Eliakim and Peter

[Ahimsa]

Since the OT presents the foreshadowing of Christ, I do not see why it in necessary that it foreshadow Peter. Christ kinda matters a bit more.

Perhaps the “Lord” spoken of in

Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
“I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah…”

is actually Christ, rather than the Father.

 

[mardukm]

I’ve mentioned this “proof text” in several places. This is the first I’ve got any response.

My first problem is that the Douay-Rheims Bible, a translation made in the English Reformation to bolster the supremacy of the pope of Rome over the King of England, not only does NOT make a connection to Matthew, but also identifies Eliakim as a “figure of Christ”
drbo.org/chapter/27022.htm

Second, I’ve yet to see a Latin apologist who does NOT stop on verse 24. The text goes on:
25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

So it is Christ who possesses the keys (no big surprise). So to whom did Christ give the keys?

Where’s the disconnect?

I don’t see what the fuss is about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So it is Christ who possesses the keys (no big surprise). So to whom did Christ give the keys?

All the Apostles. Even according to the “Catholic Encyclopedia”: “In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins”
newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

And as St. Matthew goes on (18:18) to say, as does St. John (20:23) this power was conferred to the Apostles directly from Him, NOT through St. Peter.

Where’s the disconnect?

I’m looking at my “The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World.” Isaiah has no mention of any patristics on this verse of Isaiah. Is there any?

This disconnenct is if this verse was so “obvious” as is claimed as a petrine proof-text, why the disconnect of silence between the Apostles and Silence and modern Vatican apologists.

I don’t see what the fuss is about.

Just for a “proof-text” of Vatican supremacy, it seems odd that the creators of the Douay-Rheims (btw, my priest, until the Orthodox Study Bible translation of the LXX came out, recommended the Douay-Rheims for English readers), who had every reason to make every use of such “proof-texts” knew nothing of it.

I have no problem with new meanings that are in accord with the old (e.g. I like the idea of the Theotokos as the Queen Mother, but I haven’t come across early expositions on it), but in this case, that is begging the question.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve mentioned this “proof text” in several places. This is the first I’ve got any response.

My first problem is that the Douay-Rheims Bible, a translation made in the English Reformation to bolster the supremacy of the pope of Rome over the King of England,

Where did you get this commentary?

Isa:

not only does NOT make a connection to Matthew, but also identifies Eliakim as a “figure of Christ”
drbo.org/chapter/27022.htm

Second, I’ve yet to see a Latin apologist who does NOT stop on verse 24. The text goes on:
25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

From the Douay

Is 22:
23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Where is the problem? Doesn’t this not look like a spiritual type of Jesus?

As a second spiritual type, when Jesus says to Peter, I will put you in charge of MY Father’s house, I give you the keys and everything in the Father’s house, and OBTW, you will be crucified. Is not Isaiah not describing a type of Peter also?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Where did you get this commentary?

From knowing history.

But so you don’t need to take my word on it:
newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm
The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument.

The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics. The fact however, that the primary end was controversial explains the course adopted by the translators. In the first place they translated directly, not from the original Hebrew or Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. This had been declared authoritative for Catholics by the Council of Trent

Is 22:
23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

Where is the problem? Doesn’t this not look like a spiritual type of Jesus?

I didn’t dispute the gloss of the Douay-Rheims at all.

As a second spiritual type, when Jesus says to Peter, I will put you in charge of MY Father’s house, I give you the keys and everything in the Father’s house, and OBTW, you will be crucified. Is not Isaiah not describing a type of Peter also?

That is the question now, isn’t it? If it was as obvious as the Vatican’s apologists would have it, why did Bishop Challoner et alia, and those before them, miss it?

 

[rmichelle894]

I have no problem with new meanings that are in accord with the old (e.g. I like the idea of the Theotokos as the Queen Mother, but I haven’t come across early expositions on it), but in this case, that is begging the question.

=================================================

<a href "www.gmail.com

 

[steve_b]

From knowing history.

But so you don’t need to take my word on it:

newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htmThe original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument.

The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics. The fact however, that the primary end was controversial explains the course adopted by the translators. In the first place they translated directly, not from the original Hebrew or Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. This had been declared authoritative for Catholics by the Council of Trent

That’s not quite the point you made when you said.

:
Douay-Rheims Bible, a translation made in the English Reformation to bolster the supremacy of the pope of Rome over the King of England,

Isa:

I didn’t dispute the gloss of the Douay-Rheims at all.

That is the question now, isn’t it? If it was as obvious as the Vatican’s apologists would have it, why did Bishop Challoner et alia, and those before them, miss it?

Darned if I know

I focus on the ones who DID see it.

 

[rmichelle894]

All the Apostles. Even according to the “Catholic Encyclopedia”: “In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins”​

<a href <"gmail.com

 

[adstrinity]

All the Apostles. Even according to the “Catholic Encyclopedia”: “In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins”
newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

And as St. Matthew goes on (18:18) to say, as does St. John (20:23) this power was conferred to the Apostles directly from Him, NOT through St. Peter.

NAB Bible on Matt 16:16 – [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

On Matt 16:18 –
15 [18] Except for the plural of the verbs bind and loose, this verse is practically identical with Matthew 16:19b and many scholars understand it as granting to all the disciples what was previously given to Peter alone. For a different view, based on the different contexts of the two verses, see the note on Matthew 16:19.
16 [19-20] Some take these verses as applying to prayer on the occasion of the church’s gathering to deal with the sinner of Matthew 18:17. Unless an a fortiori argument is supposed, this seems unlikely. God’s answer to the prayer of two or three envisages a different situation from one that involves the entire congregation. In addition, the object of this prayer is expressed in most general terms as anything for which they are to pray.

On John 20:23 – 16 [23] The Council of Trent defined that this power to forgive sins is exercised in the sacrament of penance. See Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18.

 

[rmichelle894]

The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument.​

<a href<"www.gmail.com

 

[ronyodish]

So to whom did Christ give the keys?

All the Apostles.

Marduk and Isa,

An ancient Father and Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East, Mar Papa Bar Gaggai, does not take the above perspective. This is what he said:

---

In the Holy Church all perfection ought to be especially fulfilled, for as the Father of truth is one, and his Son, Christ the Savior, is one, and his living Spirit, the Paraclete, is one, so his faithful steward, Simon Bar Jonah, who was surnamed ‘Kepa’, is one, whom he promised, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church,’ and again, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’.[Matthew 16:18-19] It was not said by Christ to all the disciples, ‘Upon you I will build’ and ‘I will give you’, and although the gift of the priesthood was bestowed upon all the Apostles, yet one headship, which is a spiritual fatherhood, was not for all. Instead, as it is with the one true God, (so it is) with one faithful steward, who should be head, leader, and administrator of his brothers. These laws and limitations are observed in the church with us.[SO, 47]

Taken from The Church of the East by Mar Bawai Soro, pages 157-158.​

For the Church of the East, St. Peter is referred to as the Resha daShleehe, the head of the Apostles, and as Mar Bawai teaches, there can be no Peter for the particular Church if there is not already a Peter for the universal Church. The fact that we have Patriarchs for particular Churches presupposes a universal model from which the particular model is derived.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That’s not quite the point you made when you said.

Oh? The supremacy of the pope over the king was THE issue of the English Reformation, and that was what the English at Douay was were aiming at reversing.

Darned if I know

I focus on the ones who DID see it.

And they would be who?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Marduk and Isa,

An ancient Father and Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East, Mar Papa Bar Gaggai, does not take the above perspective. This is what he said:

---

In the Holy Church all perfection ought to be especially fulfilled, for as the Father of truth is one, and his Son, Christ the Savior, is one, and his living Spirit, the Paraclete, is one, so his faithful steward, Simon Bar Jonah, who was surnamed ‘Kepa’, is one, whom he promised, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church,’ and again, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’.[Matthew 16:18-19] It was not said by Christ to all the disciples, ‘Upon you I will build’ and ‘I will give you’, and although the gift of the priesthood was bestowed upon all the Apostles, yet one headship, which is a spiritual fatherhood, was not for all. Instead, as it is with the one true God, (so it is) with one faithful steward, who should be head, leader, and administrator of his brothers. These laws and limitations are observed in the church with us.[SO, 47]

Taken from The Church of the East by Mar Bawai Soro, pages 157-158.​

For the Church of the East, St. Peter is referred to as the Resha daShleehe, the head of the Apostles, and as Mar Bawai teaches, there can be no Peter for the particular Church if there is not already a Peter for the universal Church. The fact that we have Patriarchs for particular Churches presupposes a universal model from which the particular model is derived.

God bless,

Rony

When is Bawai Soro?

In EO circles Peter is foremost in the ranks of the Apostles, or corephaeos (splling?) director.

I think you mentioned before in passing something I had brought up, that the Catholicos of the East had begun at one point to present himself as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch.

The history of the development of the pentarchy is not one of replicating the model of Rome, but the various metropolis (which included for instance Ephesus for Asia, Thessalonica for Thrace, Carthage in Africa, Lyons in Gaul, etc), gravitating into three patriarchates, only a few maintaining an early independence (e.g. Cyprus). Two, Constantinople and Jerusalem, were artificially constructed within that context.

On a related note: does anyone know whom St. Ephraim/Aprim the Syrian recognized as his patriarch?

 

[antgaria]

Dear Isa Almisry,

H.G. Mar Bawai Soro is actually from these days. The quote though is from Mar Papa Bar Gaggai who is from the very early 4th century. He was our first Catholicos in the cities of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. He is very big in the CotE tradition.

Again, his strong stance in these matters helped defend the ecclesiastical system that brother Marduk has pointed out being so prominent in Oriental traditions as well as Western. He was attacked, and made appeal to the “Western bishops” who replied back affirming his headship over the other bishops.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[twf]

Isa Almisry:
Surely it has been pointed out to you multiple times by now that the Catholic Church FULLY AGREES that the power of the keys are excercised by the Church and not by the successor of Peter alone. The Catechism and canon law both clarify that the Supreme Authority of the Church (the universal exercise of binding and loosing) is comprised of the Pope AND bishops…not the pope alone. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that bishops derive their power and office directly from Christ. When necessary, they do owe the Pope of Rome obedience, as he has been entrusted with the entire Church (while individual bishops are entrusted with particular churches) but he is not in any way the source of their authority. All bishops are true vicars of Christ within their own particular churches.

 

[ronyodish]

When is Bawai Soro?

Isa,

As Anthony mentioned, Mar Bawai Soro is a current bishop, but the quote I gave above is from Mar Papa Bar Gaggai, an ancient Catholicos of the Church of the East (CotE).

In EO circles Peter is foremost in the ranks of the Apostles, or corephaeos (splling?) director.

Ok, Peter then is the corephaeos or head of the Apostles.

I think you mentioned before in passing something I had brought up, that the Catholicos of the East had begun at one point to present himself as the successor of St. Peter at Antioch.

The Apostolic line of the Catholicos of the CotE was and is different from the Apostolic line of the Catholicos of Antioch. St. Peter physically served at Antioch. Sometimes, you will see his name listed in the CotE Apostolic Succession lists, and that’s because of his foundational role in the universal Church and as a link of communion with all the Apostles, and not because he physically served among us Mesopotamians/Persians/Indians. The Apostle that physically founded and served among us is St. Thomas.

Perhaps you are referring to the Synod of Mar Dadisho’ of 424, which taught: “It is the Catholicos who is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical congregation”. Mar Bawai Soro makes the argument that there can be no Peter for the particular Church if there is not already a Peter for the universal Church. In other words, if the Catholicos “is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical congregation”, it is because there exists a universal Peter, head of all the Patriarchs, from which the particular headship of the Catholicos-Patriarch is based on.

Another way of saying it: If each particular Patriarch is father and head of his Bishops, it is because there exists a universal Pope, father and head of all the Patriarchs. Mar Abdisho of Soba, the great medieval canonist and theologian of the CotE taught in his Nomocanon that “the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church”.

The history of the development of the pentarchy is not one of replicating the model of Rome, but the various metropolis (which included for instance Ephesus for Asia, Thessalonica for Thrace, Carthage in Africa, Lyons in Gaul, etc), gravitating into three patriarchates, only a few maintaining an early independence (e.g. Cyprus). Two, Constantinople and Jerusalem, were artificially constructed within that context.

I’m referring to the model of the universal Church from which the model of the particular Church is based on. Here is another way of saying it: There can be no Protos for the particular Church if there is not already a Protos for the universal Church. The fact that we have a Protos for each particular Church presupposes a universal Protos. That was the big question at Ravenna, whether or not there exists a universal Protos, and the Orthodox there agreed with the Catholics that there is.

On a related note: does anyone know whom St. Ephraim/Aprim the Syrian recognized as his patriarch?

Good question, I’ve never researched it, but I know that us Assyrian-Chaldeans claim him as our own, and also our Syriac-Antiochene brethren claim him as their own. This is actually a small brotherly rivalry between us and them

God bless,

Rony

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa,

As Anthony mentioned, Mar Bawai Soro is a current bishop, but the quote I gave above is from Mar Papa Bar Gaggai, an ancient Catholicos of the Church of the East (CotE).

Ok, Peter then is the corephaeos or head of the Apostles.

The Apostolic line of the Catholicos of the CotE was and is different from the Apostolic line of the Catholicos of Antioch. St. Peter physically served at Antioch. Sometimes, you will see his name listed in the CotE Apostolic Succession lists, and that’s because of his foundational role in the universal Church and as a link of communion with all the Apostles, and not because he physically served among us Mesopotamians/Persians/Indians. The Apostle that physically founded and served among us is St. Thomas.

yes, and Mari and Addai/Thaddaeus.

Perhaps you are referring to the Synod of Mar Dadisho’ of 424, which taught: “It is the Catholicos who is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical congregation”. Mar Bawai Soro makes the argument that there can be no Peter for the particular Church if there is not already a Peter for the universal Church. In other words, if the Catholicos “is for us Peter, head of our ecclesiastical congregation”, it is because there exists a universal Peter, head of all the Patriarchs, from which the particular headship of the Catholicos-Patriarch is based on.

I was thinking of some things I read from the late Mar Shimun, which referenced for instance in the funeral service of the Catholicos some references to him being Peter. Also some things on the name Shimun “Simeon.”

Another way of saying it: If each particular Patriarch is father and head of his Bishops, it is because there exists a universal Pope, father and head of all the Patriarchs. Mar Abdisho of Soba, the great medieval canonist and theologian of the CotE taught in his Nomocanon that “the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the church”.

I’m referring to the model of the universal Church from which the model of the particular Church is based on. Here is another way of saying it: There can be no Protos for the particular Church if there is not already a Protos for the universal Church. The fact that we have a Protos for each particular Church presupposes a universal Protos. That was the big question at Ravenna, whether or not there exists a universal Protos, and the Orthodox there agreed with the Catholics that there is.

The history of the Church shows, however that the “universal protos” was modeled on the “paritcular” protus, not the reverse, the latter themselves been the end point of a process of developement of orgainzing independent bishops, except in Egypt, which was recognized as standing out with having only one bishop and chorbishops.

Good question, I’ve never researched it, but I know that us Assyrian-Chaldeans claim him as our own, and also our Syriac-Antiochene brethren claim him as their own. This is actually a small brotherly rivalry between us and them

Make room for the Greeks and Arabs, not to mention the Russians, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Isa Almisry:
Surely it has been pointed out to you multiple times by now that the Catholic Church FULLY AGREES that the power of the keys are excercised by the Church and not by the successor of Peter alone. The Catechism and canon law both clarify that the Supreme Authority of the Church (the universal exercise of binding and loosing) is comprised of the Pope AND bishops…not the pope alone. The Catholic Church does indeed teach that bishops derive their power and office directly from Christ. When necessary, they do owe the Pope of Rome obedience, as he has been entrusted with the entire Church (while individual bishops are entrusted with particular churches) but he is not in any way the source of their authority. All bishops are true vicars of Christ within their own particular churches.

I’ve dealt with the consistency of this elsewhere.

 

[Aramis]

I’ve dealt with the consistency of this elsewhere.

No, you’ve ignored evidence against your mischaracterizations several times.

 

[ronyodish]

I was thinking of some things I read from the late Mar Shimun, which referenced for instance in the funeral service of the Catholicos some references to him being Peter. Also some things on the name Shimun “Simeon.”

I see. The references to Peter in the service are probably a reflection of the Synod I mentioned.

The history of the Church shows, however that the “universal protos” was modeled on the “paritcular” protus, not the reverse, the latter themselves been the end point of a process of developement of orgainzing independent bishops, except in Egypt, which was recognized as standing out with having only one bishop and chorbishops.

Going back to the beginning of Christianity, we had Peter and the Apostles, with Peter being their head and spokesman. This is what I refer to as the universal model.

The later rising of Patriarchates was a particular reflection of this early universal model, that is, what each Patriarch was to his Patriarchate was based on what Peter was to the Apostles. Peter being the Protos of the Apostles is the universal basis upon which the particular Patriarch becoming the Protos of his Patriarchate.

I maintain that the relationship between the Pope to all the Patriarchs (or Bishop of Rome to all the Bishops), is a succession of the universal model. I maintain that the relationship between each Patriarch to his Bishops (or Bishop to his priests) is a succession of the particular model. This latter particular model is based on the former universal model.

You maintain that the universal Protos was modeled on the particular Protos. I maintain that the particular Protos was modeled on the universal Protos. Perhaps it is not an either/or, perhaps both can work. In any case, this is my perspective, that the reason that we have a Protos in each particular Church is because there already exists a Protos for the universal Church.

God bless,

Rony