature of the authority which Christ has committed to the Church is that ofhis own saving action. It is an authority founded upon his self-giving, which assertsand vindicates itself through its saving power in the lives of people. By its verynature this authority cannot be coercive but only persuasive. Although this authority,like all others, claims the right to be heard and heeded and to offer encouragement,advice, warning, or criticism, in order to be compatible with the gospel of Christ,these rights must be exercised in humility and love. This is equally true when theChurch is proclaiming the gospel and when it is calling the individual or the societyto recognize God’s judgment upon its sin.The ultimate source of this authority is the Father, the Redeemer of Israel, whosent Christ into the world. Its purpose is to bring all men under the gracious rule ofthe Father as his redeemed covenant community.Closely related to the Lutheran understanding of ecclesiastical authority is theLutheran emphasis upon the freedom of the Christian under the gospel. In his treat-ise on “The Freedom of the Christian” Luther portrays this freedom in the paradox-ical statement: “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. AChristian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” The liberating power ofthe gospel frees the believer from all external authorities and tyranny and unites himwith Christ and his life. This liberation from external authorities includes a freedomfrom the power of ecclesiastical authority to bind the Christian conscience. On theother hand, the life-giving power of the gospel involves the Christian, in union withChrist, in Christ’s own self-giving service to all men.In summary, within Lutheranism the authority of the Church is the redemptiveauthority of Jesus Christ exercised through the ministry of the gospel and the ad-ministration of the sacrament. This authority is to be exercised in humility and aspirit of self-giving which is compatible with the ministry of our Lord; it must in noBishop of Rome 19way be coercive, nor can it infringe upon the freedom of the Christian life under thegospel.This stands in contrast to the Roman Catholic understanding of ecclesiasticalauthority as exercising the royal sovereignty of Christ as Lord which includes theauthority to rule as well as to minister to the Church. In the Catholic understandingof authority, Christ’s will for the Church is expressed and finds concrete form in thedirectives of the Church’s heirarchy, to which has been delegated the powers ofgovernment.PETER AND THE PAPAL OFFICE^In the gospel traditions, Peter occupies a prominent position among the Twelve.He is among the first called to follow Jesus; he is given a new name; he frequentlyserves as the spokesman for the disciples; and he makes a confession of Jesus interms of the first century Jewish messianic expectation which is given a pivotalposition in the structure of the synoptic gospels. In the early Church Peter was iden-tified as the first apostolic witness of the resurrected Lord and figures prominently inthe earliest missionary activity among both the Jews and gentiles and in thedecisions made by the Church.Perhaps more important for Peter’s role in the later development of the Church’sministry are the New Testament images associated with Peter: the Fisherman-missionary (Mt. 4:19); the Shepherd-pastor (Jn. 21:15ff.); the Martyr-disciple(Jn. 21:18f.); the recipient of special revelations (Acts 10:9ff.); the Confessor of theTrue Faith (Mk. 9:29); the Guardian of the Faith who interprets prophecies and cor-rects misinterpretations (II Peter 3:15ff.); as well as the Repentant and RestoredSinner.Although Peter is the most prominent of the Twelve and tradition does associatehim, and Paul, with the Church in Rome, neither of these factors identifies Peterwith the office of the papacy or supports papal primacy. The papal office and papalprimacy are later developments; and, although there is considerable agreement withthe tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome, there is no evidence from the first orearly second centuries that he functioned as a bishop or for the exercise of, or claimto, primacy by the Bishop of Rome based on a connection with Peter. In the NewTestament, Peter shares his leadership role with James in the Jerusalem church andwith Paul in the missionary activity of the apostles. Paul clearly regards himself as apeer and does not hesitate to reprimand Peter when he believes it is necessary. Fin-ally, with reference to Peter’s later career and role in the early Church, the NewTestament remains silent.Although it is anachronistic to identify Peter as the first pope, the association ofthe prominent figures of Peter and Paul with Rome and the rich imagery associated3. The material in this section is based primarily on Raymond E. Brown et.aL, editors Peter in theNew Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (Minn-eapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1973): cf. also Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle,Martyr; A Historical and Theological Essa\> (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953).20 Consensuswith Peter very likely did serve to enhance the role of the Bishop of Rome. Otherfactors which contributed to the prominence of the Roman See include the promin-ence of Rome in the Empire and the role played by the Roman bishop in thestruggle with heresy, a role which often involved him in the life of distant churchesand served as a focus for the unity of Christendom. It is clear that by the end of thefourth and in the early fifth century the bishops of Rome did claim to be the success-ors of Peter, a claim which implied spiritual authority over all other bishops and aleading role in the unity and universality of the Church and the integrity of its faith.'*It is this latter function of the papal office — the so-called “Petrine Function” —which lies at the heart of contemporary ecumenical discussions of the role of thepapacy in a reunified Church. The “Petrine Function” has been defined as the roleof maintaining a balance within the Church between unity and universality. “Inother words, it is to relate local unity to geographic and cultural universality, localunits of the church to the church universal, so that pluralism and pluriformity do notundermine oneness, and unity and uniformity do not destroy diversity.”^SOME REFORMATION PERSPECTIVES ON THE PAPACYLutherans, in reviewing their Confessions, have become increasingly aware thatin spite of the harsh and condemnatory statements of the reformers regarding thepapacy, they were condemning the papacy of their day and not the papacy per se.They rejected only those aspects of the sixteenth century papacy which they con-sidered abuses while continuing to recognize the importance of the “PetrineFunction” and seeking to reform the papal office in the interests of the unity of theChurch. That is, they recognized the symbolical and functional value of the papacyas long as it continued to serve the ministry of the Gospel. The Lutheran reformerswere ready to concede the constructive role which the papacy had played manytimes throughout its history.The chief point of disagreement between the Lutheran reformers and the RomanCatholic Church was the right by which the papal office exists. The Catholic Churchunderstands the papal office as divinely instituted by Christ’s appointment of Peteras the “rock” upon which his Church would be founded. This role of Peter in theChurch of Christ has continued throughout history by means of the succession fromPeter of the bishops of Rome. The Catholic church, therefore, considers the papaloffice to exist by divine right.Lutherans, on the other hand, have traditionally understood the “rock” whichforms the foundation of Christ’s Church as Peter’s confession of faith. Althoughrecent Protestant exegesis has generally agreed that the “rock” must be identifiedwith Peter, it is also agreed that there is no reference here to any successors toPeter. The text speaks only of Peter and the Church without mentioning a contin-uing Petrine office within the Church. Consequently, for Lutherans, the papal office, as4. Empie and Murphy, p. 44.5. George H. Tavard, "What is the Petrine Function?" Papal Primac]^ and the Universal Church,Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, p. 212.6. Cullmann, pp. 206-212.Bishop of Rome 21it developed in the history of the Church, cannot claim to perpetuate the Petrine officeor to exist by divine right.For Lutherans, the papal office, as all other ecclesiastical offices or structures, is ahuman development and, therefore, exists by human right only. Christ alone is theHead of the Church and the divine authority which he exercises through his Church issoteriological rather than sovereign or juridicial in nature. Ecclesiastical authority andstructures exist only to serve the ministry of the gospel and the sacraments. Churchpolity is, therefore, understood to be an adiaphoron, that is, something which is neithercommanded nor forbidden by the Scriptures. No form of church polity is endorsed and,indeed, various forms do exist within world-wide Lutheranism.THE ROLE OF THE PAPACY IN A REUNIFIED CHURCHLutherans today are becoming more conscious of the fact that no church existsin isolation; both individual congregations and church bodies exist in relation to theuniversal Church of Christ. With this growing understanding of the universal natureof the Church there is also a growing desire for a means to more effectively institu-tionalize the “Petrine Function” in the interests of the unity of the Church. Onealternative for the institutionalization of the “Petrine Function” is a Ministry to servethe unity of the universal Church.In response to this emerging need, Lutherans, who are convinced that theChurch lives by the Gospel and its freedom, are free as well to re-examine and re-consider the role of the papal office in exercising the “Petrine Function” in areunified Church. The Lutheran reformers had already desired to reform the papacy inthe interests of serving the unity of Christendom. In the same way, many Lutheranstoday are ready to consider the office of the papacy as one legitimate form — althoughnot the- necessary form — of the “Petrine Function.”There are, however, some typically Lutheran concerns which would have to beresolved before such a recognition of the papal office by Lutherans could take place.First, the Lutheran understanding of the primacy of the gospel would make it necessarythat the papacy be reformed both theologically and practically to make clear its subord-ination to the gospel. On this point, general agreement has already been reached byLutheran and Roman Catholic churchmen.^Second, and closely related to the previous concern, Lutheran recognition of thepapal office would be dependent upon the structuring and interpretation of the papacyin pastoral terms, as serving the ministry of the gospel and the unity of the Church with-out exercising its authority in a manner which could infringe upon the freedom of theChristian under the gospel. In this regard the Second Vatican Council also stressed thepastoral function of the papal office.Third, and perhaps the most difficult issue to resolve to the mutual satisfaction ofCatholics and Lutherans, is the matter of the right by which the institution of the papacyexists. While they recognize that the “Petrine Function” is an integral part of the ministry7. Cf. the Report of the Joint Lutheran - Roman Catholic Study Commission on "The Gospel and theChurch," Lutheran World XIX (1972), pp. 259-273.22 Consensusof the gospel, Lutherans consider the papacy as the institutionalization of this function,as well as all other ecclesiastical structures, to exist only by human right. Their stressupon the primacy of the gospel makes all offices or structures instrumental in function,and, therefore, changeable or dispensible. This means that the papacy could not beconsidered the only legitimate institutional form of the “Petrine Function”.A fourth concern, which has also been expressed by Roman Catholic churchmen, isthat the office of the papacy be understood in functional terms, and, therefore, as aflexible structure which can be adapted to meet changing needs within the Church.A fifth concern is for the need for legitimate diversity within the Church. Lutherans,who understand Christ as exercising ultimate authority as the Head of the Church,maintain that Christ, through the Spirit’s guidance, may lead various members or seg-ments of the Church to develop diverse forms of piety, liturgy, theology, custom, orlaw, arid that the ecclesiastical structures should not restrict such developments or be-come causes of division within the Church. Such healthy diversity serves to build upthe whole Church.A final concern, also addressed by the Second Vatican Council, would be for thedevelopment of collegial responsibility for the unity of the Church which could betterprotect the values and rights of groups within the Church which could be stifled orneglected by excessive centralization.In conclusion, three major areas of discussion will determine the outcome of theLutherans’ reconsideration of the role of the papacy in exercising the “Petrine Function”for the universal Church: (1) the primacy of the gospel; (2) the scope of ecclesiasticalauthority; and (3) the need for a visible manifestation of the unity of the Church, andthe possible alternatives for filling this need.

The Bishop of Rome in a Reunited Church

Scholars Commons

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2239&amp;context=consensus

The Bishop of Rome in a Reunited Church

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wilfrid Laurier University

Scholars Commons