Posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer
I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here. As to his statement that the Rock is not Peter’s Confession, well, I’ve read direct quotes from the Fathers who said otherwise. So who are we to dispute them?
My favorite exegetical way to look at Peter’s role lies in comparing the grant of authority in Matt 16 with Matt 18. It seems very deliberate here. The apostles are granted authority corporately in Matt 18 and it is the same authority that Peter individually is granted in Matt 16. That juxtaposition is interesting.
At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united. That really seems to be hitting at the essence of St. Matthew’s juxtaposition.
Care to explain?
“Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away.”
Odd. “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you...it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
Why do you think God is away? Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?
Why can't we all just state the obvious instead of going back and forth over this same issue time after time? Nyer and others post articles like these to try to prove that the Roman Catholic is the only true church. They trot out the Peter as rock and therefore the first pope dogma so that they can "prove" the apostolic succession to the current pope. By stating this, they can then say that whatever the popes have determined as doctrine through the ages, they can confidently accept as truth because Jesus gave the keys to Peter and his successors and they are infallible.
I highly doubt most protestant theologians have accepted this as true, because there are many doctrines the RCC has decreed that are NOT scriptural and even contradict Scripture. When called on this, they fall back on the easy answer of that's your interpretation and the Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible nonsense. What is the point?
“St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4,”
Very good, Mr. R. As we know, Blessed Augustine, along with virtually all the other Fathers, save perhaps for +Jerome, were quite consistent on their definition of The Rock and it was not the person of +Peter. The notion that +Peter was the Rock was popularized by +Pope Gregory and +Pope Leo the Great for their own purposes.
Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?
LOL,
No, I mean that, just like the Terminator would never stay down when the heroes of the movie thought he was destroyed, Protestants are not likely to give up their beliefs, just because the Author of the article states that "near unanimity" now exists.
LOL, I don't mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON'T want to see that .... trust me on this.
Metal skeleton .... Hmmm, could that be the cause of my stiff back when I get up in the mornings?
Glowing eyes? ...... I'll have check tonight after I turn out the lights to go to sleep, and get back to you on that one.
Another point you have made before on other threads - God can be very specific, as when he instituted the Levitical Priesthood. Yet in giving Peter authority as Vicar of Christ, he was...well, exceedingly indirect, wasn’t he?
Shoot, even Peter didn’t know!
The whole idea of Papal Supremacy comes down to Jesus saying, “But who do you say that I am?”
Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus then says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, “You are number one among the Apostles.” Yet from this I am supposed to believe that B16 is the “Vicar of Christ” while God is away...since the Holy Spirit is OBVIOUSLY incompetent.
“At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united.”
Go right ahead and sound like a broken record. I think Met. John of Pergamum has it just right, though there are Orthodox who vigorously disagree.
***Why do you think God is away?***
The whole deal of the Ascension in which Jesus is taken away up to Heaven and promises to return is significant. The Holy Spirit, which He promises to send, does not actually arrive until Pentecost. Peter and the Apostles are bereft and very afraid. The Holy Spirit arrives at Pentecost and Peter takes charge and leads the Apostles into the future of the Church.
So; what does all this mean? The Holy Spirit is not a physical form and works through men. Jesus was physical and acted in person. And, Jesus set up his own Church and instructed (rather laboriously) his Apostles to carry out His instruction.
***Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?***
Yes. The term Vicar means substitute or somebody who acts in the place of somebody higher ranking. In other words, the man who acts for Christ in the celebration of the Mass or other capacity while waiting for Him to return.
“What is the point?”
I’ve asked that of myself at times. For me, the answer has 2 parts.
1 - There are lurkers who read these threads, and I don’t want these claims about Catholicism to go unanswered.
2 - The validity of our witness is not determined by the number of converts, but by how closely we hew to the truth.
***Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?
LOL,
No, I mean that, just like the Terminator would never stay down when the heroes of the movie thought he was destroyed, Protestants are not likely to give up their beliefs, just because the Author of the article states that “near unanimity” now exists.***
I don’t think that near unanimity exists. I believe!!! that the bulk of Protestants are headed down the path of the Unitarians simply because they do not have a ground or a basis for their beliefs.
***LOL, I don’t mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON’T want to see that .... trust me on this.***
I trust you and ask you to trust me back as well
I think that there is either an objective basis (ie the Church) or a subjective basis (ie the individual) for moral guidance. The problem with a subjective basis is that it can move according to the emotion or whim of the individual, whereas the objective basis (ie the 10 Commandments) is set and cannot be changed according to whether or not your wife loves you today.
I’ve had spinal fusion surgery twice. Titanium was used. Does that count?
Today the Holy Church piously remembers the sufferings of the Holy Glorious and All-Praised Apostles Peter and Paul.
St. Peter, the fervent follower of Jesus Christ, for the profound confession of His Divinity: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” was deemed worthy by the Savior to hear in answer, “Blessed art thou, Simon … I tell thee, that thou art Peter [Petrus], and on this stone [petra] I build My Church” (Mt.16:16-18). On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian. Do you want to know, from what sort of “rock” [petra] the Apostle Peter [Petrus] was named? Hear the Apostle Paul: “Brethren, I do not want ye to be ignorant,” says the Apostle of Christ, “how all our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor.10: 1-4). Here is the stone, from whence the “Rock” is Peter.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles to preach the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardor was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt.10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. Therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in the heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth: shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt.16: 19). Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to all His Apostles, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” and further after this, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, are retained” (John 20: 22-23); or: “whatsoever ye bind upon the earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosened in heaven” (Mt.18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20), doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Therefore “Iniquities ensnare a man, and everyone is bound in the chains of his own sins,” says Wisdom (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
Actually, Mr Rogers, Augustine tended to wax allegorical and offer sometimes competing explanations of passages. He said this also:
"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51And later in life he even acknowledged that he had offered competing explanations of this passage:
"[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that 'the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.' This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: 'When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.' But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church', to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God', and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not 'Thou art rock', but 'Thou art Peter'. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose."Let the reader choose. This is why I don't think that exegetes can exclude Peter himself or Peter's Confession or even Christ from consideration as the "Rock" here. Granted, I think Augustine's second explanation is a little tortured and mangles the grammatical force of the passage in pursuit of a dubious allegory, but then again he's St. Augustine and I'm not. :)
Wow. If it doesn't, it ought to, eh?
LOL, and having it done twice is surely enough to make anyone's eyes glow!
Have a great weekend BB.
...and, I’ve had laser vision correction, so they, you know, could glow? I am human though and definitely not a Terminator! ;o)
Hope you have blessed weekend, too!
Well, I’m not entirely certain that Mr. R and I would agree on everything...I’m not Protestant, I’m Orthodox.
I accept that +Peter was the first among, and frequent spokesman for, the 12.
What I don’t accept was that +Peter was more than primus inter pares. If he was, then why did he not issue that opinion of the elders at Jerusalem as testified to in Acts 15?
+James the Just did, because he was Bishop of Jerusalem. +Peter was visiting and deferred to he in whose house he was a guest.
Let's address this:
On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is,
Why this would be taken as an argument against the Petrine Office is strange to me. Everyone admits (or at least should) that Peter is not *the sole Rock* but a Rock only in the sense of *sharing* the Rockhood of Christ. That is only obvious, and it is explicitly laid out in Ephesians 2:20. Christ the ultimate foundation, then the Apostles and prophets on top of that. So of course Peter's rock-like nature comes from Christ, and not Christ's from Peter. That's self-evident.
Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures
This one requires a bit of grammatical digging. At first blush it looks like Augustine is denying that the authority was given to Peter himself.
Upon close study, I don't think that's what's going on. Remember, Augustine just finished saying that Peter was "the representative for all the Church". So at the very least he receiving the authority *as its representative*. So I think that we can plausibly read an "only" in the middle of that line: Therefore it was not ONLY one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys”. Now look at the next line: "And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person,". Not *exclusively* a single person but the Church, which has Peter as its representative.
What I'm driving at here is I don't think Augustine is saying that Peter didn't receive the authority. He is just saying that Peter didn't receive the authority ALONE but received it *as the representative of the Universal Church*.
There's another quote from Sermon #295 that would come into play here, but I am having trouble finding a reliable version of it and the exact wording will be important. I want to get it right, so I'll keep looking.
Mark, You have missed the thrust of this series. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Make Peter the rock the church is built on. From this segment;
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.
Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).
Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)
Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven as have all who believe. They have no authority on earth.
Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB
“Well, I’m not entirely certain that Mr. R and I would agree on everything...”
Shoot - my WIFE and I don’t agree on everything! That’s why I have 3 dogs. At any given time, at least one of them will agree with me. Particularly when I’m holding their food bowls...
My understanding (slim, since I admittedly don’t spend a lot of time reading Augustine) is that he considered Peter a type, and what he received, he did so on behalf of all bishops.
Some Protestants view it that way, some broaden it to all believers, and some restrict it to the Apostles. I tend to be one of those who broaden it a bit, and say Peter received it on behalf of all the church, to use as led by the Holy Spirit. I’m not dogmatic on it, apart from seeing no indication it meant Peter and Peter’s ‘successors’ alone. That just seems silly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.