Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Rick Otto]

NewMan99 is going to historically prove the EO and OO are wrong on this. Be patient. It's coming. As one Catholic posted here some time ago, the EO are the original Protestants - rejecting the denomination Jesus founded.




.

Yes. Their lack of docility was alarming!
It may be why their subtitle & subtext to everything is "forgive me".

 

[sunlover1]

This one made sense so I am reposting it from the Charismatic board....
Originally posted here, by Millerrod


i aint done yet !!! I want to see a president who walks the back inner city slums of america with a team of people handing out food i want to see him in blue jeans and a tee shirt getting his hands dirty. I want to see a catholic pope throw that fancy white cape off and climb out of that goofy car and walk the streets i want him to lay hands on the sick and be willing to get his knees dirty because he was on them praying. I want to see the media concintrate on the worlds heros the silent army in third would contries who tend the sick and feed the hungry who put their live at risk every day just to see a child smile and walk away with a full tummy i want to see these people in the news and on tv show not stars who are drug addicts and shows based on queers. I want to turn the tv on and see our congress praying at the opening of each day. I am sick about reading about martin luther king, abraham lincoln, Kenedy i want to satnd as they stood and i want all my brothers and sisters to stand as these men stood. I dont want to read or see movies about the protests of wars i want to be the protests against abortion and every other evil in the world. I am tired of pounding the drums to deaf ears and a seated society i want to see people stand become involved as one with one voice. It seems hopeless yet hope thrives , it seems unjust yet i know justice will preveal it seems to late yet i know its never to late. STAND STAND STAND hear the drums and stand...

 

[Rick Otto]

SWAT Team on the way...

(lol)

 

[Tyndale]

In what way can it be said that Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope can be discussed in one thread?

 

[Rick Otto]

Broad brush stylin'.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Broad brush stylin'.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ,
That isn't an exclusively Protestant proverb, CJ. Catholics say it all the time - and have said similar things long before Protestantism ever existed.

Why is Catholicism "Jesus and WE" - not ME - aside from the fact that the very word "catholic" denotes universality (which is hardly a concept centered on singularity)?

Really? I never heard it in the RCC, but I'll take your word for it. MY experience in the RCC and my impression from the RCC Catechism is that it seems nearly entirely wrapped up in itself. Catholic this, Catholic that. It this, it that. And it's pretty hard to miss it. For example, the insistence that it has that it is the sole interpreter of Scripture (in its heart) and Tradition (of its choosing) in CCC 85. One might read that and sense that the big "C" isn't meant and rather that the RCC is acknowledging the role of the whole universal church - but lest anyone think that, it makes it clear ".... in communion with the Pope." It just impresses me how a Catholic seems unable to finish a sentence without mentioning their denomination, and yet in all the time I've been Lutheran, I can't remember the word once being used during the worship service or sermon - much less our specific denomination. I guess we have difference expriences there...

In any case, I've heard the Proverb "it's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE" only in Protestant contexts and from Protestants. Glad to know it exists elsewhere. There's hope yet, lol!

After all, we believe inThe Communion of Saints - this is HUGE with us. You claim to believe in the Communion of Saints (for which I applaud you), but very few Protestants even understand the concept.

See, my journey in Catholicism and my study of your Catechism is the exact opposite. There are places where this concept is given lip service (as I've posted a few times, it IS something we share). It's just immediately buried in a mountainous avalanche of the RCC screaming, "The Church is me, myself and I."

2. Submitting to the teaching authority of the Church

And what is that Authority? It's just itself.

See, IF the RCC actually acknowledge that the Church is not just ME then the word "church" in your statement would mean something other than the RCC shouting: "ME!" But clearly, when the RCC says it submits to the teaching authority of the Church, it just means that it submits to nothing but itself. Alone. Exclusively. "Jesus and ME." Now, I agree, TECHICALLY, in a purely theological sense, there are Christians out there in the darkness - and thus, in some weak sense the church - but they don't matter. The LDS has the same view of those "outside" as they put it.

- we do not believe the INDIVIDUAL person has authority to teach others apart from what the Church teaches

See, here's what I think you MEAN (but I'm wording it differently): The RCC doesn't allow anyone else to do with it does: appoint itself as the sole authority and submit only to itself. No, I agree, it requires CATHOLICS to docilicly accept whatever it says (CCC 87). It however, submits only to itself.

Now, I read statements like CCC 85 and see the most extreme, radical form of individualism that likely exists in Christianity. Because while I've met some radical evangelicals who insist, "The Holy Spirit tell ME alone and I alone am the sole one who can speak" just as the RCC does, he/she is not likely to claim infallibility the way the RCC does. I think the RCC has a more radical, extreme form of individualism. But I, by NO means, wish to defend the extreme and radical forms of Protestantism that, IMHO, have begun to go full circle, right back to Catholicism. I think I have a thread in the Lutheran forum entitled, "Has radical Protestantism gone full circle?" and I explore that.


And again, I realize that the RCC is currently and officially in agreement with itself in all matters that it itself currently thinks is good for it to agree about - I know that, I really do. It has just yet to me explained to me why that matters? At LEAST the same is true for the other 34,999 denominations, too. So what? Bob, I typically agree with myself just as much as the RCC typically agrees with itself; so? How does that indicate that I'm infallible/unaccountable and that all must accept with docility whatever I say?

4. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are communing not only with our fellow parishoners in Church at that moment, but also with all Catholics around the world - AND - all those in heaven. Thus all of time and space is set aside in a manner of speaking, and ALL of the Church - ALL of WE throughout time and eternity - WE as a family are in communion.

.... no reply needed from me.

5. We affirm that the True Church also has a MYSTICAL and invisible dimension that includes in it all who are joined to Christ by the grace of baptism, even if they are not within the formal institutional boundaries of the Catholic Church. If Protestantism is "we and Church" based primarily on its embrace of the invisible Church, then the same applies to Catholics who ALSO embrace that SAME belief.

... as I've said SEVERAL times in this thread. I know. We share THAT definition of the church; we don't share the also definition - and that's the ONLY aspect that this thread is about. It's that OTHER, the "also" aspect, the Church is ME aspect, Jesus and IT aspect.

In Protestantism, however, the focus is greatly shifted to individualism (this is not to imply it is entirely individualistic - my point is that the primacy of the personal often carries more weight than submission to the communal).

... I don't think you could convince me that ANY teacher could be more self focused that the RCC is. Read your Catechism. Start with # 85 and 87. But I agree with you, you CAN find a few Protestants who, in this regard, seem to be leaning toward Catholicism. Not nearly as radical or extreme, but yeah, individualism raises its head in Protestantism, too. I wouldn't deny that. Just not nearly as radically. And we are apt to decry it rather than defend it.

For example:1. Everybody gets to be their own Pope.

Friend, of the 35,000 denominations some of our full, unseparated Catholic brothers and sisters around here insist exists, only one has a pope. And you know which one that is. Odd (to me, IMHO) to try to blame others for what the RCC alone has. Especially in a thread about that very office.

2. Sola Scriptura pretty much depends upon individualism.

No, it's the RCC/LDS alternative of Sola Ecclesia that does, each designating SELF as the Authority. CCC 87. "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie.

IF you want to discuss Sola Scriptura with me, read this FIRST. http://www.christianforums.com/t7231168/ IF you want to discuss this praxis with me (and I'd love that), that's the place to do it. thank you.

Since YOU, Josiah, are a Christian, do you feel it is appropriate to tell non-believers that the ONLY way to salvation is through Christ? I do. Why? Because it is TRUTH itself to tell people that Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. I have ZERO problem with telling non-believers that Christianity is the only True religion.

Me, neither. I DO have a problem with insisting that I am the Truth, that I personally am infallible/unaccountable because I say I am, that when I speak Jesus speaks so when I say when I speak Jesus speaks therefore Jesus is saying that when I speak, jesus speaks. See, I'm not pointing people to ME. I'm not saying that I'M the ONLY way to salvation ("no salvation outside the Church" "it is absolutely essential for salvation that every human creature be obedient to the Roman Pope" etc., etc.,etc.,etc.). And again, in all the time I've been attending a Lutheran congregation, the word "Lutheran" has not once been uttered in a worship service or sermon (that I can recall - and I'm pretty much I would recall it!!!). I don't think my priest could complete a paragraph without Catholic something....

But to claim that the Catholic Church is the True Church is not quite the same thing as some pathological obsession you seem to imply - it is NO MORE "obsessive" than YOU (correctly) telling a non-believer that Christianity is the only True religion.

1. Sorry you've concluded I'm suggesting something "pathological." I KNOW I never said that, and I CERTAINLY didn't mean to imply that.

2. It's one thing to proclaim a message as true, it's another thing to proclaim self as True.

3. Again, the unavoidable conclusion anyone would get from participating in the Catholic Church, reading Catholic literature, watching Catholic television, visiting Catholic websites, and certainly reading and studying the Catholic Catechism is that the RCC can hardly get out of its own way. Catholic this, Catholic that. The Church this, the Church that. Oh yeah, press things and there is the theological admission that there are Christians out there (well, SORT OF out there), kind of in the darkness, sorta in and sorta out, but don't look there. The RCC insist: the Church is Me. Again, I know that the RCC affirms the Protestant view of the church. I know that. I even posted that I can quote the Catechism to affirm the Protestant position. And some Catholics (especially since Vatican II) are good about hauling out that definition especially when speaking to guys like me. Wonderful. But, it's also pretty obvious all that is functionally moot and largely buried under the OTHER definition - the one that (IMHO) you seem so unwilling to address: especially in 30 AD.

4. Now, I know, there are some Protestants who see the RCC's proclaiming of itself alone as "authority" and "infallible/unaccountable" and "sole interpreter" and "sole arbiter" as simply modes to evade accountability, deflect questioning of correctness and underpin it's foundational demand upon all of "docility" toward itself. I think many who see this in the LDS, too, conclude that BOTH of these denominations have some sinnister intent in why all this focus on self. I have never supported this view - for either denomination. I think that, down through the centuries, it is SIMPLY a case that your denomination feels its right. All denominations do. And so, it sought to protect Truth (as it sees it). The MOTIVE was pure and sincere. But, of course, it protects error just as well (of course, the RCC will insist that IN ITSELF, error is not possible - the LDS is a bit more willing to admit the possibility, at least temporarily).

2. I fail to see how our claims to be the True Church is equated with "Jesus and ME" since, as I have explained numerous times, our theology is primarily familial and secondarily personal, whereas the word "me" denotes the individual and not the family.

So what family does the RCC belong to?

If Christianity is the only true faith, then Christians SHOULD SAY SO.

I agree, but that's not the same as saying I'M the Truth.

If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO.

Fair enough, and this thread is one of MANY that gives you the opportunity to present the evidence that such is the case. But, isn't it telling, you aren't interesting is supporting JESUS as the Truth but that the RCC is the True Church.

Again, I know you disagree that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Fine.

Here is my often stated position on the Catholic Church (Debbie knows it WELL - we've discussed it a few times):

I regard the RCC as a valid and excellent denomination that I hold in very high regard. And I'm profoundly thankful for the MANY ways it blessed me during my journey there. I regard its ministers and ministries as valid. I regard nothing it officially teaches as heretical in the sense of being unbiblical, and I agree with probably 95% of what it teaches (I don't necessarily regard all the rest as wrong, I just don't necessarily embrace it as doctrine). I have a profound and deep respect for Catholic theologians and for the SLOW and careful way in which they proceed, with great faith. I regard all Christians that are members of it to be my FULL, UNseparated and equal brothers and sisters in Christ, equally a part of the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of believers. And I pray daily (literally) for God's richest blessings to it, it's ministers and ministries, and the Holy Father. THAT'S my position - and has been since before I began posting at CF. Now, I know you are not permitted to say the same about me or my denomination, and I don't expect you to, but such doesn't impact my view of you or your denomination.

Just because a church body claims to be the True Church doesn't make it so either. But the vercity of the claim should not be judged on whether such a claim was made.

Hey, there are dozens of forums for you to support the claim here at CF and here in GT. Post away...

One think I respect a LOT about you: you accept the burden of proof as your own, unlike nearly every Catholic known to me who seems to confuse articles of faith with statements of fact, and who seem to think that everything MUST be dogma unless it can be proven to be false. I find you refreshing as well as skilled and knowledgable.

If every religion was objectively false just because it claimed to be true - then Christianity itself would be false. And I will submit that Catholicism should not be judged as false just because it "insists for itself" that it is True.

Three things:

1. You have a WIDE OPEN forum here at CF. Go for it. Stay out of OBOB where no one can disagree with you (and no one does) and come here where you have some really big work to do, lol.

2. You and I aren't challenging if Christianity is true, we're discussing if the RCC is the True Church because IT was founded by Jesus in 30 AD and ERGO is especially guided by God, protected from error in faith and morals, infallible, unaccountable, the sole interpreter, sole authority, sole arbiter, and we must accept whatever it says "with docility" because when it speaks, Jesus speaks. Apples and oranges.

3. Actually, because I so much respect the RCC and so overwhelmingly agree with it, I treat it with FAR, FAR more openness than I do the LDS that essentially makes the same claims and the same chain of assumptions based on that. I actually have a lower "bar" for you than for them. But, I think, honestly, that I'm FAR, FAR more open to the RCC than the RCC is to the LDS and virtually all noncatholics. If I have a "double standard," it's treating and regarding the RCC far better than it regards others groups.

CJ, it seems to me that you are actually the one with an obsession. In this thread and many others you seemingly cannot get past the idea that ANY Church, whether it is the LDS or the Catholic Church or whatever, is audacious and outlandish enough to actually say out loud that THEY are True. You bring this up early and often. And repeatedly. You always come back to it. It is not my place to crawl inside your head to find out why this is so important to you (and I am not asking for an answer) - but I hope you will take a little time and step back a bit and reflect on why this one topic is such a big deal to you. Furthermore, I would ask you to ask yourself why it is okay for Christians to tell non-believers that Christianity is True, but it isn't okay for Christians to tell others that their particular church is True.

Well, I'm no Dr. Phil. But, no, I don't claim that I myself am the True Church. The RCC and LDS do, but I don't. And my denomination does not claim to be the church, either. I'm pointing to a Truth outside of me, not to me.

Actually, if I recall correctly, you are the one that brought up infalliblity in this thread. I didn't. I asked you about authority and you replaced with "infallible."

You spoke much earlier about coming to understand each other, then later about the futility of trying. You spoke earlier about unity, but then the unity of which you seem interested is only with self, as long as self agrees with self.

See, what motivates me is those two things: mutual understanding and unity. And I do not agree that as long as I myself alone agree with I myself alone, there is unity in the church because I don't equate me with the church. Follow me?

So, I will continue as long as Staff allows and my time schedule permits to pursue mutual understanding and unity. It's why I'm here. But, here's where you and I obviously and foundamentally disagree: I don't accept that everyone is True and right if the self same so self declares for self alone. It does NOT mean they are wrong, but it does NOT mean they are THEREBY correct. Nor do I believe that the focus of Christianity must be to prove that I'M True but rather than Jesus is the Truth, the point or focus should be on Christianity, not me. All that "my, myself and I - this and that" just makes me uncomfortable, which probably doomed my journey into Catholicism from the start. More of Christ, less of me. More the church, less of self.

I will try to get back to my earlier "project" and post a bit more of the "evidence" I had been promising. I worked a little bit on it yesterday, but other things pulled me away. I should be able to post some stuff later today.

Good! I appreciate that a LOT! And I will carefully read every single word you post. And give it full consideration. I hope you understand exactly where our "differences" lie so that what is presented gets to that (although nothin' wrong with affirming our agreements too, I suppose!)




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Rick Otto]

That's not the kind of broad I meant.

"...when the RCC says it submits to the teaching authority of the Church, it just means that it submits to nothing but itself. "

I need to mint that on a coin.

 

[TraderJack]

1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?

2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?

3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?

The common mistake of Roman e-pologists is that they assume that because a Church father speaks in exalted terms of Peter that they have the bishops of Rome in mind in an exclusive sense. This is because these e-pologists assume that the early Church viewed the bishops of Rome alone as the successors of Peter.

The reality is, in the minds of the Church fathers all the Apostles are equal. The exalted titles applied to Peter by many of them are also applied to the other Apostles.

Did the fathers view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes.

Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO!

Any other view is to deny the facts as the following statements from John Chrysostom and Gaudentius and Theodoret demonstrate. Gaudentius and Chrysostom explicitly state that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, are successors of Peter and possess Peter’s chair:

Gaudentius:

I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and ‘from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;’ and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, ‘Whom do you say that I am?’ Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom [SIZE=-1](Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).[/SIZE]


John Chrysostom:

In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (St. Flavian, his bishop), the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter [SIZE=-1](On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).

[/SIZE]
​

Theodoret makes a similar statement about the see of Antioch when he states that Antioch possesses the throne of Peter:

Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of the apostles

[SIZE=-1](Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 86, To Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, p. 281).

[/SIZE]

The above statements make it abundantly, and unambiguously clear that a Petrine succession was not the exclusive possession of the bishops of Rome, contrary to the later claims of Rome, which by the way, Vatican I proclaims it's claims of an exclusive Petrine supremacy as sole successors of Peter was taught and subscribed to as a universal practice and divine truth from the very beginning of the Church.

The fathers quoted above indicate that the bishops of Rome are not the exclusive successors of Peter nor are the exclusive possessors of the chair of Peter. The bishops are all successors of the Apostles in collegiality, each apostle possessing an equal status with one another. The bishops as equal successors of the apostles, all possess the keys and govern the Church as co-equals. This is clearly expressed by Isidore of Seville in these words:

So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles (De Ecclesiasticus II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782).

It appears that Rome conveniently omits the writings of the church fathers, such as the above, which contradict the claims of Rome.

If indeed Vatican I's claim that Roman papal supremacy as the exclusive successors of Peter was the teaching and practice of the church from the beginning, it is abundantly clear that the church fathers were totally unaware of it, for they considered all the bishops to be successors of Peter and reciprients of the "chair of Peter".
​

Thus, when the Church fathers speak in exalted terms about Peter they are not referring to the bishops of Rome. No Church father makes that application in his writings. And they make it clear from their statements regarding the other Apostles, by their exegesis of Matthew 16 and by their practice that they did not view the bishops of Rome to possess a universal primacy of jurisdiction to rule the Church universally.

​

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

Thanks for your thoughts, but sorry I don't have time to reply except to say that it remains obvious to me that you still do not grasp on a fundamental level what I am trying to say. The vast majority of your reply focused on responding to something you misunderstood - thus you did not really respond to much of what I actually meant to convey. And, like I said, I just don't have the time or energy to talk in circles any more (and again, no offense is intended - perhaps it is my fault for not being more clear).

What is odd to me is your continued insistence that what is fundamentally a corporate entity you equate with individualism. How does a corporate (read: plural - us) equal ME (read: singular - me)? Anyway...clearly we are not speaking the same language - not by a mile.

Gotta run...I'll be back later with part 3 of my analysis. Thanks for your patience.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Rick Otto]

How does a corporate (read: plural - us) equal ME (read: singular - me)?

It involves some cognitive dissonance.
The Church is inerrant, but not the individuals in it.
That self-contradictory statement relies on a manufactured ambiguity of corporate & individual identity that helps monopolize & franchise the power of consecrating the Eucharist. That power was used to lure the desert monks into bishoprics when desert monks were competition for ecclesiastic celebrity status.

 

[Trento]

The above makes the false assumption and usual mistake of Roman Catholic apologists to apply a later claim made in opposition to the consensus of the church fathers by later Roman bishops of being the sole reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter", then in fact the Church has never supported that claim.

[SIZE=+1]According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO![/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the ‘coryphaeus,’ the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:[/SIZE]


[/font]

Augustine is in agreement with the misnomer "Protestant" view and opposed to the Roman Catholic view.
[/size][/size]

A constant theme for Augustine throughout the Zosimus and Pelagian episode is his unflinchingly upholding of the primacy and authority of the See of Rome.


Augustine recounts the entire episode:

"For while so many and such important ecclesiastical documents were passing and repassing between the Apostolical See and the African bishops, and, moreover, when the proceedings in this matter in that see were completed, with Coelestius present and making answer,what sort of a letter, what decree, is found of Pope Zosimus, of venerable memory, wherein he prescribed that it must be believed that man is born without any taint of original sin? Absolutely he never said this--never wrote it at all.... But now, when the first letters of the most blessed Pope Innocent, in reply to the letters of the African bishops, would have equally condemned this error which these men are endeavouring to commend to us; and his successor, the holy Pope Zosimus, would never have said, never have written, that this dogma which these men think concerning infants is to be held; nay, would even have bound Coelestius by a repeated sentence, when he endeavoured to clear himself, to a consent to the above-mentioned letters of the Apostolic See;assuredly, whatever in the meanwhile was done more leniently concerning Coelestius, provided the stability of the most ancient and robust faith were maintained, was the most merciful persuasion of correction, not the most pernicious approval of wickedness; and that afterwards, by the same priesthood, Coelestius and Pelagius were condemned by repeated authority, was the proof of a severity, for a little while intermitted, at length of necessity to be carried out, not a denial of a previously-known truth or a new acknowledgment of truth."
(Augustine,Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 5:3 (A.D. 420), in NPNF1, V:392-393)

"The venerable Pope Zosimus, keeping in view this deprecatory preamble, dealt with the man, puffed up as he was with the blasts of false doctrine, so as that he should condemn all the objectionable points which had been alleged against him by the deacon Paulinus, and that he should yield his assent to the rescript of the Apostolic See which had been issued by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused man, however, refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon, yet he did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent; indeed, he went so far as to 'promise that he would condemn all the points which the Apostolic See condemned.' Thus the man was treated with gentle remedies, as a delirious patient who required rest; but, at the same time, he was not regarded as being yet ready to be released from the restraints of excommunication. The interval of two months being granted him, until communications could be received from Africa, a place for recovery was conceded to him, under the mild restorative of the sentence which had been pronounced. For in truth, if he would have laid aside his vain obstinacy, and be now willing to carry out what he had undertaken, and would carefully read the very letter to which he had replied by promising submission, he would yet come to a better mind. But after the rescripts were duly issued from the council of the African bishops, there were very good reasons why the sentence should be carried out against him, in strictest accordance with equity. What these reasons were you may read for yourselves, for we have sent you all the particulars."
(Augustine, On Original Sin, 8 [7] (A.D. 418), in NPNF1, V:239)


Augustine defends the authority and primacy of the See of Rome. Note well, the Pelagians were attempting to show that Pope Zosimus was on their side of the argument. In reply, Augustine answers all the Pelagian charges and in doing so he refutes Siman as well.

J.N.D. Kelly, Another Protestant patristic scholar, wrote:


The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture.
(Ibid., 419)


Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff comments on St. Augustine's views of Scripture and Tradition:

Augustine, therefore, manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error. for in a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: "I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me."

(History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity: A.D. 311-600, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; reproduction of 5th revised edition of 1910, Chapter V, section 66, "The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils," pp. 344-345)



According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its Scripture's doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith'; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyesguranteed it's veractiy.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The common mistake of Roman e-pologists is that they assume that because a Church father speaks in exalted terms of Peter that they have the bishops of Rome in mind in an exclusive sense. This is because these e-pologists assume that the early Church viewed the bishops of Rome alone as the successors of Peter.

The reality is, in the minds of the Church fathers all the Apostles are equal. The exalted titles applied to Peter by many of them are also applied to the other Apostles.

Did the fathers view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes.

Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO!

Any other view is to deny the facts as the following statements from John Chrysostom and Gaudentius and Theodoret demonstrate. Gaudentius and Chrysostom explicitly state that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, are successors of Peter and possess Peter’s chair:

<b>

Gaudentius:
​

</b>

I beseech our common father Ambrose, that, after the scanty dew of my discourse, he may pour abundantly into your hearts the mysteries of the divine writings. Let him speak from that Holy Spirit with which he is filled, and &#8216;from his belly shall flow rivers of living water;&#8217; and, as a successor of Peter, he shall be the mouth of all the surrounding priests. For when the Lord Jesus asked of the apostles, &#8216;Whom do you say that I am?&#8217; Peter alone replies, with the mouth of all believers, &#8216;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.&#8217; What reward did that confession at once receive? Blessedness indeed, and the most glorious power of the heavenly kingdom (Tract. 16, De Ordin. Ipsius. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 105-107).


John Chrysostom:

In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me (St. Flavian, his bishop), the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter (On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
​

​

Theodoret makes a similar statement about the see of Antioch when he states that Antioch possesses the throne of Peter:

Dioscurus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the see of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochean metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was the teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphaeus of the apostles
​

(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume III, Theodoret, Epistle 86, To Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, p. 281).
​

The above statements make it abundantly, and unambiguously clear that a Petrine succession was not the exclusive possession of the bishops of Rome, contrary to the later claims of Rome, which by the way, Vatican I proclaims it's claims of an exclusive Petrine supremacy as sole successors of Peter was taught and subscribed to as a universal practice and divine truth from the very beginning of the Church.

The fathers quoted above indicate that the bishops of Rome are not the exclusive successors of Peter nor are the exclusive possessors of the chair of Peter. The bishops are all successors of the Apostles in collegiality, each apostle possessing an equal status with one another. The bishops as equal successors of the apostles, all possess the keys and govern the Church as co-equals. This is clearly expressed by Isidore of Seville in these words:

So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing, and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still, the other apostles have been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. They also, having been sent out into all the world, preached the Gospel. Having descended from these apostles, the bishops have succeeded them, and through all the world they have been established in the seats of the apostles (De Ecclesiasticus II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782).
​

It appears that Rome conveniently omits the writings of the church fathers, such as the above, which contradict the claims of Rome.

If indeed Vatican I's claim that Roman papal supremacy as the exclusive successors of Peter was the teaching and practice of the church from the beginning, it is abundantly clear that the church fathers were totally unaware of it, for they considered all the bishops to be successors of Peter and reciprients of the "chair of Peter".
​

Thus, when the Church fathers speak in exalted terms about Peter they are not referring to the bishops of Rome. No Church father makes that application in his writings. And they make it clear from their statements regarding the other Apostles, by their exegesis of Matthew 16 and by their practice that they did not view the bishops of Rome to possess a universal primacy of jurisdiction to rule the Church universally.

Thank you for your contribution!



.

 

[Trento]

The common mistake of Roman e-pologists is that they assume that because a Church father speaks in exalted terms of Peter that they have the bishops of Rome in mind in an exclusive sense. This is because these e-pologists assume that the early Church viewed the bishops of Rome alone as the successors of Peter.

The reality is, in the minds of the Church fathers all the Apostles are equal. The exalted titles applied to Peter by many of them are also applied to the other Apostles.

Did the fathers view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes.

Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO!

Any other view is to deny the facts as the following statements from John Chrysostom and Gaudentius and Theodoret demonstrate. Gaudentius and Chrysostom explicitly state that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and Flavian, the Bishop of Antioch, are successors of Peter and possess Peter’s chair:

[/size]
​

Theodoret makes a similar statement about the see of Antioch when he states that Antioch possesses the throne of Peter:

[/size]

The above statements make it abundantly, and unambiguously clear that a Petrine succession was not the exclusive possession of the bishops of Rome, contrary to the later claims of Rome, which by the way, Vatican I proclaims it's claims of an exclusive Petrine supremacy as sole successors of Peter was taught and subscribed to as a universal practice and divine truth from the very beginning of the Church.

The fathers quoted above indicate that the bishops of Rome are not the exclusive successors of Peter nor are the exclusive possessors of the chair of Peter. The bishops are all successors of the Apostles in collegiality, each apostle possessing an equal status with one another. The bishops as equal successors of the apostles, all possess the keys and govern the Church as co-equals. This is clearly expressed by Isidore of Seville in these words:

It appears that many here conveniently omits the writings of the church fathers, such as the above, which contradict the claims you make.

If indeed Vatican I's claim that Roman papal supremacy as the exclusive successors of Peter was the teaching and practice of the church from the beginning, it is abundantly clear that the church fathers were totally unaware of it, for they considered all the bishops to be successors of Peter and reciprients of the "chair of Peter".
​

Thus, when the Church fathers speak in exalted terms about Peter they are not referring to the bishops of Rome. No Church father makes that application in his writings. And they make it clear from their statements regarding the other Apostles, by their exegesis of Matthew 16 and by their practice that they did not view the bishops of Rome to possess a universal primacy of jurisdiction to rule the Church universally.

​

" 'He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.' And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:331).

Chrysostom could not have made it any clearer. According to Chrysostom, Peter had authority over the other apostles, or in Chrysostom's words Peter had , 'the chief authority among the brethren.'

"And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He [Jesus] appointed Peter , not of the chair [in Jerusalem], but of the world" (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).

In one fell swoop, Chrysostom destroys your claims.

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges."
Theodoret of Cyrus,To Pope Leo,Epistle 113(A.D. 449),in NPNF2,III:293

 

[Eucharistic Adoration]

It involves some cognitive dissonance.
The Church is inerrant, but not the individuals in it.
That self-contradictory statement relies on a manufactured ambiguity of corporate & individual identity that helps monopolize & franchise the power of consecrating the Eucharist. That power was used to lure the desert monks into bishoprics when desert monks were competition for ecclesiastic celebrity status.

It is not that complicated.

It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

Why wouldn't God protect the truth?

 

[NewMan99]

Part 3 (this is a continuation from Post #302 and Post #296)

When I left off, I was addressing the first of two questions (from post 296) that needed to be answered.

This post will conclude the answer to the first question, and in the next post I will begin my analysis of the second question.

So, once again, here is the first question (with its three elements) that I will now proceed to address in this post:

1. The "ministry of supreme pastor with jurisdictional authority to maintain universal authority and orthodoxy within the Christian Church" was bestowed upon Peter by Jesus.

Notice that there are a number of elements at play:

1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?

2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?

3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?

This is the point where we must turn our attention to Matthew 16:18-19. I know that this passage has been debated and hashed over about a million times here at CF and elsewhere (and this is only a slight exaggeration), but it cannot be avoided. One thing I will do is set aside the whole question regarding whether or not "this rock" refers to Peter or his confession of faith or both. Rather, I will focus - for the purposes of this analysis - exclusively on "the Keys" and what that means.

Let's look at Matt 16:19, which reads:

“I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

There are a couple of elements worthy of note here: the Keys, and the authority to bind and loosen.

It is true that Jesus gave ALL the Apostles the authority to bind and loosen in Matt 18:18, but in Matt 16:19 Jesus gave to Peter alone both elements of the Keys and the authority to bind and loosen. So what are these Keys that Jesus gave exclusively to Peter?

Isaiah 22:20-22 gives us the "key" (sorry - bad pun) to understanding this term:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will ... give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

What Isaiah is referring to here is an office common in the Davidic Kingdom similar to an office that we would today call the "Prime Minister". See also 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3 for references to this office. In fact, any historian will tell you that similar offices exist in many countries and cultures in ancient times up through the modern era - in the Near East and most other places around the world as well.

The ministers would oversee their areas in the name of the King when the King was not personally present. In modern times we see this in the United States when the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, meets with foreign leaders/dignitaries and presses forward the agenda and policies of the President and the Obama Administration. She acts in the name of the President. She has real authority and real power – but she has authority only because she was appointed by the President for that role and she is subservient to him.

In any case, in the Davidic Kingdom they had a number of these ministers all overseeing the daily affairs of the Kingdom. But there was one special minister who had oversight over all the other ministers. He was a “Prime Minister” in a manner of speaking. So he pretty much ran the entire Kingdom on a daily basis in the name of the King. But he wasn’t the King – and any power he had was because the King gave it to him.

And the King would bestow upon this “Prime Minister” a “key” as a symbol of his office and authority. Only one minister – the Prime Minister – would have this key. While he was merely one minister among many, he also acted as the King’s vicar when the King was not personally present. He was a minister like the others, except for his additional responsibility of being the King’s “stand-in”…and for this additional responsibility he was given the “keys” of the King’s household (or, dynasty) as a symbol of this special authority.

So this was typical imagery (a symbol that actually bestowed something) in the Davidic Kingdom. The Davidic Kingdom of Israel prefigures and points to the Kingdom of God referred to in the New Testament. After all, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that her son will succeed to “the throne of David” and that He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.”

Therefore, if it was TYPICAL (as illustrated in Scripture itself as per Isaiah 22, as well as numerous examples from history) for the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom to appoint a special minister – a Prime Minister – to rule in his name when he is not physically present…and if this minister was given keys as a symbol of this special role…and if Jesus is the King of Kings of the Davidic Kingdom…and if He is to rule FROM heaven and therefore not physically present on earth…and if He gave Peter KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven…and commanded Peter that whatsoever he bound and loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven…well…that MEANS something and it is not a very big leap to see the connection.

Simply stated, Jesus commissioned Peter to a special ministry to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after Jesus Ascended into Heaven. THAT is what the symbol of the keys means – and would have been understood by the Apostles who were present when Jesus bestowed the Keys TO PETER alone. This was a commonly understood cultural expression of authority to anyone in ancient Israel, and the Apostles would not possibly misunderstand what it meant, even though it might go over the heads of us modern folks who view things like “the keys to the city” as an honorary non-authoritative symbol of esteem given for a day to visiting dignitaries or celebrities when the mayor proclaims “Today is Joe Blow Day…here are the keys to the city…”. The bottom line is that Peter was commissioned, just like the Prime Ministers of the ancient Davidic Kingdom, to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.

So why was it important for the king of any kingdom to appoint one minister to be “prime” over the other royal ministers? It was to maintain UNITY in the kingdom during his absence. For if each minister could be free to pursue his own agenda, apart from the policies of the king or the other ministers, the kingdom would quickly become divided and weakened. Therefore the special role of the Prime Minister was to hold the “team” together and to protect the “orthodoxy” of its policies and plans for moving the kingdom forward. It was important for the Prime Minister to preserve the integrity of the King’s Household.

And this is EXACTLY what we see Peter doing from the very beginning – and by that I mean after Jesus’ Ascension but before the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. In Acts 1:15-23 Peter takes the initiative on behalf of the other Apostles and begins the process of choosing a successor for Judas.

Peter acts as a unifier of the Apostles and the Church – and he does this by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (see Acts 1:20) – even though the Psalms say nothing about Judas or their Apostolic mission. Therefore, Peter is giving an authoritative teaching that is both independent of the Old Testament and is ALSO given BEFORE the Holy Spirit came and supplied the Church the special charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 12:7-11). In this way Peter, the organizer and unifier of the Apostles, strengthens his colleagues and gives them spiritual nourishment.

Another example of Peter’s special authority is found in Acts 10:1-48. How so? In this passage Peter UNILATERALLY does something extraordinary no other Apostle thought to do: he is the first Apostle to admit Gentiles into the Church! Of course, he did this after receiving a special personal vision from Jesus commanding him to do so. Then, when Peter returns to the others (see Acts 11:1-18), NONE of the other Apostles even question Peter’s authority to admit Gentiles (which HAD to be a very eyebrow raising thing for them to learn of). The other Apostles merely accepted Peter’s unilateral decision without dissent.

And then – a bit later – when certain Jewish Christians from the party of the Pharisee converts tried to impose circumcision on Gentiles entering the Church, Peter (in Acts 15:7-12) gives the definitive teaching to the gathering of elders in Jerusalem. First there was debate and testimony, then Peter rose and spoke, after which the entire assembly remained silent and all debate ended.

By way of closing and concluding this post and this analysis of the first question, I want to remind readers that the claim of Petrine Primacy does not rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather on a preponderance of evidence. The Papacy of Peter is NOT going to look outwardly like the modern papacy. Peter did not wear a pointy hat and he did not need any imperial trappings nor did he have a dictatorial style of governance. These things were developments added on to the office as a necessary adjunct to protect and unify the Church and her doctrines in the face of various challenges that arose – challenges that Peter did not face. So while the outward style of the Papacy developed due to necessity, its organic charism of the office of “supreme pastor” did not.

But this all begs many questions. Doesn’t it? After all, many of the Bible passages I cited can be interpreted in ways that might lead to different conclusions. It begs the question as whose interpretation is right. And here LOGIC dictates that if those who were in the VERY EARLY Church…those within living memory of the Apostolic era…among those who personally knew the Apostles (or were disciples of those who were direct disciples of the Apostles)…if THEY understood the special role of Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS in the same way that my original premise states – then there are certain things they would do or say to support the claims of Catholicism – or – they would do just the opposite and treat Peter and his successors the same as they treated the other Apostles and their successors. But did they? Did they show deference to Peter and/or his successors in Rome? If THEY understood Peter’s special ministry as per my premise and if THEY also showed special deference to successive Bishops of Rome – that is powerful evidence not only that the early Church (and I am talking very early) viewed the Bishop of Rome to succeed to the very same ministry that Peter had, but it also tells us that they, too, believed that Jesus HAD commissioned Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church. When people THAT close to the Apostles themselves give witness by their words and deeds that Peter was the supreme pastor and that his successors were considered in the same light…that is a POWERFUL witness that must be carefully considered.

As for now, the first question has been addressed. The point of this analysis so far has been to illustrate that Peter was commissioned by Jesus to be the Supreme Pastor, or Principle Shepherd, of the Flock. Furthermore it has been illustrated that Peter was given the power of jurisdiction (as per the bestowal of Keys symbolizing authority) by which he was commissioned to preserve the Church in unity and orthodoxy within Christ’s Church.

So starting with my next post (tommorow?) I will begin to address the second question, which was this: That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry. And here is where I will FINALLY begin to list examples from the early Church that support the Catholic claim that Peter and his successors were not just one of many or merely the first among equals in honor.


God’s Peace,

NewMan

 

[sunlover1]

It is not that complicated.

It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

I believe!

Why wouldn't God protect the truth?

He protects US and the Spirit of truth does abide IN us.

Men can disregard truth. These ones did by worshipping
the creature more than the Creator:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served
the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51650171#_ftn1
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51650171#_ftnref1

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Eucharistic Adoration;It is not that complicated.
It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

That requires the complication of equating making one error with the gates of hell prevailing.

Why wouldn't God protect the truth?

He protects it on one hand & reveals it on the other, but it is much more durable than you allow.
Jesus appears to have given Peter a different set of keys because in Rev3:5 He still has the Key (singular) of David you say He gave to Peter in Matt:16

Rev3:6: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
7: And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Matt 16:19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven:


The keys of the kingdom of heaven are not the key of David!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is not that complicated.

It merely requires believing that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church and that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all truth.

Why wouldn't God protect the truth?

Okay. Now, what in the world does that have to do with the RCC or EO or LDS or UMC or SBC or any other denomination, and what does that have to do with the RCC bishop of its diocese of Rome or the ELCA bishop of the diocese of Los Angeles or any other bishop?


Gates are defensive, not offensive. Has hell stopped any denomination? I know that church attendance is WAY down in the RCC but I don't think hell has stopped it.


I think GOD will protect His Truth, I don't think a single teacher (such as the RCC or LDS) is infallible/unaccountable because the self same so self claims for self alone.



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Part 3 (this is a continuation from Post #302 and Post #296)

When I left off, I was addressing the first of two questions (from post 296) that needed to be answered.

This post will conclude the answer to the first question, and in the next post I will begin my analysis of the second question.

So, once again, here is the first question (with its three elements) that I will now proceed to address in this post:



This is the point where we must turn our attention to Matthew 16:18-19. I know that this passage has been debated and hashed over about a million times here at CF and elsewhere (and this is only a slight exaggeration), but it cannot be avoided. One thing I will do is set aside the whole question regarding whether or not "this rock" refers to Peter or his confession of faith or both. Rather, I will focus - for the purposes of this analysis - exclusively on "the Keys" and what that means.

Let's look at Matt 16:19, which reads:

“I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

There are a couple of elements worthy of note here: the Keys, and the authority to bind and loosen.

It is true that Jesus gave ALL the Apostles the authority to bind and loosen in Matt 18:18, but in Matt 16:19 Jesus gave to Peter alone both elements of the Keys and the authority to bind and loosen. So what are these Keys that Jesus gave exclusively to Peter?

Isaiah 22:20-22 gives us the "key" (sorry - bad pun) to understanding this term:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will ... give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

What Isaiah is referring to here is an office common in the Davidic Kingdom similar to an office that we would today call the "Prime Minister". See also 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3 for references to this office. In fact, any historian will tell you that similar offices exist in many countries and cultures in ancient times up through the modern era - in the Near East and most other places around the world as well.

The ministers would oversee their areas in the name of the King when the King was not personally present. In modern times we see this in the United States when the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, meets with foreign leaders/dignitaries and presses forward the agenda and policies of the President and the Obama Administration. She acts in the name of the President. She has real authority and real power – but she has authority only because she was appointed by the President for that role and she is subservient to him.

In any case, in the Davidic Kingdom they had a number of these ministers all overseeing the daily affairs of the Kingdom. But there was one special minister who had oversight over all the other ministers. He was a “Prime Minister” in a manner of speaking. So he pretty much ran the entire Kingdom on a daily basis in the name of the King. But he wasn’t the King – and any power he had was because the King gave it to him.

And the King would bestow upon this “Prime Minister” a “key” as a symbol of his office and authority. Only one minister – the Prime Minister – would have this key. While he was merely one minister among many, he also acted as the King’s vicar when the King was not personally present. He was a minister like the others, except for his additional responsibility of being the King’s “stand-in”…and for this additional responsibility he was given the “keys” of the King’s household (or, dynasty) as a symbol of this special authority.

So this was typical imagery (a symbol that actually bestowed something) in the Davidic Kingdom. The Davidic Kingdom of Israel prefigures and points to the Kingdom of God referred to in the New Testament. After all, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that her son will succeed to “the throne of David” and that He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.”

Therefore, if it was TYPICAL (as illustrated in Scripture itself as per Isaiah 22, as well as numerous examples from history) for the ruler of the Davidic Kingdom to appoint a special minister – a Prime Minister – to rule in his name when he is not physically present…and if this minister was given keys as a symbol of this special role…and if Jesus is the King of Kings of the Davidic Kingdom…and if He is to rule FROM heaven and therefore not physically present on earth…and if He gave Peter KEYS of the Kingdom of Heaven…and commanded Peter that whatsoever he bound and loosed on earth would be bound/loosed in heaven…well…that MEANS something and it is not a very big leap to see the connection.

Simply stated, Jesus commissioned Peter to a special ministry to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after Jesus Ascended into Heaven. THAT is what the symbol of the keys means – and would have been understood by the Apostles who were present when Jesus bestowed the Keys TO PETER alone. This was a commonly understood cultural expression of authority to anyone in ancient Israel, and the Apostles would not possibly misunderstand what it meant, even though it might go over the heads of us modern folks who view things like “the keys to the city” as an honorary non-authoritative symbol of esteem given for a day to visiting dignitaries or celebrities when the mayor proclaims “Today is Joe Blow Day…here are the keys to the city…”. The bottom line is that Peter was commissioned, just like the Prime Ministers of the ancient Davidic Kingdom, to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.

So why was it important for the king of any kingdom to appoint one minister to be “prime” over the other royal ministers? It was to maintain UNITY in the kingdom during his absence. For if each minister could be free to pursue his own agenda, apart from the policies of the king or the other ministers, the kingdom would quickly become divided and weakened. Therefore the special role of the Prime Minister was to hold the “team” together and to protect the “orthodoxy” of its policies and plans for moving the kingdom forward. It was important for the Prime Minister to preserve the integrity of the King’s Household.

And this is EXACTLY what we see Peter doing from the very beginning – and by that I mean after Jesus’ Ascension but before the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. In Acts 1:15-23 Peter takes the initiative on behalf of the other Apostles and begins the process of choosing a successor for Judas.

Peter acts as a unifier of the Apostles and the Church – and he does this by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (see Acts 1:20) – even though the Psalms say nothing about Judas or their Apostolic mission. Therefore, Peter is giving an authoritative teaching that is both independent of the Old Testament and is ALSO given BEFORE the Holy Spirit came and supplied the Church the special charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 12:7-11). In this way Peter, the organizer and unifier of the Apostles, strengthens his colleagues and gives them spiritual nourishment.

Another example of Peter’s special authority is found in Acts 10:1-48. How so? In this passage Peter UNILATERALLY does something extraordinary no other Apostle thought to do: he is the first Apostle to admit Gentiles into the Church! Of course, he did this after receiving a special personal vision from Jesus commanding him to do so. Then, when Peter returns to the others (see Acts 11:1-18), NONE of the other Apostles even question Peter’s authority to admit Gentiles (which HAD to be a very eyebrow raising thing for them to learn of). The other Apostles merely accepted Peter’s unilateral decision without dissent.

And then – a bit later – when certain Jewish Christians from the party of the Pharisee converts tried to impose circumcision on Gentiles entering the Church, Peter (in Acts 15:7-12) gives the definitive teaching to the gathering of elders in Jerusalem. First there was debate and testimony, then Peter rose and spoke, after which the entire assembly remained silent and all debate ended.

By way of closing and concluding this post and this analysis of the first question, I want to remind readers that the claim of Petrine Primacy does not rest on any one piece of evidence, but rather on a preponderance of evidence. The Papacy of Peter is NOT going to look outwardly like the modern papacy. Peter did not wear a pointy hat and he did not need any imperial trappings nor did he have a dictatorial style of governance. These things were developments added on to the office as a necessary adjunct to protect and unify the Church and her doctrines in the face of various challenges that arose – challenges that Peter did not face. So while the outward style of the Papacy developed due to necessity, its organic charism of the office of “supreme pastor” did not.

But this all begs many questions. Doesn’t it? After all, many of the Bible passages I cited can be interpreted in ways that might lead to different conclusions. It begs the question as whose interpretation is right. And here LOGIC dictates that if those who were in the VERY EARLY Church…those within living memory of the Apostolic era…among those who personally knew the Apostles (or were disciples of those who were direct disciples of the Apostles)…if THEY understood the special role of Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS in the same way that my original premise states – then there are certain things they would do or say to support the claims of Catholicism – or – they would do just the opposite and treat Peter and his successors the same as they treated the other Apostles and their successors. But did they? Did they show deference to Peter and/or his successors in Rome? If THEY understood Peter’s special ministry as per my premise and if THEY also showed special deference to successive Bishops of Rome – that is powerful evidence not only that the early Church (and I am talking very early) viewed the Bishop of Rome to succeed to the very same ministry that Peter had, but it also tells us that they, too, believed that Jesus HAD commissioned Peter to be the supreme pastor of the Church. When people THAT close to the Apostles themselves give witness by their words and deeds that Peter was the supreme pastor and that his successors were considered in the same light…that is a POWERFUL witness that must be carefully considered.

As for now, the first question has been addressed. The point of this analysis so far has been to illustrate that Peter was commissioned by Jesus to be the Supreme Pastor, or Principle Shepherd, of the Flock. Furthermore it has been illustrated that Peter was given the power of jurisdiction (as per the bestowal of Keys symbolizing authority) by which he was commissioned to preserve the Church in unity and orthodoxy within Christ’s Church.

So starting with my next post (tommorow?) I will begin to address the second question, which was this: That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry. And here is where I will FINALLY begin to list examples from the early Church that support the Catholic claim that Peter and his successors were not just one of many or merely the first among equals in honor.


God’s Peace,

NewMan

Okay, we ALL know the late interpretation of the RCC alone regarding this verse. And the only one that accepts the RCC's twist on this is the RCC. And that hasn't changed in several centuries, and I doubt it will now.



Thoughts about Matthew 16:18


The RCC directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for the foundational claim of it itself for it itself; Let's consider what needs to be proven for this to have any credibility...

1) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to "Peter."

Response: Matthew 16:18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church. In 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42," R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.


2) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.

Response: There a the power-sharing arrangement in Matthew 18:17-18 and John 20:23.


3) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."

Response: The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. via eisegesis. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter, says the RCC. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.

4) This office is "perpetual"

Response: In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the church, and not to a church office or a given Apostle. Or a denomination.


5) Peter resided in "Rome"

Response: there is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).


6) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome

Response: Even if Peter ever was in Rome, an Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.


7) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome

Response: The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. When Paul is in Rome, he makes no mention of Peter at all - as an Apostle there, as a bishop there, as a pastor there, as the Pope, or as "there" at all. In any capacity. Nor does he indicate that Peter founded the congregation there.

8) There was only "one" bishop at a time

9) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."

Response: Peter presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), but there's no evidence he was a BISHOP there, either.

10) Peter "ordained" a successor

Response: There is no textual support for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. Apostles, bishops, priests or otherwise. There's no contemporary historical support for this, either.

11) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.

Response: RCC popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor, not an Apostle or Pope.

12) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.

Response: There is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy of the RCC. What we have is, at best, a long chain of possible inferences, a LOT of "connecting the dots of assumptions." It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument and the whole "house of cards" to come tumbling down. Also, the "list" of the bishops in Rome is retroactively created and simply is a list of bishops, except for the first name on the list (see all the points above).



Thank you, Bob. I'm looking forward to your historic evidence that Jesus founded the specific, singular, particular Catholic Church in 30 AD and that the Bishop of the diocese of Rome has always been regarded as the infallible, SUPREME bishop and leader of the denomination from 30 AD (or 65 AD if you so insist) on.



Pax!


- Josiah



.