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

by John Meyendorff (Editor)

In considering the issue which has divided Christians in the past and still divides them today, a group of Orthodox theologians from different theological perspectives reflect upon the scriptural passages which single out Peter among the disciples of Jesus. Koulomzine ("Peter's Place in the Primitive Church") and Kesich ("Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition"), as exegetes, read the passages in the light of contemporary New Testament research. John Meyendorff ("St Peter in Byzantine Theology") looks at the history of how were these passages read at the time when East and West split, quarrelling about the issue of authority in the Church? Finally, Schmemann ("The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology") and Afanassieff ("The Church Which Presides in Love") look at the meaning of "primacy" as a permanent, through changing, factor of "catholic" ecclesiology. At a time when an ecumenical reconciliation between Rome and Eastern Christianity appears possible'but when new tensions (or are they actually the old ones?) are surging again'these studies set forth the Orthodox position of the primacy of Peter. John Meyendorff is dean and professor of church history and patristics at St Vladimir's Seminary; Alexander Schmemann (†1983) was dean of St Vladimir's Seminary and taught church history and liturgical theology (1962-1983); Nicholas Afanassieff (†1966) was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris; Nicholas Koulomzine is a professor of New Testament at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris; Veselin Kesich is professor emeritus of New Testament at St Vladimir's Seminary.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion

182 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1963

About the author

Fr John Meyendorff (1926-1992) was a Professor of Church History and Patristics at St Vladimir s Orthodox Theological Seminary, and a professor of History at Fordham University, NY. He was a Fellow of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1976-77), and a Guggenheim Fellow. He held honorary doctorates from the University of Notre Dame and General Theological Seminary, was a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and a Senior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks. In 1990 The Diploma of Honorary Member of the Leningrad Theological Academy was bestowed upon him.

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is really Meyendorff and Schmemann who are valuable in this collection. Affanasieff attempts to eliminate Peter's primacy entirely, but he is unpersuasive and sloppy in his argumentation. Koloumzine makes an interesting argument that Peter's Primacy (and his role as the rock, the foundation of the Church) was limited to the period of his residency in Jerusalem among the Twelve Apostles; this too suffers from drawing unmerited conclusions on very thin lines of evidence.

Overall, there are important elements here for those interested in ecumenical ecclesiology, but Catholics will find the rejection of "universal ecclesiology" in Schmemann and Affanasieff to be problematic.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bible-believing Protestants are at their most ecumenical with the Christian East when it comes to countering the claims of Rome. The five essays by Eastern Orthodox scholars showcase the Christian East's understanding of primacy; the first two essays focus primarily on St. Peter in Scripture while the remaining three delve into history, tradition, and theology. I found the last two essays (by Nicholas Afanassieff and Alexander Schmemann) to be most interesting though Afanassieff's influential piece 'The Church Which Presides in Love' is at times unwieldy (and I believe this was my second time reading it).

Some of the recurring insights in these essays is the observation that in the New Testament church Peter's prominence in Jerusalem eventually appears to give way to that of St. James, the brother of Jesus (and indeed, Jerusalem itself seemingly being the most important city for the church, not Rome). Orthodox theologians do agree that Peter held a distinctive position of leadership but they disagree that this same unique authority was granted to his purported successors (the bishops of Rome). An interesting point made is that although Matthias was chosen to replace the traitorous Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve Apostles, there was never an attempt to maintain an authoritative "Twelve"; Jesus' twelve disciples were unique and, like Peter who was one of them, held unique authority. Another major emphasis of Afanassieff and Schmemann is the difference between the "universal ecclesiology" pronounced by Roman Catholicism with the pope at the head and the "eucharistic ecclesiology" that these Orthodox theologians argue was the ecclesiology of the early church but which was abandoned or forgotten over the years due to the rise of Byzantine theocracy, autocephaly, and religious nationalism. According to Afanassieff, "Eucharistic ecclesiology teaches that the unity and fullness of the Church attach to the notion of a local church, and not to the fluid and indefinite notion of the Universal Church. The Eucharist is where Christ dwells in the fullness of His Body: the Eucharist could never have been offered in a local church if it had been no more than one part of the Church of God" (p. 110). Schmemann's discussion of the decline of eucharistic ecclesiology over the centuries reminds me somewhat of Henri de Lubac's work on the "Mystical Body of Christ" and makes me wonder what fruitful comparative scholarship there is between and about these two eminent theologians.

I will admit, being raised in the Christian West, at times I can find the "plain reading" of New Testament texts to be seemingly more supportive of the Catholic view of primacy. At times the Orthodox positions can be somewhat convoluted to me - Afanassieff advocates "priority" but not "primacy," there is an important role for the Roman pontiff and yet not in the way that Rome envisions, etc...Still, this is an invaluable collection of essays on papal primacy and ecclesiology presented in an irenic and respectful tone.

[Evandro · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides essential insight for understanding the idea of primacy and its errors both in Roman and Orthodox churches. Although the Roman Church seems to be more deeply and qualitatively wrong than the Orthodox Church, in both churches the idea of primacy was shaped by the State as an acting force in the world, therefore pushing the Church of Christ away from its real function as the Body of Christ manifested in this world but not of this world.

[Louie Hogan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don’t have much to say at the moment, as I will be providing further commentary in my follow up to Peter and Popes: Part 1, which is what this reading is purposed to prepare me to respond to.

For now, all I have to comment is that the brilliance of the Orthodox shine through in clear and compelling ecclesiology that is both challenging and acceptable.

[Ethan D Good · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very thought-provoking book, and it didn't go in the direction I thought it would at all.

The first 3/5 chapters demonstrate a very traditional Orthodox view of the primacy of St. Peter that can easily be summed up as follows:
• Peter was undoubtedly the leader of the Apostles, but his primacy was not one of supreme authority over the others, but a cooperative/conciliar authority in that, Peter's views always represented and were followed by the agreement of the whole Church.
• There is no real evidence that Peter's primacy was akin to that of the modern Papal Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction. The only reasonable explanation for these Papal qualities is that they developed.
• There is no singular "chair of Peter" (like the Roman See) but every bishop sits upon the chair of Peter, as they share the same witness of Peter (that being "Jesus as the Christ, Son of the living God.)
• Peter is the rock on which Christ built His Church, but Peter's status as the Rock, and subsequently his Apostle status (along with the other Apostles) cannot/isn't passed down to the bishops. The bishops simply pass along, in perpetuity, the revelation of Christ and the Apostles... so no new revelation for bishops.

The latter two chapters of this book gave me much to think about...

First of all, the authors describe two "opposing" ecclesiologies in the Church, that being Eucharistic Ecclesiology and Universal Ecclesiology.
Eucharistic Ecclesiology is the idea that every local church represents the "whole Church" on a universal level. Each local church is not a "part" of the "whole" universal Church, but the in themselves is also "whole." As the authors describe, it is not a "1+1=2" but a "1+1=1."

This ecclesiology is said to be incompatible with Universal Ecclesiology, most often the Catholic version of it, universal ecclesiology suggests that all of the local churches are simply local "parts" of a common universal "whole." I completely disagree with this idea and find it to be dishonest as, according to the Catholic Church holds to this same belief that local churches all have the fullness of the Faith individually, just as the universal "whole" does. Therefore, Catholic Universal Ecclesiology does not contradict, in any way, the authors idea of "Eucharistic Ecclesiology."

Finally, I was surprised to read that while the Catholic's universal ecclesiology is considered a deviation from the early Church's eucharistic ecclesiology, the authors make clear that the Orthodox Church has failed in this as well, claiming that national autocephalies are merely another culmination of the same "disease." The desire of the authors is that the Orthodox Church would return to the eucharistic ecclesiology of the early Church, since unlike the Catholic Church, they're ecclesiology has yet to be dogmatized.

This conclusion was a big realization for me that not even the Orthodox Church has succeeded in representing the unchanged early Church, but that she has her flaws as well, specifically a poor church governance unlike that of the early Church.

Before this conclusion, I must admit that the book was doing a good job at "selling" the Catholic ecclesiology as much more logical and effective when compared to the modern-day, dysfunctional Orthodox ecclesiology (in my opinion), so what do we do when both Churches have been "naturalized" into universal ecclesiology?

Is Eucharistic Ecclesiology even a dogma we should return to when the Orthodox never held to it in a dogmatic way to begin with? I say this because, also tellingly, the authors claim that there is no Nicene Creed-style or Christology-style confession of ecclesiology, even prior to the Great Schism. In fact, the authors also admitted that the East's rejection of Rome was merely due to "instinct" and was "helped by violent anti-Roman feelings among the Easterners, and by the whole alienation and estrangement of the West from the East. It is well-known today what atmosphere of hatred, mutual suspicion and bitterness accompanied the doctrinal controversies, adding an emotional dimension to the dogmatical rupture."

The solution, as presented in the book, is a return to Eucharistic Ecclesiology as it is understood in the early Church, but what do we do until then? Does ecclesiology even matter in the debate between Catholics and Orthodox at this point, if both have been "infected" by universal ecclesiology? Finally, whoever said universal ecclesiology, if it is clearly compatible with this idea of eucharistic ecclesiology, is such a bad thing anyway? Maybe there is an argument to be made that we should return the the first century format, which was lost long before the Great Schism, but if you asked me who's ecclesiology in modernity is more effective, it is clearly the Catholic Church. We'll see how much that matters to the overall back and forth...

[Joshua Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very powerful yet consice book about Orthodox Ecclesiology. It tackles the issue and meaning of primacy, it does this by analysing the history of the primitive Church, particularly referencing the New Testament, as well as Peters' role in it all. It then speaks more theologically, building the case for a "Eucaristic" Ecclesiology, which is a more wholistic understanding of both history, and the Christian faith, which puts Christ, and the unity found within His mystical body at the centre. This is in contrast to the Roman Catholic understanding of primacy (Universal Ecclesiology), where there is a primacy of an individual over the Church, and the source of unity and infallibility is found in him, and as a consequence, his primacy gives his church (Rome) primacy, and from him being the one head, each local church is seen a part of the whole, not possessing the fullness of Christ in itself.

As outlined in this book, we see the Orthodox view is very different, although without rejecting primacy wholesale. In this model we see the Church existing in true unity, a Church presiding in love, it does this fractally, each local church (under a bishop) possesses the fullness of the Church and is therefore the one true Church in of itself. This is because each Church, in communion with their bishop, partakes in the fullness of Christ sacramentally in the Eucarist, to say one can paryake in the Eucarist, and not partake in the fullness of thr Church, is to contradict the basic theology that Christ cannot be divided, so to partake in the Eucarist, is to partake fully in Christ, not a part of Him. In light of this, the primacy that exists between local Churches is not a primacy over any, as it would mean to be over the Church in it's fullness. Instead, the word "priority" is used for ease of differentiation, this is what is meant by a "first among equals", originally this was the Church sojourning in Jerusalem, it later moved to Rome, in both cases it is due to the connection these Churches had to the Apostles, and as it followed, their experience with the faith. After many of the Christians fled Jerusalem, the Church in priority moved to Rome as it had preserved the faith such that all Churches should agree with them as St Irenaeus writes. This fractal pattern is also seen among the many autocephalous Churches (e.g. Antioch, Ephesus etc) in relation to their surroundings. Christianity penetrated the big metropolitan areas first, then spread to the less important settlements, in similar fassion, these smaller less experiences Churches had in the first place, the main Church that likely planted them. From this is is not the individual with primacy that gives honor to the Church, but the Church, which then gives the honor to the particular bishop.

I could go on, but this is becoming less of a review. It's very good.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

The essays by Meyenforff and Schmemann were very good, and acknowledged difficulties due to certain historic periods, such as the council of Florence, but the others seemed to take the Fathers out of context, and not seriously consider diverging perspectives. Good overview of the current Orthodox Christian outlook on Peter's Primacy in contrast to the Catholic view of Supremecy.

[Caden Cramsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good Orthodox understanding of primacy

[Gregory · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this book is a collection of essays by Eastern Orthodox writers, it is useful for Protestants who are rediscovering their family history, namely the history of the Church. The Orthodox churches have preserved many ancient traditions. We should seek to understand them, at the least, and not dismiss them out of hand. There is also much valuable information for countering the claims of Roman Catholics. The Orthodox claim to be "catholic," but not Roman. There is a plethora of misinformation about Romanc Catholicism, and the authors in this volume write in an irenic and sympathetic tone. They sincerely desire unity among all Christians, and not mere platitudes about "catholicity." For some, "catholicity" seems to mean that we can all just affirm the Apostle's Creed, and then go our separate ways. This is not what "catholicity" meant to the Church Fathers, nor do I believe the Apostles would be pleased with our reductionism. Lastly, for those of us in the CREC, I believe this book contains gems of insight into the importance of the "local church," and how the primacy of the local church relates to "catholicity." Highly recommended for the stout of heart!