edited by Edoardo Labanchi, former Jesuit (from "I quaderni", Nov. 1997)
Rome, and especially the Vatican City with the church of San Pietro, is considered by many to be "the center of Christianity" due to the presence of the Pope, who is believed to be the head of the Christian Church and whose power, in religious matters, seems almost unlimited. In this regard, in canon 331 of the new Code of Canon Law (published by the Vatican in 1983 and promulgated with the authority of John Paul II) we read:
"The Bishop of the Church of Rome, who exercises the office given by our Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and which is transmitted to his successors, is the Head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ and the Shepherd of the Church Universal on earth. Thanks to this office, he exercises supreme, complete, direct and universal authority over the Church, and can exercise this authority freely at any time ".
This is a literal translation of mine from the original Latin, which, moreover, can be easily consulted by anyone, since the Code of Canon Law is on sale in Catholic bookstores. In canon 333, paragraph 3, it is then stated:
"Contra sententiam vel decretum Romani Pontificis non datur appellatio neque recursus", ie "No appeal or appeal against a sentence of the Roman Pontiff is possible".
As it is then written in canon 338, only the Pope can convoke Ecumenical Councils in which all Catholic bishops are invited to participate. Furthermore, the Pope can interrupt or completely revoke an Ecumenical Council, and it is up to him alone to approve all the decisions or decrees of the Councils. In other words, the Ecumenical or Universal Councils and all the synods of Catholic bishops throughout the world are only consultative bodies, while the Pope always maintains his personal supreme authority with regard to all matters having to do with the doctrine and morals. Local synods mostly have powers in purely administrative matters. It follows that the authority of the bishops completely depends on that of the Bishop of Rome or Pope.
The Code of Canon Law here only summarizes the decisions of the First Vatican Council, convened by Pius IX and held from 8 December 1869 to 20 October 1870, and especially the decrees of the IV session held on 18 July 1870 and which they have to do, in fact, with the authority of the Pope. In this famous session the personal infallibility of the Pope was solemnly defined. Here is the text of this definition, again in my translation from Latin:
"We define that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks 'ex cathedra', that is, when, as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals and which must be believed by the whole Church, because of His supreme apostolic authority, helped as he is by God according to the promise made to blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to enjoy, when he would have defined a doctrine concerning faith and morals. the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are immutable as such and not for the approval of the Church. If anyone dares not to agree with our definition, he must be excommunicated "(Denzinger - Schoenmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, no. 3074).
This means that if one does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope, he is outside the Catholic Church, and if he does not repent, he runs the risk of going to hell.
Until papal infallibility was defined, Catholics might not believe it, but once that doctrine has been solemnly defined by Vatican Council I, all Catholics must accept it.
However, it must be pointed out that before this definition, in the Catholic Church it was believed that only Ecumenical Councils were infallible, when they defined doctrines concerning faith and morals. It was certainly believed that the Pope was the Supreme Head of the Church, but not that he was personally infallible - at least that doctrine was not official. But precisely because of the definition of papal incapacity, things changed radically as far as the constitution of the Catholic Church was concerned. In practice, the Ecumenical Council renounced the authority hitherto recognized to it. It is true that in the Second Vatican Council the role of the Bishops of the Catholic Church was particularly highlighted, but substantially nothing has changed compared to the First Vatican Council,
"The Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops, enjoys this infallibility by virtue of his office when, as supreme Pastor and Doctor of all the faithful, who confirms his brothers in the faith, sanctions with a definitive act a doctrine concerning the faith and morality. Therefore its definitions are rightly called irreformable by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church ... Nor do they admit any appeal to another judgment ".
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992 by the Vatican, reaffirms this concept by citing both the First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council. Those who thought that there were major changes in the official doctrines of the Catholic Church, and particularly with regard to the figure and function of the Pope, will therefore have been disillusioned.
Now, if you tell a Catholic theologian that the New Testament writings do not show at all that Peter, the presumed first Pope, ever exercised supreme authority in the Church, and that the famous passage from Matthew's Gospel in chapter 16 - "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, etc. " - if you tell him that for some centuries this passage was not at all interpreted as the Catholic Church interprets it today, and that we can begin to speak of a real Papacy perhaps from the 5th-6th century onwards; and if you also tell him that you do not explain why it took so many centuries to arrive at the official definition of papal infallibility - if you tell all this to a Catholic theologian, he will answer that in the case of the Papacy, as well as various other doctrines proper to the Roman Catholicism,
In addition to this, the Catholic theologian will tell you that Scripture is not the only source of Christian revelation, but there is also tradition. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses itself in this regard, in paragraph 81, citing the Dogmatic Constitution "Dei Verbum" (The Word of God) of the Second Vatican Council:
"Sacred Scripture is the Word of God insofar as it is put in writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. As for Sacred Tradition, it preserves the Word of God, entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and transmits it integrally to their successors, so that these, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, with their preaching faithfully preserve it, expose it and spread it. Thus it happens that the Church, to which the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, draws its certainty on all things revealed not only by Sacred Scripture. Therefore both (that is, Scripture and Tradition) must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and respect ".
Such a statement reflects what had already been declared by the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, namely that the divine Revelation is contained "in Libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus", that is, "In Written Books (Sacred Scripture) and in unwritten traditions "(Denzinger 1501), in the sense of traditions that are found outside of Sacred Scripture. These traditions are believed to contain the oral teachings of Christ transmitted to the Apostles and not recorded in the New Testament. These oral teachings, always according to Catholic doctrine, were then in various ways put into writing and are found in the so-called "Fathers of the Church", that is the Christian writers of the first four centuries - the writings of the "Apostolic Fathers" are considered of particular importance. ,
But the fact is that on various points the doctrines of the Catholic Church, starting with the Papacy, are very different both from what we deduce from Sacred Scripture and from what we deduce from the "Fathers of the Church". Moreover, some doctrinal divergences between the testimony of the New Testament and the affirmations of the same "Fathers of the Church" are noticed, the more we move away from the apostolic age, that is from the first century. Now, if, as the Catholic documents say, the two sources of divine revelation - Sacred Scripture and tradition - spring from a single source, there should be no such differences; but they still exist, as can be shown.
I have already mentioned that, among other things, the Pope is officially called Vicarius Christi, that is, Vicar of Christ, in the official documents. But what is the meaning of Vicarius? In Latin it indicates who replaces another, takes the place of another, represents another. In this case it means that the Pope represents Christ on earth. We therefore have the clear impression that the Pope could tell everyone what Christ said to Philip about His relationship with God the Father, but naturally changing the terms of the comparison. The Pope could therefore say thus: "Everyone who has seen me has seen Jesus Christ" (see John 14: 9). Of course, Catholics would deny all this, giving themselves to subtle distinctions, but this is precisely what we deduce from their official documents, if the expression "Vicar of Christ" makes sense. In any case, it is a fact that Popes have always tried to take the place of Christ, precisely by virtue of the office they exercised, or rather usurped - whether the Pope is called John XXIII or John Paul II.
Historically speaking, we have no news of any Pope, as he is understood today, for at least five centuries. There were bishops in the Church of Rome, but they had no absolute authority, neither doctrinal nor administrative, over the whole Church - only a General Council, in which at least the majority of the bishops participated, was considered authoritative when defining doctrines concerning the faith and morals. However, we must admit that the Church of Rome always had an important place in Christianity. The reason is that Rome has been the heart of the Roman Empire for centuries. And its importance did not diminish even when Constantine made Constantinople the new political capital of the Empire.
We also deduce this from an important document concerning the position of the Christian Church in the Roman Empire, namely the Edict of Thessalonica, issued by Theodosius I, emperor of the East and by Gratian, emperor of the West, in 380. In October in 382 Theodosius concluded a historic treaty with the Visigoths by admitting them as allied troops within the empire. Furthermore, Theodosius also had to protect his Western colleague from various rivals. However, he went down in history especially for his alleged victory over paganism. In fact, with the famous edict it was declared, at least implicitly, but clearly, that Christianity was now the state religion. But here is the edict as it has been preserved in the Code of Justinian, the
"The emperors Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius to the people of the city of Constantinople. All the nations governed by our Clemenza will remain in that religion which was handed down by the Apostle Peter to the Romans and which is now followed by the Pope Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria and man of apostolic holiness, so that we believe that, according to apostolic teaching and evangelical doctrine, there is only one God, who subsists in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who enjoy the same dignity and therefore constitute the Holy Trinity. We therefore order those who observe this law to take the name of Catholic Christians, while all the others, whom we consider stupid and mad, must be declared heretics. They will be punished by the wrath of God, but also by Our Authority,guided as we are by divine wisdom ".
From this edict we deduce that the Church of Rome was considered by the emperors as an important point of reference with regard to the Christian faith. This faith was that of Damasus, bishop of Rome, and also of the bishop of Alexandria, another important church of the time. But even if the bishop of the church of Alexandria is also mentioned in the edict, it is a fact that the church of Rome acquired more and more importance and the faith professed there was the only faith allowed in the Empire. Therefore the Aryan heretics, who denied the divinity of Christ, were considered outlaws and therefore also liable to judicial penalties. Even the pagans began to be persecuted and between 391 and 392 pagan sacrifices were prohibited and many temples were closed. We can therefore say that for the in 394 Christianity had become a true state religion and that the Empire had been "Christianized", in the sense that being Christian was no longer just a question of personal faith in Christ, but also a political question. And in all this the Church of Rome, with its bishop, had more and more pre-eminence over the other churches.
But for what specific reason did the Bishop of Rome become increasingly important? First of all, according to a tradition that I believe to be reliable, Peter was in Rome and had to exercise his apostolic ministry there. Now, Peter was considered a great leader and his teaching was not disputed, having been one of Jesus' favorite disciples. It followed that in the Church of Rome, where Peter had taught, the truth was certainly professed. From this it also followed that all that was taught in the other churches had to be in accordance with what was taught in the Church of Rome. I am not saying that this was a general and official rule, but this was certainly the tendency of the Christian Church as a whole.
The Church of Rome was therefore considered the "Catholic Church" par excellence, since it doctrinally expressed the faith of the whole Christian Church. and this seems to have been the trend since the second half of the second century, so much so that Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, in his famous work "Conro le Eresie" speaks of the Church of Rome as the "largest and oldest church, known to all, founded and constituted by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul ", and therefore, according to him," every other church must agree with this church because of its greater authority "(Irenaeus, Against the Heresies III, 3, 2) .
Leopoldo Ranke, a famous German historian of the last century, is however right when he states in the first chapter of his "History of the Popes" that "it is a vain claim to assert that the supremacy of the bishops of Rome was universally recognized in the East and in the West from the very first century onwards "; but he immediately adds: "however, it is equally certain that the bishops of Rome soon obtained pre-eminence, rising above all other ecclesiastical dignitaries".
In this regard, there is a very important document - a real milestone in the history of the Papacy - traditionally known as the "Gelasian Decree", because it is attributed to Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492 to 496. This document is presented as the result of a Roman synod held in 494. However, it seems that only a part can be attributed to Gelasius without any doubt. However, what interests us here is that this decree clearly affirms the presumed apostolic origin of the Papacy and insists on the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Christian Church. It explicitly states that, although the Church of Christ, scattered throughout the world, is one, "the Church of Rome has not been appointed to the other churches by some ecclesiastical synod, but he received supremacy from the very voice of our Lord and Savior "(Denzinger 350). So in the document Matthew 16: 18-19 is cited, where Jesus says to Peter:" You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not be able to overcome them. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "According to the traditional Catholic interpretation of this famous passage, Peter was appointed by Jesus as the first Pope or Head of the Universal Church, and his office was also transmitted to his successors in the Roman episcopate. There are also other important churches, but the Church of Rome, with its Bishop, it is the most important and has supremacy over all other local churches - this is what, after all, is stated in the Gelasian Decree. This doctrine on the Papacy was then developed over the centuries until it took its current form in the official documents of the last Ecumenical Councils.
Now, there was some truth in the claim that true faith was preserved in the Church of Rome. In fact, as I have already mentioned, I personally believe that Peter was in Rome, considering the constant tradition in this regard. However, in none of the oldest documents available to us is it written that Peter was considered the Head of the Universal Church and that from Rome he ruled all of Christianity. In particular, Eusebius of Caesarea, bishop and historian, contemporary of the emperor Constantine - we are therefore in the fourth century - speaks of both Peter and Paul as leaders of the Church of Rome, but makes no distinction between them. But here are his words taken from "Ecclesiastical History":
"It seems that Peter preached to the Jews of the diaspora in Pontus, in Galatia in Bithynia, in Cappadocia, in Asia, and, lastly, when he came to Rome he was crucified there with his head down, since he had expressly asked to suffer that kind of death. " Then Eusebius adds: "What about Paul? From Jerusalem to Illyricum he carried out the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and, having accomplished his mission, he later suffered martyrdom in Rome, under Nero ... After the martyrdom of Paul and Pietro, the first who obtained the episcopate of the Roman church was Lino "(III, 1,2-3; III, 2,1 ed. Desclée 1964, p.150). Notice that in the last sentence quoted Paul is mentioned before Peter. IS'
In another passage of his work Eusebius quotes, in turn, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, who makes a list of the bishops of Rome - here is the text:
"The blessed Apostles, who founded and built the Church of Rome, transmitted the episcopal government to Lino, mentioned by Paul in his Letters to Timothy. Lino had Anacleto as his successor. And after Anacleto, third from the Apostles, Clement. Also Clemente had seen the blessed Apostles; he had lived with them, he had heard their preaching with his own ears, and had therefore clearly seen the unfolding of tradition. He was not alone. In his time, many of those who had been still lived taught in the faith of the Apostles ... Clement was succeeded by Evaristo ... "(V, 6, 1-5; ed. cit.pp.366,368; see Irenaeus, Against the Heresies III, 3, 3).
And so on - the list goes as far as Irenaeus' contemporary bishop of Rome. And the conclusion of Irenaeus, quoted by Eusebius, is this: "Through this series of Pastors and their teaching, the tradition of the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us".
Here, too, Peter is not listed as the first bishop of Rome, since he is mentioned along with Paul. This then is not the list of the first Popes, but only of those bishops who were supposed to have well preserved and transmitted to others the doctrine taught by the Apostles. Basically here applies the principle established by the Apostle Paul in the Second Letter to Timothy 2: 1-2, "You then, my son, be strengthened in the grace which is in Christ Jesus, and the things you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust them to faithful men, who are capable of teaching them to others too ".
But - we can ask ourselves - how can we be sure that what has been handed down to the new generations of Christians is always made up of the same authentic teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles?
Irenaeus of Lyons, whom I quoted, and who was also quoted by the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, himself tells us, at the beginning of the third book of his work "Against the Heresy", that the Apostles as a whole, "and each of them had the same Gospel of God. Matthew who was among the Hebrews published the Gospel in Hebrew, while Peter and Paul evangelized Rome and founded the church there. After their disappearance, Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down this that Peter had taught. Luke, Paul's companion, in turn wrote the Gospel that he preached. Later John, a disciple of the Lord, who laid his head on his breast, published his Gospel at the time he was living in Ephesus, in Asia "(Cantagalli ed., Siena 1968, vol. I, p.231).
All this means that, according to Irenaeus, the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles was faithfully reported first of all in the Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament, so much so that Irenaeus often mentions it in his work, because he considered the Scriptures as the absolute point of reference in matters concerning the Christian faith. Oral tradition, said Irenaeus, is useful for those who cannot read; it must also be used when dealing with heretics who do not accept all the Scriptures: they must be indicated what is taught in the churches where the Apostles taught. After all, wrote Irenaeus, "if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures, would it not have been necessary to follow the order of the tradition transmitted by it to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Op.cit. III, 4, 1; ed.cit.vol. I, p. 237). But, thank God, I add here, the Apostles have left us the Scriptures, and we consider the Scriptures as the only authentic source of the doctrines that underlie the Christian faith.
In any case, if there were an authentic tradition outside the Scriptures, such a tradition could never be in contrast with the Scriptures, since God's Revelation is one and without contradiction. But that's exactly the point! In fact, what Roman Catholicism presents as a tradition and genuine revelation of God often contradicts what we read in the Scriptures. In particular, the Scriptures are against the doctrine that the Christian Church should have a universal head who exercises supreme authority over the whole Church, and who would be infallible when defining doctrines concerning faith and morals. As I have already mentioned, apart from the interpretation of the famous passage of Matthew 16: 18-19, it is deduced from the Gospels, from the Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the New Testament that Peter never exercised such supreme authority over the whole Church. And if we want to talk about tradition at all costs, it is a fact that for at least five centuries there has been no Papacy in the Church.
As for the passage of Matthew to which I have referred more than once, I believe that Jesus actually wanted to found His Church on Peter, but not on Peter as an individual, but on Peter as a living symbol of the true Christian. This means that Jesus founded His Church on the faith of Peter, who represents all true believers - Petros, which corresponds to the Aramaic Cephas, which means "rock", as indeed Peter is sometimes explicitly called in the New Testament. In short, it is the rock of his faith placed on the Rock par excellence, that is, on Jesus himself. And Peter's faith was like a rock, because its object was Jesus himself. In this regard, we must keep in mind what Peter himself wrote in his First Letter: "Approaching him (that is, Jesus), living stone , neither in this passage nor in the rest of the New Testament do we find a verse in which Peter is said to be the most important stone based on the Cornerstone which is Christ. In fact, all Christians without distinction are "living stones" based on the living Stone, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. neither in this passage nor in the rest of the New Testament do we find a verse in which Peter is said to be the most important stone based on the Cornerstone which is Christ. In fact, all Christians without distinction are "living stones" based on the living Stone, which is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also interesting are the words addressed by Jesus to Peter, according to Luke 22: 31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has asked you to sift how wheat is sifted; but I prayed for you, so that your faith does not come less; and you, when you are converted, confirm your brothers ". Undoubtedly at the beginning and for some years the Apostle Peter was a leading exponent of the apostolic group, a recognized leader among them, but never a "Pope" with absolute powers over the Church, albeit in the name of the Lord.
The same is true of John 21: 15-19, "When they had breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter:
'Simon of John, do you love me more than these?' He replied, 'Yes, Lord, you know I love you.' Jesus said to him: 'Feed my lambs.' He said again, a second time: 'Simon of John, do you love me?' 'He replied,' Yes, Lord; you know I love you '. Jesus said to him: 'Shepherd my sheep.' The third time he said to him: 'Simon of John, do you love me?' Peter was saddened that he had said the third time: 'Do you love me?' He replied, 'Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you. ' Jesus said to him: 'Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I tell you that when you were younger, you girded yourself and went wherever you wanted; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands and another will gird you and lead you where you don't want to. '
The reference to the fact that Peter had denied Jesus is evident: here we are dealing with the official rehabilitation of the Apostle, who certainly was not the only one who "shepherded the flock" of the Lord. Peter needed those words of comfort, which confirmed his call to the apostolate.
As for Peter's position in the Church of the first century, his relations with the Apostle Paul are worthy of consideration. Chapter 2 of the Letter to the Galatians is very illuminating in this regard. Paul, by divine inspiration, went to Jerusalem to expose the contents of his preaching to the leaders of the Church, the Apostles. It was an opportune verification, considering also that he did not belong to the group of the Twelve and was therefore in the number of Apostles who, like Barnabas and others, in the first century and later would be the leaders of the Church, although not possessing all the characteristics of the Twelve, such as being disciples of Jesus while He was on earth, and eyewitnesses of His resurrection (Acts 1: 21-22).
Paul is placed here on the same level as Peter - "... because He who had worked in Peter to make him Apostle of the circumcised had also worked in me to make me Apostle of the Gentiles", that is, of non-Jews (Ga. 2: 8) . Indeed in verse 9 Peter or Cephas is mentioned between James and John, "who are reputed to be columns", and with Paul Barnabas is mentioned - Paul and Barnabas would have mainly evangelized non-Jews, while the others would have mainly evangelized Jews.
From verse 11 to the end of the chapter we find ourselves then before a Paul who reprimands the alleged "first Pope" in public. In fact, Peter, who no longer observed so many traditional Jewish norms, including that of not eating together with non-Jews, when he noticed the presence of Christian Jews, but still inconsistently observing these norms, he too separated from the non-Jews, but Christians, no longer eating with them, and thus inducing others, including Barnabas himself, to do the same. There was therefore a need for a clarification of ideas both of a doctrinal and moral order, and this was precisely what Paul did, underlining the fact that now the "works of the Law" no longer had the value of the past, because now he had justified himself before God exclusively "
Paul does not tell us what Peter's reaction was, who, however, certainly did not use his alleged "primacy" to justify himself: if he had done so, it would have been too important an event not to be overlooked in that letter. But we do not find here the slightest hint of such a reaction.
All this therefore greatly diminishes the role played by Peter in the Church of the first century: between the position of the Apostle and that of a John Paul II in the Catholic Church of today there is an abyss that not even the most sophisticated arguments of Catholic theology can and can never fill.
It is however a fact that the famous passage of Matthew 16:18 ff. it was not interpreted by Peter himself and the other Apostles as the Catholic Church interprets it today. There is no doubt that Peter played an important role in the first century Church, but only for some time, considering that the Acts of the Apostles are mostly concerned with what Paul did, and in the Scriptures no difference is made between that. what Peter did and what Paul did. Certainly, Peter was used by the Lord to open the door of the Kingdom of God to non-Jews, as we deduce from the episode of the conversion of Cornelius and his family, narrated in chapters 10 and 11 of the Acts of the Apostles; but after that God used Paul and many others, all provided with the "keys" of Gospel to ensure that many could enter the Kingdom of God. Although Peter was an eminent figure among the Apostles, he was never the recognized leader - among other things, a passage from the Acts of the Apostles 8 especially bears witness to this: 14, where we read: "Now the Apostles who were in Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, sent Peter and John there". Note here that the text does not say that Peter, as head of the Apostles and of the Church, sent John, but that the Apostles, taken together, decided to send Peter and John to Samaria.
Furthermore, again in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 11, Peter was called by the other Apostles to give an account of the fact that he had eaten together with an uncircumcised one. Peter, then, did not appeal to his presumed personal authority over the whole Church to justify his attitude, but, like any other Apostle who found himself in a similar circumstance, explained to them that his initiative had been taken following a clear intervention of the Lord (Acts 10).
As for the meaning of Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and all that you have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and all that you have loose on earth will be loosed in heaven", we must take into account especially of the rabbinic terminology used here. In fact, the Greek terms deô (to bind) and luô (to dissolve) correspond respectively to the Aramaic terms asàr and shera ', which refer to the right that the Jewish religious authorities had to declare certain things prohibited or lawful. Furthermore, this faculty included "excommunication", that is, the power to remove from the synagogue those who were deemed unworthy (as, for example, in John 9:22) and to readmit them, if they sincerely repented (see Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munchen, ed. 1982, vol. I, pp. 738 et seq.).
In Matthew 16:19 the faculty to "bind and loosen" thus seems to be a clarification of the power of the "keys of the kingdom of heaven": whoever possesses these "keys" can also "bind and loosen".
It must also be considered that the power given to Peter according to this passage is also given by Jesus to the other disciples according to Matthew 18:18. From this it can be deduced that the holding of the "keys" does not involve a special power granted only to Peter, since this power is identified with that of "binding and loosing", also granted to the other disciples - "I tell you in truth that all things that you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and all things that you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. " These words immediately follow the Lord's dispositions regarding the discipline to be practiced in the Church:
"If your brother has sinned against you, go and convince him between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you will have gained your brother; but if he does not listen to you, take with you another one or two people, so that every word is confirmed by mouth. of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church; and if he refuses to listen to the church as well, both for you as the pagan and the tax collector. I tell you the truth that all the things you bind on earth, they will be bound in heaven, and all things that you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven "(Mt 18: 15-18).
These last words cannot logically be linked to those which follow in verses 19 and 20 and which concern community prayer - they logically follow what was stated from verse 15 to verse 17.
Therefore, taking into account the whole context of the New Testament, we can say that the disciples of the Lord, as far as evangelization is concerned, with the proclamation of the Gospel "bind" that is, they declare that a particular person is still bound by sin and by ignorance, if he has not accepted the Gospel, believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and therefore "close" the Kingdom of God to such a person; or "dissolve", that is, they declare that a person is free from sin and is a son or daughter of God, because he believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior, after sincerely repenting of his sins - in this case, the Christians who evangelize, " they open "the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the power to" bind and untie " it also includes the power of a local church to exercise discipline against its unworthy members who have committed public sin. The church, through the presbytery or group of Elders, can put one of its members "out of communion" by not admitting him to the Lord's Supper until he has sincerely repented of the wrongdoing, and then can be readmitted (see 1Co. 5: 1 -5; 2Co.2: 5-11). When Christians exercise such functions according to God's will, their every decision or declaration is endorsed by Him. not admitting him to the Lord's Supper until he has sincerely repented of the wrongdoing, and then can be readmitted (see 1Co.5: 1-5; 2Co.2: 5-11). When Christians exercise such functions according to God's will, their every decision or declaration is endorsed by Him. not admitting him to the Lord's Supper until he has sincerely repented of the wrongdoing, and then can be readmitted (see 1Co.5: 1-5; 2Co.2: 5-11). When Christians exercise such functions according to God's will, their every decision or declaration is endorsed by Him.
Peter therefore, strictly speaking, had no particular power, but based on his declaration of faith which he first clearly formulated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he had only the privilege of being the first to exercise that power on various occasions such as, for example, with his speech on the day of Pentecost, when thousands of people converted, and with his mission to the centurion Cornelius, which constituted the first step towards the admission of non-Jews into the Church.
These texts, finally, must be considered in the light of John 20: 21-23, "Then Jesus said to them again: Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Having said this, he breathed on them and he said: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whom you forgive sins, they will be forgiven; and whoever you hold them, they will be retained. " This cannot mean anything else - I repeat - that Christians can declare that a person has been delivered from his sins, if he believes in Jesus Lord and Savior and has sincerely repented of such sins, or that he remains in a state of sin if he refuses to to believe. In fact, Jesus refers to the evangelization that He entrusts to His disciples.
From all this it follows that the traditional Catholic interpretation of the passage in question is wrong, because it is conditioned by the Catholic doctrine on the Papacy, which was affirmed not by obedience to the Word of God, but by a long and complex historical process, which here it would be difficult even to summarize, considering the limits of this monograph.
However it is very interesting, at this point, to know the thought of some Christian writers of the first five centuries on this question: we are faced with a "tradition", which is usually in contrast with the current Catholic doctrine on the Papacy.
Let's just give some examples here. I have already referred to the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, a contemporary of the Emperor Constantine: Eusebius, in the mid-fourth century, knows nothing of a primacy of the bishop of Rome or Pope, much less of his personal infallibility. But let's go to a few centuries earlier, to Origen, a famous and controversial doctor and writer, who lived between the second and third centuries. Here is what he wrote about the famous passage of Matthew 16:18 ff .:
"If we too have said like Peter, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God', without this being revealed to us by the flesh and blood, but by the light coming from the Heavenly Father and shining in our hearts , we become Peter, and therefore we too might be told by the Word, 'You are Peter, etc.' For every disciple of Christ is a stone or a rock, from which those who drank from the spiritual rock following them drank, and on each of these rocks every word of the Church is founded ... But if you suppose that the whole Church of God is built only on Peter, what would you say of John, the son of thunder, and of each of the Apostles? ... The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given only to Peter? ... If then the promise 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven 'has been done to others too, so is it not possible that everything that was said before to Peter has also been said to them? ... Whoever imitates Christ receives the nickname' Peter '(see Origen, Commentary on Matthew, par. 10-11).
Also according to Tertullian, who also lived between the 2nd and 3rd centuries, "Peter" is a symbolic name given to Simon, as the Apostle had to represent the believer in Christ, who bases his life exclusively on Christ, the Stone or Rock par excellence. "The name also changes to Peter", wrote Tertullian, "from that of Simon, which he had, since the Creator too had changed the names of Abraham, Sarah and Hosea ... But why did he call him Peter? for the vigor of faith, many materials and solids could have given him a name from their substance. Or maybe not because Christ is Stone and Stone? If it is true that we read that He was placed as a stumbling block and a scandal stone .. Therefore he tried to communicate his name to his dearest disciples in a very particular way,
The famous writer then specifies his thought thus, commenting precisely Matthew 16:18 ff. :
"'Upon you - He says - I will build my church', and 'I will give you the keys', and 'all that you will loose or bind' ... The Church therefore was built on Peter himself, that is, by Peter himself ; Peter himself used the key - but what key? Here is what key: 'Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus the Nazarene, Man whom God has credited among you ...', etc. (Acts 2:22 Peter himself, therefore, was the first, through the baptism of Christ, to open wide the door of the Kingdom of Heaven, in which the sins that were once 'bound' are 'dissolved', and those that have not been 'dissolved. 'are' linked 'to true salvation "(Tertullian, De Pudicitia or Sulla Modestia 21).
Tertullian, therefore, while believing that Christ built His Church on Peter, saw in the Apostle only the one who had the privilege, first, of being the instrument of the conversion of the first pagans. In other words, he did not see in the famous "keys" an absolute power conferred by Christ on Peter and his successors over the Church.
The position of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is very particular, again in this regard - we are thus in the middle of the third century. He fits into the ranks of Christian writers of the early centuries, occupying a place of considerable importance. He is best known for his work "On the unity of the Church". In this treatise we have the first "theology of the Church", evidently formulated under the pressure of heresies which tended to undermine the union of Christians. Cyprian's drastic expressions are therefore explained, such as the one that has remained famous: "Habere non potest Deum patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem", that is, "He cannot have God as Father who does not have the Church as mother". But what did Cyprian mean by Church? It is undoubtedly the "Body of Christ", the together of all believers in Jesus Lord and Savior. According to him, there can no longer be "Christian churches", in the sense of churches separated from each other, with their own doctrines and with their own independent organization, not to mention obviously "heretical churches". "One is the Church - affirms Cyprian - as it extends out to sea embracing a great multitude for its growing fecundity. It is like the sun, which has many rays, but only one is the light source" (Cyprian, The unity of Chiesa, 5 - 6; Città Nuova ed., Rome 1967, pp. 83, 85). with their own doctrines and their own independent organization, not to mention of course "heretical churches". "One is the Church - affirms Cyprian - as it extends out to sea embracing a great multitude for its growing fecundity. It is like the sun, which has many rays, but only one is the light source" (Cyprian, The unity of Chiesa, 5 - 6; Città Nuova ed., Rome 1967, pp. 83, 85). with their own doctrines and their own independent organization, not to mention of course "heretical churches". "One is the Church - affirms Cyprian - as it extends out to sea embracing a great multitude for its growing fecundity. It is like the sun, which has many rays, but only one is the light source" (Cyprian, The unity of Chiesa, 5 - 6; Città Nuova ed., Rome 1967, pp. 83, 85).
Guarantors and pillars of this unity are, in his opinion, the Bishops or heads of local communities:
"It is precisely this unity that we bishops, who are at the head of the Church, must firmly preserve and defend, and this so that we can prove that the episcopate is also one and undivided" (ibidem).
Cyprian proves that "the episcopate is one and undivided" by relying on his interpretation, extremely interesting, of the famous text of Matthew 16: 18-19.
The fundamental difficulty in Cyprian's interpretation of the famous passage is that it has reached us in two different editions which, according to some experts, could very well be both due to the author of the whole work. Here they are:
pp. 80-81).
As is clear, the first edition is not very "Pietrina", while the other seems to even affirm a universal primacy of Peter and his successors. However, the fact remains that even in the "Pietrine" text it is not clear that Cyprian had already outlined a clear doctrine on the Papacy. In his interpretation, in fact, the reason why the primacy was given to Peter is that the Apostle was to be a symbol of the unity that was to reign in the Christian Church. Particularly it does not appear at all that Cyprian admitted the existence of "successors of Peter", in this particular symbolic function of his.
The local Church, governed by the bishop or pastor and by the college of elders (presbyters) thus enjoyed ample disciplinary and organizational freedom. In this case, the famous controversy over the baptism of heretics is significant.
Around the middle of the third century, the question of the validity of baptism conferred by heretics arose: should those who came from a heresy and converted, have to be rebaptized? Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, together with the African bishops, has no doubts about:
"If the Church, since she is one and indivisible, has no place among heretics; if the Holy Spirit is not found with them, since he is one and cannot be with profane people and outside, evidently not even baptism, which on the same unity, he can stay with heretics, for the reason that he cannot subsist detached from the Church and from the Holy Spirit ... What claim is this to argue polemically that it is possible to be children of God without being born in the Church? It is in baptism, in fact, that the old man dies and is born again: the Apostle gives clear testimony: 'He has saved us by a wash of regeneration' (Titus 3: 5) "(Epistle 74,4, 2) ; 74, 6,1; in "The Letters", ed. Paoline 1979, pp. 483,484).
A council of bishops meeting in Carthage in 255 confirmed Cyprian's position.
However Stephen, bishop of Rome, thought the opposite and did not intend to change his mind: "Keep to tradition! If heretics come to you, lay hands on them to welcome them in penance" (words of Stephen reported by Cyprian in the Epistle 74, 1,2; cit. Ed. P. 479). He even threatened to consider anyone who had acted differently outside of fraternal communion.
Cyprian, however, was also adamant, not recognizing Stephen the authority to impose his ideas on others. Referring therefore to the attitude of the bishop of Rome, he asks himself:
"If this is how God is honored; if the fear of God and the discipline of his worshipers and bishops are thus respected, let us lower our weapons, extend our hands to chains, surrender to the Devil the law of the Gospel, the order traced by Christ, the very majesty of God. Let us dissolve the oath of the divine militia, let us lower the flags of the celestial encampment. Let the Church bend and surrender to heresy, light to darkness, faith to impiety, hope to mistrust, truth to error, immortality to death; in the face of hatred charity falls, lies truth, Christ to the Antichrist "(Letter 74, 8, 3; ed. cit. p. 487).
Of course, these are not words to be addressed, albeit indirectly, to the Bishop of Rome, to one of the first "Popes" ...
In reality, Cyprian did not recognize the bishop of Rome as supreme authority over the whole Church; in fact he rather appealed to Scripture, denying the validity of the tradition invoked by Stephen:
what extravagance it is to fail to consider people who clearly, as the Apostle confirms, condemn themselves as worthy of condemnation! "(Letter 74, 2, 2-3; cit. Ed. Pp. 480,481).
Here, then, is that the bishop of Carthage proclaims the clear superiority of Scripture over tradition - indeed, Scripture must be the only absolute point of reference in questions concerning faith and morals - even if Cyprian himself, as we will see later has not always been consistent with this position.
Even more complex is the position of Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354-430 AD) and considered "holy" by the Catholics. At first he had thought that the Church was founded by Christ on Peter as a person, but he later changed his mind. In fact, in the "Portraiture", a work in which he revises his theological opinions, he explicitly states:
"In a passage of this book (his commentary on the Gospel of Mt.) I said of the Apostle Peter: 'Upon him as on a rock, the Church was built.' the Lord: 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church' - this is to be understood in the sense that He would build the Church on what Peter confessed by saying, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God' Therefore Peter, so called from this rock, received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact it was said to him 'You are Peter' and not 'You are the Rock'. as the whole Church does, Simon was called Peter "(Augustine, Ritrattazioni, 20, 1).
Elsewhere the bishop of Hippo specifies his thought even more: The name of Peter was given to him by the Lord, because it was to symbolize the Church. In fact, if Christ is the Rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people ...
"Peter therefore is so called by the Rock, not the Rock by Peter, just as Christ is not called Christ by Christian, but Christian by Christ. 'So,' He says, 'You are Peter and on this stone', you have confessed, on this stone that you recognized by saying, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church', that is, on Myself, the Son of the living God, 'I will build my Church'. I will build you on Me, not Me on you. Men eager to build on men say: 'I am of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Peter.' But others, who did not want to be built on Peter, but wanted to be built on the Rock , they said: I am Christ's "(Sermon XXVI, 1-4).
Undoubtedly Augustine exalted, perhaps too much, the role of Peter in the Church of the first century, but in his works there is no trace of the Papacy, in the sense that the illustrious theologian never claimed that the bishop of Rome was the infallible head of the Universal Church.
(Note: when not otherwise indicated, the "patristic" quotations are taken from William Webster, Peter the Rock, ed. Christian Resources Inc., Battle Ground, Wa, USA 1996 - it is an important anthology of texts concerning exegesis of Mt 16:18 ff.).
No comments:
Post a Comment