“Apostle”: an extinct charism?
1. Many notable Protestant scholars come close to Catholic thought in their judgment on the authenticity of the fundamental texts for the constitution of the primitive Church. In the interpretation of these texts, many of them also coincide with Catholic exegesis: Christ gave the Apostles and Peter singular privileges. But these same scholars unanimously affirm that the mission and the powers received by the Apostles and Peter were valid only for them and were not transmissible. The Catholic opinion that Christ had his Church in mind when conferring these powers in a lasting way is unanimously rejected as a dogmatic postulate.
a) The idea of a succession in the ministry of the Apostles is, according to them, very far from the New Testament. The Apostles were the privileged witnesses of the saving events, the firstfruits of the new community. But this privilege is intransferable. The Apostles could not have successors. Their influence on the later age of the Church consists only in the fact that she was founded by them and received from them her perennial foundation[1. In the whole New Testament the image of the foundation always referred to the ministry of the Apostles, which existed only at the beginning of the Church (Eph 2:20; Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 3:10; Gal 2:9; Rev 21:14,19).
b) Likewise, the words that the Lord addressed to Peter must be understood as a personal privilege, which the Lord granted to him alone. “The illegitimacy of Catholics having used the text of Mt 16:18 in favor of Rome consists in the fact that in that passage Peter is in question, and Peter alone, not his successors”[2]. Peter stands “at the starting point of the Church, and only at this starting point”; from this it cannot be deduced that “in the later period there must always be one person over the whole Church”[3. The reasons given to prove this opinion are varied and often a priori. According to some, Peter’s distinction was occasioned by his confession, which sprang from a special pneumatic-charismatic inspiration and, like this charism, cannot be transmitted to anyone. Others see Peter’s privileged position in the role he played in the development of the nascent Church, especially in the gathering of the disciples after the death of Jesus and in the days that followed the resurrection. Cullmann[4] goes so far as to admit “that the Apostle Peter does in fact have a fundamental importance for the Church of all times.” But Peter’s work belongs to the “unique event of the foundation” of the Church, a moment that created a permanent situation for the whole Church.
2. Is there no more than this restricted meaning in the Lord’s words? Was the mission of the Apostles meant to end with their death?
a) The answer depends on what is understood by the mission of the Apostles. If it is understood as the chronological foundation and starting point of the Church, no one will deny that this position is unique and therefore unrepeatable, like every historical fact. But does this exhaust the meaning of the Lord’s words? Did he wish to make only this evident affirmation? Does this unique position not also belong to the other disciples and companions of the Lord who were with him “from the baptism of John until the Ascension” (Acts 1:21 f.), to Barnabas, to Mark, to Mnason (Acts 21:16) and to the five hundred brethren who were favored with an appearance of the Risen One (1 Cor 15:6)? The “Twelve” occupied a special position among the disciples because they had been constituted by the Lord as authentic witnesses of his Resurrection and organs of his revelation. To them was entrusted the special mission of preaching the Gospel, and to them was entrusted the power to teach, sanctify and govern. They were the first bearers of this mission and of these powers and, for that reason, are the foundation and source of their efficacy — this constitutes their unique and unrepeatable apostolic function — but they were not to remain the only holders of the mission to teach and govern. They were constituted fathers of the new people of God that was to replace the twelve tribes of Israel, and, as such, they were the principle and foundation of the saving era of the New Covenant. But they were also pastors and guardians of the people of God and, as such, the Church always needed them, and the Lord constituted them “usque ad consummationem saeculi” (until the end of time).
b) The vocation and powers of the “Twelve” were not purely personal privileges, nor a passing measure. The words with which the Lord describes the mission of the Apostles cannot be limited to the foundational period of the Church. They are not restricted to the time of the Church’s foundation, but refer to the essence of the Church, which stands above changes and times.
The discourse of Mt 18 gives instructions for preserving order and discipline in the Church and makes no reference to the period of the Church’s foundation. The power of “binding and loosing” must be exercised in the Church whenever fraternal correction is not sufficient; consequently, it must be something lasting. “All the Orthodox,” says W. Solowjew, “agree in affirming that the apostolic power of binding and loosing was not conferred on the ‘Twelve’ as private persons or as a privilege limited in time, but is the origin and authentic source of a permanent priestly right, which is transmitted from the Apostles to their successors in the hierarchical order, the bishops and priests of the universal Church”[5].
The discourse of the great mission (Mt 28) is still more clearly set in a secular perspective. The Lord’s mission extends to all peoples and to all times, and the guarantee of his assistance holds “until the end of the world.” If he calls the Apostles “the light of the world,” “the salt of the earth,” this makes sense only if there are always holders and bearers of the apostolic mission in the world.
c) Many confusions are avoided if one notes that the word Apostle, then as now, is used in a strict sense and in a broad sense: that is, in the sense of the particular and unrepeatable position of the “Twelve,” of their foundational character, and in the sense of their power of mission, which was to continue. In the first sense the Apostles have no successors; in the second sense their office has passed to the bishops. The Christian people were always aware that the Apostles had a peculiar position in the plan of salvation and that the apostolic age was closed with their death. But they were also aware that the functions of teaching and governing, inseparable from the life of the Church, endured in the ministry of the bishops. Thus, at first, the names of the Apostles were not included in the lists of bishops; rather, these lists began with the first bishop appointed by an Apostle. The intention was to highlight the special position of the Apostles. This arrangement is still found in Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Later, however, already in Cyprian, the Apostles are included in the lists of bishops. The intention then was to emphasize the permanence of the hierarchical priestly and pastoral power conferred on the Apostles. It is only a different historical conception and a difference in simple presentation, not in the reality itself[6].
3. The words addressed by the Lord to Peter also cannot be understood only of Peter’s special mission limited to the time of the Church’s foundation. The natural meaning of all the images the Lord employed to express Peter’s privileged position is that this position is essential and indispensable for the Church and is not limited to the time of her foundation. The adversaries, for the most part, focus only on the image of the “foundation rock” and interpret it in the sense that Peter is to be the first stone on which the building of the Church rests once and for all. But this static conception of the Church is not exact, for she is not a rigid and dead building, but a living organism, a society. The existence and cohesion of this living society can only be guaranteed by a permanent and effective rock-function in the Church. This is also clearly deduced from the other images with which Christ describes Peter’s mission and which, as Cullmann rightly notes, are little or not at all considered by Protestant theologians. The office of steward of a house, the possession of the supreme power of “binding and loosing,” the activity of one who “confirms his brethren,” and that of shepherd, cannot in any way be temporally limited; the meaning of these images cannot refer only to the time of the beginnings of the Church. They do not have an exclusive relation to the foundation of the Church, but allude to her consistency and permanence. The house always needs a steward; threatened faith, a support given by God; the flock, a solicitous shepherd.
The primitive Church was aware of the unique and unrepeatable position of the “Twelve,” who had been chosen by Jesus himself and endowed with power unlimited in space. But she was also aware that the mission and powers of the Apostles, because they are essential for the Church, had to pass to men who, after the death of the Apostles, would take their place.
Author: Albert Lang
Source: Fundamental Theology – Volume II: The Mission of the Church – Ediciones Rialp, S.A. Madrid, 1977, pp. 103-107.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NOTES
[1] O. Cullmann, Petrus. Jünger-Apostel-Martyrer, Zurich, Stuttgart 1960, 247f.
[2] K. L. Schmidt, Die Kirche des Urchristentums, (Tübingen 1927) 300.
[3] O. Cullmann, op. cit., 259.
[4] Ibid., 237.
[5] W. SOLOWJEW, Monarchia sancti Petri (German trans. by L. Kobilinski-Ellis, Mainz 1929) 473.
[6] G. Söhngen, Die Einheit in der Theologie (Munich 1952) 307; O. Karrer, Um die Einheit der Christen (Frankfurt am Main 1953) 116.
