Comparatively though at that time the church was very united in doctrine, and the amazing thing was they didnāt need a Pope (indeed the bishop at Rome wasnāt even viewed as a first among equals, he was just the bishop of Rome). It was in unanimity where they believed infallibility was found (i.e. Episcopal councils); and this idea was most certainly supported (perhaps even promulgated) by St. Iraneaus.
**Peter was Peter ā¦ thereās no logical indication by scripture that the idea of a Peter should live on in perpetuity. He was the rock (of faith that according to Christ was given by god), he carried forward Christās mission to build the church (along with Paul). He validated Paulās ministry and apostleship. Thereās many ways Peter lived up to his role, but thereās just no support IMO for the RCCās idea of a papacy. **
One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this ā W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, āPeter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter.ā In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesusā reference to the rock point only to Peterās faith or confession. āTo deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,ā Albright says, āamong the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peterās failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.ā We will see."
Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Hereās what he says, āIsaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority.ā
Now letās just stop here and ask, āWhat is he talking about?ā I think itās simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. Heās quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Letās go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.
By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.
Whatās happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, āI will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.ā
Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. Itās a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, āI will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his fatherās house.ā Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.
Now, what is going on here? Iāll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and thatās why Eliakim is called to fill it.
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
Because now we have a problem (even in our country, and we pay a lot of taxes already) trying to rectify a situation that is very lopsided, in that, we have a workforce that is smaller than the amount of people who will be retiring. We in the Western world need to reproduce ourselves, and Iām telling you now, it isnāt so bad in America as it will be in Europe (whose governments are more socialistic) as their birthrate is below replacement level (I think in America itās still at above 2 children). Most of them will have to fix this problem through immigration, in order to keep their socialistic programs alive.
