Status Updates From The Primacy of Peter: Essay...

...Furthermore, there is not a special distinction between a local church and a universal (or "Catholic") Church, as every local church embodies the universal "Church" in it's entirety.

"The idea of a universal church, in which each local church is only a part of a larger whole, is not the teaching of the New Testament Neither is the concept of Peter's trans-apostolic authority."

It is clear, based on the included excerpts from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, that Peter ALONE is the rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church.

There is a line drawn between the Apostles as founders, and the bishops as their successors. Their successors are "first after" not "second to."

Therefore, Peter's status as "the rock" is not transmitted to his successors.

Nor, is there a special primacy.

The issue which is at the root of all earlier and later Christian divisions (specifically Orthodox and Catholic divisions): "What comes first, the institution guaranteeing the truth, or Truth itself?"

Koulomzine, like Afanassieff, tends to to willingly draw conclusions from limited evidence, but his overview of Peter in the post-Ascension period is helpful, if not eye-opening.

Finished Afanassieff, who creates a false dichotomy between Eucharistic and universal ecclesiology, and between the local church and the universal church. If his claim about the impossibility of a primacy of power were so, Orthodox metropolitans and patriarchs will have been heretics far longer than the schism.

Unconvincing in the least.

Afanassieff makes so many unwarranted leaps and ill-founded judgements it is quite frustrating to read him.

Afanassieff never quite makes his case that Eucharistic and Universal ecclesiologies are incompatible. Many problems with his overall argument but very interesting nonetheless.

Starting Afanassieff, who takes a close look at St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology. Afanassieff concludes that the logic of church councils presupposes primacy, similar to Met. Zizoulas’ argument that synodality presupposes primacy, and so the an ecumenical council implies a universal primacy. Very promising essay.

Finished Schmemann: he has little room for the universal dimension of the church; and if this causes him to reject the power of Rome, he is still harsher on his own Orthodox for autocephalies, for synodal governance etc.

He does have a role for the universal church, but it is purely relational and testimonial.

Importantly, S. recognises that Rome does/did hold a universal primacy in the Church.

Excellent essay.

Half-way through Schmemann - he becomes more debateable when he comes to the contrast between the local church (under a bishop) and the universal church. Although S. rightly rejects the "parts and whole" ecclesiology, the role of the universal is quite limited - he concludes the local is not isolated, with no need of the other churches, but it's not clear exactly why. At the least, the local church is predominant.