Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

The Orthodox are as keenly aware of any possible parallel between Peter and Eliakim. So, the issue of chief steward, regardless of agreement regarding it, has to do with what that means, first in the early Church, and now in the contemporary Church.

Jon

Seeing Peter Through Eastern Eyes
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3488

Excerpt:

What is the authority connoted by the imagery of the keys? Eastern scholars ignore the scriptural background of the phrase “keys of the kingdom.” Not so with Protestant scholars, who along with their Catholic counterparts have devoted a good bit of attention to this subject.

Standing clearly in the background of Matthew 16:19 is Isaiah 22:20-23, which relates the installation of Eliakim as custodian of “‘the key of the house of David.’” In the exercise of that authority “‘he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.’” This responsibility being placed on Eliakim, as all commentaries on Isaiah tell us, was that of the master of the palace. In the ancient Near East the office was widely established. Joseph was master of the palace of Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen. 41).

The master of the palace was second in command to the king (or in Joseph’s case, the pharaoh) himself. He had immediate access to the royal throne. All officials reported to him, all important documents required his seal, all matters of state came under his scrutiny. He governed in the name of the king, and acted for him when the king was absent. There are numerous Old Testament references to the work of the master of the palace in ancient Israel.

Our risen Lord identifies himself to the church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7) as “the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.” To the visionary (John) he identified himself in these words: “I am the first and the last, and the, living one, I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” (Rev. 1:17f.)

Jesus is the master of the house (the Church) which he established on earth. He has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Cullmann sees a clear parallel between Isaiah 22:20-23 and Matthew 16:19. "Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house."12

The Catholic Church’s catechism (section 553) says this. “The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church;. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’” The Church makes it plain that Peter was “the only one to whom he [Jesus] specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.”

This latter conclusion is also the position of Cullmann and a number of other Protestant scholars. Like Cullmann, however, those scholars argue that the authority granted to Peter by Jesus died with Peter.

We have noted that Easterners attempt to dissolve the power of the keys into a generalized commission to “bind and loose.” What they really seek to do is “bind and lose” those keys. This attempt reminds one of a folk song entitled “The Cat Came Back.” The song tells the story of a pesky cat and its owner who went to astonishing lengths to rid himself of the cat. The cat was indestructible. He always came back. The keys Jesus gave to Peter are like that. The gifts Christ gave his Church are not disposable. For centuries non-Catholics have tried to lose those keys, but you can’t get rid of them. Especially if you don’t have them to begin with.

Easterners, then, subsume the power of the keys under the power of binding and loosing. "Binding and loosing is a reference to the teaching, sacramental, and administrative powers of the Apostles which were transmitted to the bishops of the Church."13 The Catholic Church in her Catechism (section 553) explains our Lord’s words: “The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.”

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 22) points out that “the office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head.” Easterners and Catholics can readily agree on that statement, down to the last four words: “united to its head.” In early centuries we agreed on those words also, as we shall see in later articles. Now, however, the words formulate the basic issue which divides Easterners from Catholics.

Rev. Ray Ryland, a convert from the Episcopal Church, is on the staff of Catholic Answers. This article is part of a continuing series on Catholic-Orthodox relations.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Jon

Always, Jon? :nope:

Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument
Peter is the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (AD 170)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (AD 220)

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

St. Gregory Nazianzus

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). … and "Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … “[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. “Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. “The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

St. John Chrysostom

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. “Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. “Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession.” (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In a previous post, I mentioned the parallel between Peter and Joseph in Egypt.

One point I neglected to highlight is that Joseph came to the attention of the Pharoah because he was able to answer Pharaoh’s question with insight given to him by God. But guess what? Peter came to Jesus’ attention because of insight revealed by God.

So, not only was God directly involved with both Joseph and Peter receiving the office of Royal Steward in their respective kingdoms, but He was directly responsible for both of them being able to answer the question put to them by their respective kings as well.

Thus, Jesus mirrored not only the words of Isaiah but also the actions of Pharaoh in establishing Peter as His Royal Steward.

 

[Seraphim73]

I see the quote mine apologetics is still going strong. I will say for a group that always says “truth is not up for a vote” you guys sure are fond of tabulating quotes to support your position. Well, 15 fathers say x, and 20 say *y *,so obviously *y *is true.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Gleanings from a Quiet Afternnoon with Google

THEODORET OF CYR

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” (Epistle 116 to Renatus).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

“For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors.” (De Sacerdotio, 53)

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven’; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.” (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)

BASIL THE GREAT

“When we hear the name of Peter, that name does not cause our minds to dwell on his substance, but we figure to our minds the properties that are connected with him. For we at once, on hearing that name, think of the son of him that came Bethsaida, Andrew’s brother; him that was called from amongst fishermen unto the ministry of the Apostleship; him who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.” (Adv. Eunom. 4)

"One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)

“It seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodial decree, to advise him (the bishop of Rome) to exercise his personal authority in the matter, choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey, - suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here.” (Letter 69 to Anathasius, NPNF2 8:165)

Why does Basil appeal to the personal authority of the Bishop of Rome over a matter in Basil’s jurisdiction?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why does Basil appeal to the personal authority of the Bishop of Rome over a matter in Basil’s jurisdiction?

Calling the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:


Canon 6:
The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

So Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, appealed to the Bishop of Rome for support.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I see the quote mine apologetics is still going strong. I will say for a group that always says “truth is not up for a vote” you guys sure are fond of tabulating quotes to support your position. Well, 15 fathers say x, and 20 say *y *,so obviously *y *is true.

Right… Ironic to use a Democratic system to support a Monarchy

 

[Randy_Carson]

Canon 6:
The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

So Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, appealed to the Bishop of Rome for support.

Just as Jesus said to Peter, “Strengthen your brothers.” But there’s more:

This canon teaches that as per “ancient custom,” there have been three major Sees, each retaining certain jurisdictions. The main ‘controversy’ surrounding Canon 6 is whether it is envisioning a ‘trio of Patriarchs’ rather than a Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Preferring the former interpretation are obviously the Protestants [2] and the Eastern Orthodox. While a quick reading seems to lend weight to the the former reading, a more careful second look reveals that is not the case. Informed Catholics throughout the ages have pointed to a few key details as to why any reading other than that of Papal Primacy doesn’t work.

First of all, from a grammatical point of view, the Canon says nothing about a jurisdiction in reference to the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the idea that Alexandria governs Egypt and Libya, while the Bishop of Rome governs some “Roman” land like Italy is projected onto the Canon, effectively putting words into it’s mouth. This does not prove the Roman primacy, but it does help to remind us that this Canon does not deny a Roman primacy either, since no “Roman territory” is explicitly mentioned.

Second, in terms of the Canon making a logical argument, an interpretation that renders the Canon something to the effect, “Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule Egypt since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to rule Italy” is a non-sequitur fallacy. In other words, it’s irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome governs Italy, since that says nothing about who should rule elsewhere and especially what land they should govern. The same can be said if it is taken to mean “since it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” which brings out the logical fallacy all the more. For a Council that just got done addressing one of the most pernicious heresies of all time, including using precise and deliberate language for the Creed, we should expect a far more reasonable argument in Canon 6 than what Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have to offer.

If Canon 6 excludes some kind of “territory of Italy” over which Rome has primacy, what is the correct interpretation? The Catholic interpretation understands the Canon as follows:

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, since assigning this jurisdiction is an ancient custom established by the Bishop of Rome and reiterated now by this Nicene Council.”

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith, especially when we look at it in the context of the Canons of the councils immediately following Nicaea which sought to expound upon Canon 6.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

All of the sudden, this Canon has some “teeth”. The appeal of the Council is to an ancient custom, which surely must have originated on some solid basis (i.e. not accepted simply “because it’s old”), and this basis is none other than the delegation of the Bishop of Rome. Without question, only the Catholic interpretation of this Canon satisfies the intellect and confirms the Faith, especially when we look at it in the context of the Canons of the councils immediately following Nicaea which sought to expound upon Canon 6.

If my argument is fallacious as you are saying, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome had immediate, supreme, ordinary and universal jurisdiction before the Great Schism. That the first seven Ecumenical Councils clearly establish this. The truth is that we both know you can’t.

What is fallacious, my friend, is to say that the Bishop of Rome had immediate, supreme, ordinary and universal jurisdiction before the Great Schism.

I have asked in
Post 207
Post 214
Post 217
Post 223

The same question. And now for the 5th time I ask:

Can we override en Ecumenical Church Council?

I’ve been 100% fair and answered all of your questions. While my questions remain unanswered.

That is not fair.

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

If my argument is fallacious as you are saying, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome had immediate, supreme, ordinary and universal jurisdiction before the Great Schism. That the first seven Ecumenical Councils clearly establish this. The truth is that we both know you can’t.

What is fallacious, my friend, is to say that the Bishop of Rome had immediate, supreme, ordinary and universal jurisdiction before the Great Schism.

I have asked in
Post 207
Post 214
Post 217
Post 223

The same question. And now for the 5th time I ask:

Can we override en Ecumenical Church Council?

I’ve been 100% fair and answered all of your questions. While my questions remain unanswered.

That is not fair.

:tiphat:

“We”? Who do you mean by “we”?

If by this you mean “the people” will evaluate and accept or reject decisions made by a council, then I would simply state that this democratic form of church governance is Orthodox not Catholic. 'Nuff said.

FWIW, I don’t spend all my free time rummaging through documents of councils looking for answers to obscure questions that only trouble one or two individuals. They have them; let them read them if they will.

What I HAVE demonstrated (since it didn’t require any effort on my part) is that Clement exhibited EXACTLY the kind of authority over the Corinthians and this despite the fact that John was still alive.

However, your questions don’t relate to my thread. Go start your own.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

“We”? Who do you mean by “we”?

If by this you mean “the people” will evaluate and accept or reject decisions made by a council, then I would simply state that this democratic form of church governance is Orthodox not Catholic. 'Nuff said.

So Catholics changed and the Orthodox retained the same form of government since Pentecost.

FWIW, I don’t spend all my free time rummaging through documents of councils looking for answers to obscure questions that only trouble one or two individuals. They have them; let them read them if they will.

Ad hominem? Sigh… Neither do I Randy. A simple read will show.

What I HAVE demonstrated (since it didn’t require any effort on my part) is that Clement exhibited EXACTLY the kind of authority over the Corinthians and this despite the fact that John was still alive.

We are not arguing authority. That is a straw man. We are arguing the exercise of authority by the Royal Steward.

However, your questions don’t relate to my thread. Go start your own.

Convenient.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is fallacious, my friend, is to say that the Bishop of Rome had immediate, supreme, ordinary and universal jurisdiction before the Great Schism.

Do you have a precise date in mind? The Orthodox waffled for a while…

There’s this:

“We can reread the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html#f1

But you’ll want to push back further, no doubt.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you have a precise date in mind? The Orthodox waffled for a while…

There’s this:

“We can reread the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).”

But you’ll want to push back further, no doubt.

I actually beat your quote with Dictatus Papae by over 300 years

But yes, I’m referring to the Unified Catholic Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

Do you have a precise date in mind? The Orthodox waffled for a while…

There’s this:

“We can reread the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).”

But you’ll want to push back further, no doubt.

That was 30 bishops who were strong armed by the emperor. Seems you guys are very selective in your condemnation of caesaropapism.

 

[Seraphim73]

Do you have a precise date in mind? The Orthodox waffled for a while…

There’s this:

“We can reread the definition of the Council of Florence (1439), which stated: “We define that the Holy Apostolic See–and the Roman Pontiff–has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons” (DS 1307).”

But you’ll want to push back further, no doubt.

I would also add that if the pope sent bishops to a council and then decided to reject what they decided no Catholic would blink an eye. The pope is the highest authority in the Latin Church after all. But when the holy synods of the Eastern Churches, which are their highest authority, rejected the findings of THIRTY bishops at Florence it was somehow illegitimate and 600 years later Catholics are still trotting it out. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I actually beat your quote with Dictatus Papae by over 300 years

But yes, I’m referring to the Unified Catholic Church.

That was 30 bishops who were strong armed by the emperor. Seems you guys are very selective in your condemnation of caesaropapism.

I just edited my previous post to include a link to the audience of St. John Paul the Great whom I quoted.

Why not take a look at what he said on this subject?

The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction
General Audience — February 24, 1993
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html#f1

 

[Randy_Carson]

I actually beat your quote with Dictatus Papae by over 300 years

What this consensus opinion about the authorship of that document?

And which of its 27 points do you find most germane?

And I reiterate my call to take this to another thread.

 

[Seraphim73]

I just edited my previous post to include a link to the audience of St. John Paul the Great whom I quoted.

Why not take a look at what he said on this subject?

The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction
General Audience — February 24, 1993
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930224en.html#f1

Well St John Paul is the reason I’m a Christian today. I have a lot of love and respect for him but the view he puts forward here just simply isn’t acceptable. Anything that gives the pope by divine right power over other bishops would never work. The entire paradigm is just too different. Even the way the Catholic Church teaches about the college of bishops would not be acceptable.

“For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.” - Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well St John Paul is the reason I’m a Christian today. I have a lot of love and respect for him but the view he puts forward here just simply isn’t acceptable. Anything that gives the pope by divine right power over other bishops would never work. The entire paradigm is just too different. Even the way the Catholic Church teaches about the college of bishops would not be acceptable.

“For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way.” - Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

Go back to post #1, read it carefully, and prove me wrong.

No assertions, please. Show me WHY Peter is not the Royal Steward.

 

[benhur]

This is before the Council of Jerusalem.

45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Seems pretty immediate and supreme to me.

So supreme he asked others before acting, purely out of humility, right ?