[Russia and the Universal Church] [Previous] [Next]
This is not the place to set forth the whole historical development of the Papacy or to quote the copious testimony borne by Orthodox tradition to the lawfulness of the papal sovereignty in the Universal Church. In order to demonstrate the historical basis of our argument to those of our readers who are not familiar with Church history, it will be enough to dwell upon a single epoch memorable in the history of the Papacy, an epoch which is sufficiently primitive to command the respect of our Orthodox traditionalists and which at the same time stands revealed in the broad daylight of historical knowledge and documentary evidence and so presents no obscurity or ambiguity in its essential outlines. The epoch in question is the middle of the fifth century, the period when the Roman Church had so worthy a representative in Pope St. Leo the Great.
It is interesting for us to note the conception which this Roman pontiff, who is also a recognized saint of the Greco-Russian Church, had of his own authority and how his assertions were received in the Eastern part of the Church.
In one of his sermons, after reminding his hearers that Christ is the only pontiff in the strict sense of the word, St. Leo continues thus; “Now He has not abandoned the care of His flock; and it is from His supreme and eternal authority that we have received the abundant gift of apostolic power and His succor is never absent from His work . . . For that firmness of faith which was commended in the prince of the Apostles is perpetual, and as that which Peter believed on in Christ endures, so does that which Christ established in Peter endure also (et sicut permanet quod in Christo Petrus credidit, ita permanet quod in Petro Christus instituit) . . . The dispensation of the truth therefore abides; and the blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the Rock wherewith he has been endowed, has not abandoned the reins of the Church which he received . . . Thus, if we act or decide justly, if by our daily supplications we obtain aught of the mercy of God, it is the work and the merit of him whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see.” And speaking of the bishops gathered at Rome for the feast of St. Peter, St. Leo says that they have desired to honor by their presence “him whom they know not only to preside in this see (of Rome) but also to be the primate of all the bishops.” 1
In another sermon, after expressing what may be called the fundamental truth of the Church, that in the sphere of the inner life of grace all Christians are priests and kings, but that differences and inequalities are necessary in the outward structure of the mystical body of Christ, St. Leo goes on to say: “And yet out of the whole world Peter alone is chosen to be set above the assembly of all the nations, above all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church, to the end that though among God’s people there are many priests and many pastors, yet all might be duly governed by Peter, being ultimately governed by Christ. Behold, dearly beloved, how great a share (magnum consortium) in His own power was bestowed by the will of God upon this man, and if God willed that the rest of the Apostles should share aught in common with him, yet it was through him that He bestowed whatever He did not withhold from the others . . . And I say unto thee: that is to say, as My Father has revealed unto thee My Godhead, so I make known to thee thy pre-eminence; that thou art Peter: that is to say, though I am the inviolable Rock, though I am the Corner-stone Who have made both one, though I am the Foundation other than which none can be laid, yet thou also art the Rock strengthened by My might and so sharing in common with Me that which I possess by My own power.” 2 “The power of binding and loosing was handed on to the other Apostles also and through them to all the rulers of the Church; but not for nothing was a single individual entrusted with what belongs to all . . . Peter is fortified with the strength of all and the assistance of divine grace is so ordered that the stability bestowed by Christ on Peter is conferred by Peter on the Apostles.” 3
As Peter shares in the sovereign authority of Christ over the Universal Church, so the bishop of Rome who occupies the see of Peter is the living representative of this authority. “Peter does not cease to preside in his see and his consortium with the Eternal Pontiff never fails. For that steadfastness with which he was endowed, when he was first made the Rock, by Christ Who is Himself the Rock, has passed to his successors, and wherever any stability is manifest it is beyond doubt the might of the supreme Pastor which is in evidence. Could anyone consider the renown of blessed Peter and yet be ignorant or envious enough to assert that there is any part of the Church which is not guided by his care and strengthened by his succor?” 4 “Though every individual pastor tends his flock with a special care and knows that he must give account of the sheep committed to his charge, nevertheless we alone must share the anxiety of all and our responsibility includes the governance of each individual. For since the whole world has recourse to the see of the blessed Apostle Peter, and since that love towards the Universal Church which was enjoined upon him by our Lord is expected of our administration also, therefore the greater our responsibility towards all the faithful, the heavier is the burden which weighs upon us?” 5
The renown of St. Peter is to St. Leo’s mind inseparable from the renown of the Roman Church, which he calls “the holy nation, the chosen people, the priestly and royal state, which has become the head of the world through the blessed Peter’s holy see.” 6 “He, the chief of the apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman Empire that the light of the truth which was being revealed for the salvation of all the nations might spread more effectually from the head itself throughout the whole body of the world.” 7
**** **** ****
1. Works (ed. Migne, Paris 1846 etc.), i. 145-7.
2. ibid., 149.
3. ibid., 151-2; cf. 429-32.
4. ibid., 155-156.
5. ibid., 153.
6. ibid., 423.
7. ibid., 424.
No comments:
Post a Comment