Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
"But you do not see him as being above the others. He was just a leader and apostle in the early church."
No, not above the others, but, as I said, among the others. For this reason as well as the fact that "Old Rome" was the original seat of the Empire, the Ecumenical Councils decreed that the Bishop of Rome, as successor to +Peter, is the "first among equals" of the bishops of The Church. Orthodoxy takes that position to this day, but of course for now the Bishop of Rome is in schism from the Church in the East.
Well, I would argue that his having been bishop of Rome is questionable as well. But certainly among the apostles he was an equal, a peer, of a select group of men who were to fulfill a specific duty in the founding of the church. The apostles operated under direct revelation at times, and could be mentors to the fledgling churches as none other on earth could. They were eyewitnesses of Christ (either during His earthly ministry or in Paul's case after the resurrection). In Scripture, you don't see Peter being considered above but as you say, among. Peter's words in I & II Peter are as authoritative and no more so than Paul's or Matthew's or John's or James's. And all have their inspiration from the Spirit of the Living God.
Thank you for your help tonight Kolo
"Well, I would argue that his having been bishop of Rome is questionable as well."
Certainly there have been questions raised about that as well as about +Andrew, his brother, having established the Great Church of Constantinople (long before it was Constantinople). The Church has believed he (+Peter) did since the earliest days. I'm Orthodox and I believe it.
"Thank you for your help tonight Kolo"
You are as always very welcome.
How many of us begin a meditation or prayer contemplating names like these: I AM, Messiah, YHWH, Jesus Christ, The Rock, Immanuel, Rose of Sharon, Lily of the Valley, Bright and Morning Star, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai, HaShem, Almighty God, Word of God, Alpha and Omega, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and so on?
I assert that when we contemplate a Name of God, we are also worshipping Him through one of His revelations to us. He is the Rock, He is Alpha and Omega, He is the Word of God, He is God with us, He is the Vine, and so on.
Bumpworthy insights here! Thank you so much for including me in the ping!
(re: paragraph two in italics above: ME! Count me in that number!)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, with one small emendation. We certainly can see in Eliakim a type of Christ entrusted with the House of David. But David is also a type of Christ, right? So if you look at it that way, Eliakim as a regent entrusted with the keys of David is analogous to Peter as a regent entrusted with the keys of Christ. Does that sound reasonable?
I'm glad you brought up the 12 thrones, but again, I can't emphasize enough that the Petrine office is not an absolutist one separate from the Apostles. All of the Apostles share in the rulership here, but Peter is sort of the "head of the college" in a special way. All 12 are thrones, all 12 are part of the foundation of the Church, and among those 12, Peter alone holds the keys.
And yes, we can consider salvation one of the keys, and faith one of the keys etc. I don't have to tell you that many layers of meaning are possible here. But those layers do not then take away what is--IMHO--the fundamental meaning of this passage, which is that Christ invests Peter with divine authority.
I would say, though--(I am grateful for the opportunity to finally cite the Fathers--evidence that has been heretofore indamissible :)...that the Church Fathers promoted both interpretations--that the Rock was both Peter's Confession as well as Peter himself. Which is why I was careful earlier in the thread not to trumpet the latter at the expense of the former.
And now that you're here I also want to ask you about tauth petra...admittedly my Greek is not very good, but does that "taute" at all have the force of "same", e.g. "this same rock"?
Blogger, again...I accept the "Peter's confession" interpretation totally. What I do not accept is promoting it at the expense of Peter himself. The keys were given to Peter, not to Peter's confession. So basically what I'm arguing for is the preservation of both interpretations, but neither one at the expense of the other.
BTW, I don't have any problem with this formulation. Being a Roman Catholic doesn't necessitate being an ultra-montanist! :)
If we mean "not above" as meaning he had no special role to play within the College of Aposles, that I cannot accept because Scripture and the Fathers flatly contradict it.
But if "not above" admits that he did have a special role which was not one of monarchism but rather one of service to the universal Church (whoever is greatest among you must be the servant of the rest, as Alamo-Girl cited earlier), that is pure orthodoxy right there.
I wouldn't either necessarily, but when folks don't see the value in Holy Tradition and firmly believe that it does nothing but "nullify" the word of God, it doesn't do much good to quote it.
Rest assured, if the interest and opportunity arises to quote the Church Fathers, and how they viewed this passage, I will do so. :)
But what are the keys?
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation. The Church Fathers weighed in on it - sometimes in opposition to one another.
I do not accept that Peter had an "extraordinary role" above the other apostles to play. I do not see it in Scripture (contrary to your assertion). I see him having the same role as the other apostles. His word was no more or no less authoritative. The only area in Scripture we really see him as "lead" is at Pentecost. At the Council of Jerusalem, he was one of several voices speaking with the final decision being made by the apostles elders "and the whole church."
The Church Fathers are not Scripture. They provide some insight into what some were thinking then, but they should not be used for doctrinal purposes. Doctrine is derived from Scripture.
" And now that you're here I also want to ask you about tauth petra...admittedly my Greek is not very good, but does that "taute" at all have the force of "same", e.g. "this same rock"?"
I don't think so, no.
"that the Church Fathers promoted both interpretations--that the Rock was both Peter's Confession as well as Peter himself."
Indeed, here and there one does see a Father speaking of the "rock" as being +Peter, though the consensus would indicate otherwise. I think the reason it isn't really an issue among the Fathers is that until very, very late in the patristic period, that interpretation was not used to justify ultramontanism. That's why I say its always dangerous to proof text the Fathers to support ideas which came up after they wrote. That isn't to say that it can never be done. Its done all the time and quite properly so; we just have to be careful to first determine the consensus patrum and then do the proof texting.
In this case I personally think that +Peter received a special commission unlike that of the other apostles. It was a commission to primacy. The rub of course is what does that mean. So far as I can see, that special commission has to carry with it some "power" or "authority" which allows the special commission to be real, to have a real effect within The Church. Again personally, I think we need to look to The Church of the Seven Councils to see how it worked in a united Church. I'll suggest that one sees something "like" it in the role the EP plays in Orthodoxy today but that said, the Petrine Office is clearly more than that. But even there we will see a tension between the claims of the Bishop of Rome and the positions of his brother bishops. We see it as early as Pope St. Leo the Great. The Church however, functioned, and functioned well, with that tension. +Leo is a saint for us Orthodox, no matter what he claimed his role to be. For centuries in the exercise of the authority they had, Bishops of Rome were the bulwarks of Orthodoxy in the face of heretical teachings by eastern Patriarchs and bishops, something for which we Orthodox are eternally grateful. So it can work, it did work but then it didn't, because we in the East were disobedient, as the Latins would say or because Rome went too far as we would say. Whatever the cause, the results in the West were dramatic, nothing less than the rise of Protestantism.
"If we mean "not above" as meaning he had no special role to play within the College of Aposles, that I cannot accept because Scripture and the Fathers flatly contradict it."
Agreed!
Post #106 has an explanation. The keys are symbols of authority: "what you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"
Claud, a lot of this, most of it, is a matter of interpretation.
Indeed! And I have gone through great pains on this thread to keep it on a purely Scriptural level. I have only mentioned the Fathers with Kolo because he's Orthodox and that's a language we speak together. If you want, we can go there, but only if you are prepared to accept that--even though they are not Scripture (you're right there)--their opinions cannot simply be ignored, especially when they all agree on a topic. And I think you will find that there is not such wild disagreement among them as you think on the interpretation of this passage.
Bottom line, and I will repeat this until my fingers fall off. The grant of Peter's authority is taught plainly in Scripture. What exactly that authority *entails* is a different matter. And I'm sorry that you "do not accept it", but I'm sure you will understand that I cannot make your non-acceptance the basis of my exegesis.
I'll grant this to you if it'll help you see it better...all that is *still* a long way from the Papacy as we understand it. You can accept this grant of Peter's authority *without* believing Christ passed it on to other bishops (apostolic succession), you can accept this grant of authority *without* believing that it protected him against error (infallibility). There are any number of gradations on how you see Peter/the Bishop of Rome/the Pope as *some* kind of head of Christianity. So if you are worried that I am forcing you to accept the whole enchilada here, rest easy.
But to imply that such authority was not given to Peter--no way. Scripture is very very clear on that point.
I do not accept Peter as being given any primacy in the church. Peter was given authority in Matthew 16 to bind and loose. This binding and loosing is the keys to the kingdom but was not exclusively given to Peter. Rather, it was a power given to the disciples of Christ (who are more than just the Apostles but were the followers of Christ -i.e., all of us) two chapters later Matthew 18:18-19.
The church fathers can be helpful. I do believe that they can be ignorred however and even rejected when their views go against the teaching of Scripture. I base this upon the Bereans and Paul. If Paul were to speak something anti-Scriptural, they would have been right to ignore him. Paul says if he or an angel of anyone else were to come preaching another gospel, ignore them. So, while I believe the Church Fathers are instructional they must also be measured against the rule of Scripture. Where they say something extra-biblical that is not concerning an essential (essentials being salvation, the triune nature of God, the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin), then most often a certain amount of liberty is warranted. If however, their statements can end up being distorted to where they are affecting a matter of essential doctrine - then I believe that their extra-biblical statement should be rejected and we should go no further than what Scripture says.
I do not see Peter as Pope/bishop of Rome. He was probably in Rome when he died (though I can't be adamant on that), but we see his ministry in several places in Scripture none of which is Rome. Acts doesn't mention him with any primacy in Rome. Acts mentions him as a key leader, but not THE key leader.
I am not implying that Peter wasn't given a specific authority apart from the rest of the apostles. I am declaring that he was not. He had no more authority than the apostles on any matter. Yet he had all of the authority entailed in apostleship.
I seek not to demote Peter from his rightful place in church history. If he truly was the bishop of Rome, I don't really have a problem with that as I do not see Rome being given any primacy. But I also do not wish to elevate him above where I believe Scripture teaches he was. He was a key leader. But he was not the prime leader of the church and his words counted no more and no less than the other apostles. He could be questioned and rebuked, and was. He could be lauded and recognized as one having authority - and was. But he was not prime.
Jesus alone is the head of the church. We have direct access to Him according to the Scripture. He alone is our mediator to the Father. Peter was one of His key men, but He was not vicar. In other words, this statement from the catechism is unbiblical:
For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.""The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."
Peter did not have this power over the other apostles and neither do those deemed his successors have such authority over the whole church.
Israel is God's portion and as such, God alone is ever the king of Israel. David being a man after God's own heart, was allowed to rule temporily. God has taken it back and Jesus occupies the throne. No one rules Israel other than Jesus, since Jesus. Peter was given no earthly throne, nor was any other apostle or disciple. Moreover, Peter was never an apostle sent to gentiles, so he would have no work in Rome. Paul was that emissary.
My remark was not intended at all as any criticism of your participation, which has been helpful, in the conversation. It was just a weary, jaded, pessimistic observation.
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.