A Service of Love

by Paul McPartlan

Overview

"In three short chapters, McPartlan sums up the complicated ecclesiological problem of papal primacy and its relationship to the eucharist and church unity." —Journal of Ecumenical Studies

"This important study makes the ecclesiological thinking that has matured within the context of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue accessible to a wide readership." —Heythrop Journal

"The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is proving to be the most difficult problem in the ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. This issue can be solved only if the primacy is seen not merely as a juridical reality or as an external appendix to a Eucharistic ecclesiology, but is understood as founded in just such as ecclesiology. Following this line of argument, Paul McPartlan has offered a promising proposal, for which I wish to express my gratitude." —Cardinal Kurt Koch, President, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

"Msgr Paul McPartlan's book constitutes a significant contribution to the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. It combines valuable historical information with deep theological insights by presenting the development of papal primacy in the two millennia of Church history in close connection with collegiality and the Eucharist. A scholarly work with particular importance for the discussion of one of the most crucial issues in ecclesiology and ecumenism. It is warmly recommended for study by all those interested in the promotion of Christian unity." —Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780813228808
Publisher:	The Catholic University of America Press
Publication date:	01/15/2016
Pages:	122
Product dimensions:	4.90(w) x 7.70(h) x 0.50(d)

About the Author

Paul McPartlan is Carl J. Peter Professor of Systematic Theology and Ecumenism at the Catholic University of America. He is a member of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox Church.

Read an Excerpt

A SERVICE OF LOVE

Papal Primacy, the Eucharist, and Church Unity

---

By PAUL McPARTLAN

The Catholic University of America Press

Copyright © 2013 The Catholic university of America Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8132-2135-9

---

CHAPTER 1

PRIMACY, COLLEGIALITY, AND EUCHARIST

From early Christian times, the bishop presided at the Eucharist in each local church. St Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c.107) understood the bishop as imaging Christ in that role: "wherever the bishop is, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." The Apostolic Tradition, a work originating probably in the early third century, likewise gave a Christological understanding of the bishop, who presided over his church and over its Eucharistic celebration, but it showed a development in understanding the bishop also as priestly and apostolic: "now pour forth that power which is from you, of the spirit of leadership that you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which he gave to the holy apostles, who established the church in every place." "[Bestow,] Father, on this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and to exercise the high priesthood for you without blame." With reference to both of these patristic sources, Vatican II defined that "the fullness of the sacrament of orders," namely the "high priesthood," is conferred by episcopal consecration (LG 21) and that "the principal manifestation of the Church" consists in the gathering of the members of the local church around the bishop for the celebration of the Eucharist, together with his presbyterium and ministers (SC 41, cf. LG 26).

It was immediately after the priestly and Eucharistic definition of the bishop in LG 21 that the council gave its teaching on episcopal collegiality in LG 22: "The order of bishops is the successor of the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church" (LG 22). The proximity of these decisive doctrines of Vatican II shows that collegiality is intimately related to the Eucharistic presidency of the bishops.

The council's teaching on collegiality in LG 22–23 was given with many references to St Cyprian, whose teaching on "One Church throughout the world divided into many members" was explicitly quoted (LG 23, note 32). The full passage in Cyprian states: "there is but one Church founded by Christ but it is divided into many members throughout the world; likewise, there is but one episcopate but it is spread amongst the harmonious host of all the numerous bishops." This passage closely resembles Cyprian's teaching in his treatise, De unitate ecclesiae catholicae: "episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur [the episcopate is one, a part of which is held by each (bishop) jointly (with the others)]." Henri de lubac cited the latter phrase (together with a quote from Ignatius of Antioch) when, in 1953, he anticipated the teaching of Vatican II on collegiality and gave a Eucharistic explanation of the doctrine:

Each bishop constitutes the unity of his flock, "the people adhering to its priest, cohering with the heavenly sacraments." But each bishop is himself "at peace and in communion" with his brother bishops who offer the same and unique sacrifice in other places, and make mention of him in their prayer as he makes mention of all of them in his. He and they together form one episcopate only, and all are alike "at peace and in communion" with the Bishop of Rome, who is Peter's successor and the visible bond of unity; and through them, all the faithful are united.

Here, not only the role of the bishops, but also that of the pope, the bishop of Rome, is described Eucharistically. De Lubac followed up this approach when he later argued that the foundational role given by Jesus to Peter was transmittable because, at least in Luke's gospel, it was given "within the framework of the Eucharist," that is, "within the framework of what Jesus wishes to see endure until his return." Thus understood, the universal primacy given to Peter continues in the church precisely as a service to the mystery of the Eucharist and to the communion life of the church that derives from the Eucharist. De Lubac then referred to Matthew's gospel, in which: "it is not so much that Peter is raised by some distinctive power above the rest of the Twelve, but rather that he personally received the same power that will be given jointly to the Twelve (himself included, therefore).... Peter, in this regard, does not appear as a super-apostle but as the apostle in whom, personally, all that is shared or possessed in common by the entire apostolic college is brought together." De Lubac here presents Peter as what might be called a "corporate personality" in whom is concentrated that which is given to the Twelve as a whole.

Vatican II referred to the same combination of passages in Matthew's gospel:

The Lord made Peter alone the rock-foundation and the holder of the keys of the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18–19), and constituted him shepherd of his whole flock (cf. John 21:15ff.). It is clear, however, that the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter (Matt. 16:19), was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head (Matt. 18:18; 28:16–20) (LG 22).

Yves Congar notes that such scriptural parallels were much highlighted by Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) to justify the singular position of Peter among the Twelve: he regularly receives first what is subsequently given to the Twelve including himself. Pope Innocent and many others in the second millennium tended to add, however, that what was given to the Twelve was given through Peter (per Petrum), and therefore that the authority of bishops was simply a share in the pope's own authority. Vatican II actually rejected that interpretation as we shall see below, and inclined more toward the corporate interpretation of de Lubac. For instance, the council taught that while the pope himself is "vicar of Christ" (cf. LG 22), all of the bishops are to be understood as "vicars and legates of Christ (LG 27); "in a resplendent and visible manner, [they] take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd and priest, and act in his person [in Eius persona]" (LG 21, amended trans.), especially in the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. SC 41, above). It may be said, therefore, that the council speaks not just of Peter but also of the pope in terms compatible with the idea of corporate personality: concentrated in the person of the pope is that which is given to the body of bishops as a whole.

Statements about the role of Peter among the apostles readily translate into statements about the role of the pope among the bishops, since in Catholic understanding the pope is Peter's successor in the midst of the college of bishops which succeeds the college of the apostles. The pope is both a member of the college and its head.

Just as, in accordance with the Lord's decree, St Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a unique apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another.... The order of bishops is the successor of the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church (LG 22).

Notable here is the indication that the doctrine of collegiality means that the care exercised by each bishop extends from his own local church to the church as a whole. In other words, each bishop cares not just for his own flock, but has a share in the care of the church as a whole. As members of this college, "the bishops, whilst loyally respecting the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own proper authority for the good of their faithful, indeed even for the good of the whole Church, the organic structure and harmony of which are strengthened by the continued influence of the Holy Spirit" (LG 22; emphasis added). This teaching goes beyond that of Vatican I in which it appears that, while each bishop cares for his own flock, it is the pope alone who cares for the whole flock. It fully concurs with the Eucharistic approach to the episcopate and with the teaching of Cyprian noted above: each bishop's care for his local church which celebrates the Eucharist necessarily extends into care for the whole church which celebrates the same Eucharist, since the Eucharist of its nature is the celebration of the church as a whole; and each bishop correspondingly participates in the common episcopal solicitude for the church as a whole.

If such is the common task of the bishops and the pope personifies the college, as indicated above, it is natural to refer to the pope as having, personally, a solicitude for all the churches. This expression, originally used by St Paul to refer to his own ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 11:28), was repeatedly used by popes in the early church, for example Siricius in the fourth century, and Innocent I and Leo I in the fifth century. Such an understanding of the pope as embodying the college of bishops is likewise reflected in the statement of Gregory I when he refused the title, universalis papa, that would detract from the proper honor of his fellow bishops, and said: "My honour is the honour of the whole Church. My honour is the firm strength [solidus vigor] of my brothers. I am truly honoured when due honour is paid to each and every one."

The tendency since Vatican II to understand the papacy itself Eucharistically has been consistent with the Eucharistic approach to the episcopate that opened the door to the doctrine of collegiality at Vatican II. In line with Vatican II's profoundly Eucharistic approach to the episcopacy, the CDF has stated: "Christ instituted the Eucharist and the episcopate as essentially interlinked realities" (CN 14), and further that the one Eucharist celebrated in many local or particular churches "renders all self-sufficiency on the part of the particular Churches impossible" (CN 11). Local Eucharistic churches are therefore essentially open to one another and the bishops who celebrate the Eucharist in them are essentially in communion with one another. It is Catholic belief that the Lord himself provided for this unity by establishing a specific ministry that would symbolize and serve it, namely the papacy: "the unity of the episcopate involves the existence of a bishop who is head of the body or college of bishops, namely the Roman Pontiff" (CN 12). Thus, it can be said that "the existence of the Petrine ministry, which is the foundation of the unity of the episcopate and of the universal Church, bears a profound correspondence to the Eucharistic character of the Church" (CN 11), and that "[t]he unity of the Eucharist and the unity of the episcopate with Peter and under Peter are not independent roots of the unity of the Church" (CN 14). There is, in fact, a "fundamental mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church," and the ministry of the bishop of Rome is "a necessary expression" of this mutual interiority. That ministry is therefore properly understood as something "interior to each particular Church" (CN 13).

The use of phrases such as "with Peter and under Peter" here further emphasizes the point made above that, in Catholic belief, the pope is the successor of Peter and stands among the bishops as Peter among the apostles. While Irenaeus and Augustine gave lists showing the succession of the bishops of Rome from St Peter, the leading theologian of papal primacy in the first millennium, Pope Leo the Great (440–61), understood himself more strongly as vicar of Peter, though he never actually used the term. Like his predecessors, Damasus and Siricius, he referred to himself in accordance with Roman law as "heir" (haeres) of Peter, albeit "unworthy" (indignus), in whose person Peter was present and through whom Peter still taught. The bishops at the council of Chalcedon (451) expressed a similar understanding in their acclamation after Leo's Tome was read: "Peter has spoken through Leo." After the council, the bishops said that Leo was "the voice to all of the blessed Peter ... imparting the blessedness of his faith to all." A corresponding acclamation was later given at the third Council of Constantinople (681) after the letter of Pope Agatho (678–81) against monothelitism was read by his legates. After that council, the bishops said: "the highest prince of the apostles fought with us: for we had on our side his imitator and the successor in his see ... Peter spoke through Agatho [per Agathonem Petrus loquebatur]." Leo believed, moreover, that as heir of Peter the bishop of Rome inherited the indivisible unity (consortium individuae unitatis) between Peter and Christ. As a result, it was his duty to care for all the churches (cf. 2 Cor. 11:28).

The title, "vicar of Peter," was used by popes up to Innocent III, who adopted the title "vicar of Christ," instead. However, Walter Ullmann considers that Leo's teaching on the consortium between Peter and Christ, and on each pope inheriting that unique relationship, "opened the way to the theoretical exposition of Christ's vicariate in the pope" by the medieval canonists and popes. Indeed, he says, "the medieval papacy was built on the juristic foundations laid by Leo." In due course, Innocent III applied to himself the words of Christ: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18), and, as will be seen below, the idea of the pope having the fullness of power, plenitudo potestatis, became firmly established.

Innocent III used the title "vicar of Christ" to indicate his singular juridical preeminence over the church. As John A. Watt says, he considered that bishops were "the members of a body of which he was the head," and that they "derived their powers from the head." It was, however, a renewed Eucharistic understanding of the church and of the bishop that enabled Vatican II to describe all bishops as "vicars of Christ" (cf. LG 27) as seen above. The continuing use of this title by the pope himself (cf. LG 22) now therefore has Eucharistic rather than monarchical overtones; and, as already suggested it has a corporate sense, too, indicating that the pope sums up in his own person the Eucharistic episcopate as a whole.

In Catholic understanding, as seen repeatedly above, the fundamental identity of the pope is that of "bishop of Rome," not archbishop or patriarch; and this title tends to draw attention to his position vis-à-vis the episcopate as a whole, as a bishop among all the bishops, rather than to his standing among the archbishops or patriarchs. The Catholic Church understands his position to be that of Peter among the apostles, but the real key to his particular role among the bishops as a whole may be said to be the Eucharist: he visibly unites all the bishops who celebrate the one mystery which unites all the Christian faithful. The bishops are united in many different regional groupings, and the juridical structures of the church East and West are very different, but that sacramental unity spans all groupings and all structures, and may therefore be said to be the true context of the universal primacy of the pope. It is urgent for Catholics and Orthodox to discern once again the true characteristics of universal primacy aside from administrative and juridical considerations. The Eucharist can guide us in this vital quest.

Summarizing the view of Joseph Ratzinger, Battista Mondin says: "the primacy of the Pope does not relate either to orthodoxy or to orthopraxis but rather to ortho-Eucharist." In his exchange of letters with Metropolitan Damaskinos, Cardinal Ratzinger noted that the legal terminology of "jurisdiction," etc., belongs to the second millennium, and proposed overcoming the obstacle it presents by returning to titles for the pope used in the patristic era: "first in honor" and "president in love." Honor, he said, is "service, obedience to Christ," and the agape (love) mentioned in the second title, taken from Ignatius's greeting to the church of Rome, "is in the final analysis a eucharistic concept."

If the Church in the very depth of her being coincides with the Eucharist, then the presidency of love carries with it a responsibility for unity, which has a significance within the Church yet, at the same time, is a responsibility for "distinguishing what is Christian" as against worldly society.... [T]he pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but quite the opposite—he always has to try to resist arbitrary self-will and to call the Church back to the standard of obedience; therefore, however, he must himself be first in obedience.

Patrick J. Burns summarizes the consciousness that Leo had of his office in similar terms: it was "much less an assertion of juridical authority than a confession of ultimate responsibility for peace, unity, and purity of faith in the ecumenical Christian communio." As will be seen below, popes repeatedly exercised this responsibility synodically in the first millennium. Around the start of the second millennium, however, they increasingly regarded themselves as having a solitary responsibility in a singular position of preeminence.

CHAPTER 2

THE SECOND MILLENNIUM

It is no coincidence that the schism between Christian West and East occurred at the same time as the eleventh-century Gregorian reform in the West, named after Pope Gregory VII (1073–85), during which a strongly juridical understanding of the papacy developed. Eamon Duffy considers that "Gregory's was a lonely vision of the papacy. Though he often spoke of other bishops as confrater or coepiscopus (brother and fellow bishop) in practice he saw himself fighting a solitary battle, in a world which had turned its back on the demands of the Gospel." It is important to note, however, that the centralization of power in the papacy at this time, increasingly supported by collections of canon law from the late eleventh century onwards, Gratian's Decretum Gratiani or Concordia discordantium canonum (mid-twelfth century) being the most celebrated, was driven not simply by a will to dominate but rather by the desire to eradicate abuses such as lay investiture and simony, and to assert the freedom and purity of the church.

The result, nevertheless, was a reconfiguration of the church, "not as a communion of local churches, but as a single international organization, with the Pope at its head." Pictorially speaking, a pyramid, with the pope at the top, replaced a network of local churches, with the local church of Rome, and its bishop, at the center. Under Gregory's like-minded predecessor, Pope Leo IX (1049–54), Cardinal Humbert went to Constantinople in 1054 guided, as Henry Chadwick says, by an "underlying axiom" that "obedience to papal authority was the key to unlock all ... disputed matters." The mutual excommunications between Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius swiftly followed.
(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from A SERVICE OF LOVE by PAUL McPARTLAN. Copyright © 2013 The Catholic university of America Press. Excerpted by permission of The Catholic University of America Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Abbreviations ix

Introduction 1

1 Primacy, Collegiality, and Eucharist 15

2 The Second Millennium 29

3 The First Millennium and the Future 53

Conclusion 85

Postscript 89

Appendix: Ecumenical Councils 97

Bibliography 99

Index 105