Posted on 08/31/2002 5:34:56 PM PDT by JMJ333
Taken from Part Two: THE ECCLESIASTICAL MONARCHY FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST
It seems as if Jesus wished to leave no possible doubt as to the intent and bearing of His words regarding the rock of the Church. He therefore completed them by explicitly committing the power of the keys and the supreme government of His Kingdom to that fundamental authority of the Church which He established in the person of Simon Peter. 'And I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.'
And here we must first of all clear tip a contradiction which our 'orthodox' controversialists ascribe to Jesus Christ. In order to eliminate as far as possible the distinction between Peter and the other Apostles it is asserted that the power of the keys is nothing else but the power of binding and loosing; after saying 'I will give thee the keys', Jesus is supposed to have repeated the same promise in other words.
But in speaking of keys the words 'shut' and 'open' should have been used and not 'bind' and 'loose', as in fact (to confine ourselves solely to the New Testament) we read in the Apocalypse: 'He who has the key of David, who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens' - Apoc. 3: 7.)
A room, a house or a city may be shut and opened, but only particular beings or objects situated within the room or house or city can be bound and unbound. The Gospel passage in question is a metaphor, but a metaphor is not necessarily an absurdity. The symbol of the keys of the Kingdom (of the royal dwelling--beth-ha-melek) must necessarily represent a wider and more general authority than the symbol of binding and loosing.
The special power of binding and loosing having been bestowed upon Peter in the same terms as those in which it was conferred later on the other Apostles (Matt.18: 8), it is plain from the context of the latter chapter that this lesser power only concerns individual cases ('if thy brother sin against thee', etc.), which is in entire agreement with the sense of the metaphor used in the Gospel.
Only personal problems of conscience and the direction of individual souls fall under the authority to bind and loose which was given to the other Apostles after Peter; whereas the power of the keys of the Kingdom conferred solely on Peter can only refer to the whole of the Church (if we are to follow not only the exact sense of our text but general Biblical analogy) and must denote a supreme social and political authority, the general administration of the Kingdom of God on earth. The life of the Christian soul must neither be separated from the organization of the Universal Church nor confused with it. They are two different orders of things though closely interconnected.
Just as the teaching of the Church is no mere compound of personal beliefs, so the government of the Church cannot be reduced to the direction of individual consciences or of private morality. Founded on unity of faith, the Universal Church as a real and living social organism must also display unity of action sufficient to react successfully at every moment of her historic existence against the combined attacks of those hostile forces which would divide and destroy her.
Unity of action for a vast and complicated social organism implies a whole system of organic functions subordinate to a common center which can set them in motion in the direction desired at any given moment. As the unity of the orthodox faith is finally guaranteed by the dogmatic authority of a single individual speaking for all, so unity of ecclesiastical action is necessarily conditioned by the directing authority of a single individual bearing sway over the whole Church.
But in the One Holy Church, founded upon truth, government cannot be separated from doctrine; and the central and supreme power in the ecclesiastical sphere can only belong to him who by divinely aided authority represents and displays in the religious sphere the unity of true faith.
This is why the keys of the Kingdom have been given to none other than him who is by his faith the Rock of the Church.
The Church is not only the perfect union of mankind with God in Christ, but it is also the social order established by the Divine Will in which and through which this union of the Divine and the human may be accomplished. Founded on eternal Truth, the Church is not only the perfect Life (in the future) but it has also always been in the past and still is in the present the Way which leads to this ideal perfection.
Man's social existence upon earth cannot be excluded from the new union of the human and the Divine which is accomplished in Christ. If the elements even of our material life are transformed and sanctified in the sacraments, how can the social and political order, which is an essential form of human existence, be left a prey to the warfare of selfish ambitions, the clash of murderous passions and the conflict of erroneous opinions?
Since man is essentially a social being, the ultimate aim of the working of God in mankind is the creation of a perfect universal society. But it is not a creation ex nihilo; for the material of the perfect society is given us, namely society in its imperfect state, mankind as it is; and this is neither excluded nor suppressed by the Kingdom of God but drawn into the sphere of the Kingdom, to be regenerated, sanctified and transfigured.
The religion which seeks to bind man's individual being to Christ is not content with an invisible and purely spiritual communion; it desires that man should communicate with his God throughout his entire being, even by the physical act of feeding. In this mystical but real communion the matter of the sacrament is not simply destroyed and annihilated, it is transubstantiated, that is to say, the 'interior and invisible substance of the bread and wine is lifted into the sphere of Christ's ascended bodily nature and absorbed by it, while the phenomenal reality or outward appearance of these objects remains without sensible change that they may act in the given conditions of our physical existence and so establish a link between that existence and the Body of God.
So also must the collective, common life of mankind be mystically transubstantiated while retaining the species or outward forms of earthly society, and these very forms must be duly ordained and consecrated to serve as the actual foundation and visible instruments of the social activity of Christ in His Church.
The ultimate aim of the work of God in mankind, regarded from the Christian standpoint, is not the manifestation of the divine power--that is the Moslem conception -- but the free, mutual union of mankind with God. And the proper means of accomplishing this work is not the hidden operation of Providence aiding individuals and nations by unknown ways to uncomprehended ends; such a purely and exclusively supernatural operation, though always necessary, is not sufficient in itself.
Moreover, since the actual historic union of God and Man in Christ, Man must himself play a positive part in his appointed destiny and as a social being communicate in the life of Christ. But if mortal men here below are actually to have a real share in the invisible and supernatural government of Christ, then that government must assume visible and natural social forms.
Some social institution, whose origin, end and powers are divine, while its means of action are human and adapted to the needs of historic existence, is essential to represent and minister to the perfection of divine grace and truth in Jesus Christ that this perfection may operate in, and co-operate with, imperfect human nature.
If the Church is to guide the common life of mankind towards the goal of divine love, and to direct public opinion on the road to divine truth she must possess a universal government divinely authorized. This government must be clearly defined so as to be recognizable to all, and permanent so as to form a standing court of appeal; it must be divine in substance so as to be finally binding upon the religious conscience of every instructed and well-intentioned person, and it must be human and imperfect in its historic manifestation so as to admit the possibility of moral resistance and allow room for doubts, struggle, temptations and all that constitutes the merit of free and genuinely human virtue.
Though the supreme authority of the Church may admit of various administrative forms according to differences of time and place, yet if it is to form the primary basis of union between the social conscience of mankind and the providential government of God and to share in the divine Majesty while adapting itself to the realities of human life, it must always as the center of unity preserve its purely monarchical character. if the supreme authority of the Universal Church were vested solely in the collective administration of a council, the unity of her human activity linking her to the absolute unity of divine truth could only be based on one of two things: either on the perfect unanimity of all its members, or else on a majority of opinions, as in secular assemblies.
The latter supposition is incompatible with the majesty of God, Who would be obliged constantly to accommodate His will and His truth to the chance convergences of human opinion and the interplay of human passions. As for unanimity or complete and permanent harmony, such a condition of the social conscience could, by its intrinsic moral excellence, undoubtedly correspond to the divine perfection and infallibly manifest the action of God in mankind.
But while the political principle of a majority vote comes short of the dignity of God, unfortunately the ideal principle of immediate, spontaneous and permanent unanimity is equally far in advance of the present state of man. That perfect unity which Jesus Christ in His high-priestly prayer held up before us as the final objective of His work cannot be assumed as the present and obvious starting-point of that work. The surest way never to achieve the desired perfection is to imagine that it is already achieved.
Conscious unanimity and solidarity, brotherly love and free agreement, such is the universally accepted ideal of the Church. But the difference between an idle dream and the divine ideal of unity is that the latter has an actual foundation (the doV moi pou stw of social mechanics) from which to gain ground little by little on earth and to achieve gradual and successive conquests over all the powers of discord.
A real and indivisible principle of unity is absolutely necessary to counteract the deep-seated and active tendency to division in the world and even in the Church itself. The principle of that universal religious unity of grace and truth, which is eventually to become the very essence of the life of each individual believer and the perfect and indissoluble bond between him and his neighbor, must none the less in the meantime have an objective existence and act everywhere under the 'species' of a visible and definite social authority.
The perfection of the one universal Church consists in the harmony and unanimity of all its members; but its very existence amid actual disharmony requires a unifying and reconciling power immune from this disharmony and in continual reaction against it, asserting itself above all divisions and gathering to itself all men of goodwill, denouncing and condemning whatever is opposed to the Kingdom of God on earth.
Whoever desires that Kingdom must desire the only way that will lead mankind collectively to it. Between the hateful reality of the disharmony reigning in this world and the longed-for unity of perfect love in which God reigns there is the necessary road of a juridical and authoritative unity linking human fact to divine right.
The perfect circle of the Universal Church requires a unique center, not so much for its perfection as for its very existence. The Church upon earth, called to gather in the multitude of the nations, must, if she is to remain an active society, possess a definite universal authority to set against national divisions; if she is to enter the current of history and undergo continual change and adaptation in her external circumstances and relationships and yet preserve her identity, she requires an authority essentially conservative but nevertheless active, fundamentally unchangeable though outwardly adaptable; and finally if she is set amid the frailty of man to assert herself in reaction against all the powers of evil, she must be equipped with an absolutely firm and impregnable foundation, stronger than the gates of hell.
Now we know on the one hand that Christ foresaw the necessity of such an ecclesiastical monarchy and therefore conferred on a single individual supreme and undivided authority over His Church; and on the other hand we see that of all the ecclesiastical powers in the Christian world there is only one which perpetually and unchangingly preserves its central and universal character and at the same time is specially connected by an ancient and widespread tradition with him to whom Christ said: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ's words could not remain without their effect in Christian history; and the principal phenomenon in Christian history must have an adequate cause in the word of God. Where then have Christ's words to Peter produced a corresponding effect except in the Chair of Peter? Where does that Chair find an adequate cause except in the promise made to Peter?
The living truths of religion do not compel the reason in the manner of geometrical theorems. Moreover it would be unsafe to assert that even the truths of mathematics are unanimously accepted by everyone for the sole reason of their intrinsic proof; they meet with general acceptance because no one is concerned to reject them.
I am not so simple as to hope to convince those who are influenced by other motives more powerful than the search for religious truth. In setting out the general proofs of the permanent primacy of Peter as the foundation of the Universal Church, my only aim has been to assist the intellectual task of those who deny this truth not from personal or emotional reasons, but from unconscious error and inherited prejudice. In pursuance of this aim I must now, while keeping my eyes always fixed on the brilliant searchlight of the Biblical record, embark for a moment on the dark and uncertain domain of universal history.
Conscious unanimity and solidarity, brotherly love and free agreement, such is the universally accepted ideal of the Church. But the difference between an idle dream and the divine ideal of unity is that the latter has an actual foundation (the doV moi pou stw of social mechanics) from which to gain ground little by little on earth and to achieve gradual and successive conquests over all the powers of discord.
Unanimity and solidarity are the ideal..........Sounds like one that all Catholics would want to strive toward.
The list of passages sited in Parts 1-6:
(Matt. 16: 13-19) [13] When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? [14] And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. [15] He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? [16] And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
(Matt. 28: 17) [17] And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
(Luke 24:19-21) [19] And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: [20] And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. [21] But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
(1 Pet 2: 4,5)[4] To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, [5] Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(Matt. 16: 21-23)[21] From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. [22] Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. [23] But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
(Matt.18: 8)[8] Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Is this the totallity of Soloviev on the Papacy?
I also asked on the second thread about specific arguments about the verses you cite. Soloviev gives long explanations in regard to every verse he uses. Which specific argument is it that you disagree with?
JM, I will have to read beyond the verses that were sited.
I approch Bible study in this way.
I will read the verses a person would site.
The read the chapter the verses are in.
If their meaning is still not clear I will read the entire book.
I haven't made it that far with these verses yet and I do not like to just voice an off the cuff opinion.
I will let you know where I might agree or disagree after reading a bit more.
Thanks...
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.