Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[benjohnson]

1832 from one of the Protestants I quoted at the beginning of this thread, Adam Clark.

The weird bit that stuck me about your quotes about the concept of the Royal Steward, is the terms “cornerstone” and “steward” are excessively used in the Masonic degrees. There’s even imagery of the crossed keys as the Jewels for the officer to guard and distribute the Lodge’s funding.

In Scottish Rite masonry a “Royal Stewart” tartan is commonly used.

I’m certainly not saying that this imagery derives from Freemasonry, as it’s clearly rooted in the Bible, but the rise of Masonry has certainly brought these ideas of “cornerstone”,“steward”,“Royal Stewart”, and “keys” together much more easily in the last 200 years.

It most likely is a coincidence, but it’s interesting that the terminology seems to have come from the English speaking world when Freemasonry was rather ubiquitous.

(and of course… I just may be bringing up this connection to drive you a bit bonkers, or at least make you think that I’m not playing with a full deck )

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, you have gone too far with what I have said. I have already said Peter was a leader. Why can’t you see he needed “converting " ? " But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Was fishing the strengthening activity ?

Ben-

I should have mentioned this earlier, but it just occurred to me as I was reading tonight. Take a look at the passage in Jn 21:

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

There are four things to note here:

1. 
   *]The disciples caught nothing all night. But when Jesus appeared, they had a miraculous catch.
   *]Simon Peter dragged the net to shore alone. John highlights this for a reason, Ben.
   *]The number of fish, 153, was thought to be the number of nations in the world at that time. Thus, the number suggests that the catch will include all nations.
   *]The net was not torn; it remained intact despite the great weight of the fish.
   
   Under the direction of Jesus, Peter manages to catch “fish” from all of the nations without the net being torn by schism.
   
   This was what Jesus intended. This was how the Holy Spirit inspired it. This was how John recorded it.

 

[MartinJordan]

Ben-

I should have mentioned this earlier, but it just occurred to me as I was reading tonight. Take a look at the passage in Jn 21:

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

There are four things to note here:

1. 
   *]The disciples caught nothing all night. But when Jesus appeared, they had a miraculous catch.
   *]Simon Peter dragged the net to shore alone. John highlights this for a reason, Ben.
   *]The number of fish, 153, was thought to be the number of nations in the world at that time. Thus, the number suggests that the catch will include all nations.
   *]The net was not torn; it remained intact despite the great weight of the fish.
   
   Under the direction of Jesus, Peter manages to catch “fish” from all of the nations without the net being torn by schism.
   
   This was what Jesus intended. This was how the Holy Spirit inspired it. This was how John recorded it.

1. 
   Hey Randy, did you also notice that St. Peter managed to haul in the net with the 153 fish when initially all those on the boat together could not?
   
   MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey Randy, did you also notice that St. Peter managed to haul in the net with the 153 fish when initially all those on the boat together could not?

MJ

:yup:

 

[MartinJordan]

:yup:

What was I thinking!

MJ

 

[guanophore]

The weird bit that stuck me about your quotes about the concept of the Royal Steward, is the terms “cornerstone” and “steward” are excessively used in the Masonic degrees. There’s even imagery of the crossed keys as the Jewels for the officer to guard and distribute the Lodge’s funding.

I can understand why that might give rise to concern, ,but Masons also have Deacons and Wardens. None of the offices have any relation to the structure of the Christian Church, and Masonry has been specifically condemned.

In Scottish Rite masonry a “Royal Stewart” tartan is commonly used.

This is true, but there is no relation. The Royal Stewart tartan is the best known tartan of the royal House of Stewart, and is also the personal tartan of Queen Elizabeth II. It can be worn by all subjects of Elizabeth II. It is related to the Stewart line of royalty, not any particular office.

I’m certainly not saying that this imagery derives from Freemasonry, as it’s clearly rooted in the Bible, but the rise of Masonry has certainly brought these ideas of “cornerstone”,“steward”,“Royal Stewart”, and “keys” together much more easily in the last 200 years.

Yes, this is one reason it was necessary for it to be formally condemned.

It most likely is a coincidence, but it’s interesting that the terminology seems to have come from the English speaking world when Freemasonry was rather ubiquitous.

Or perhaps you are just grasping at straws to deny the forshadowing?

 

[benjohnson]

Or perhaps you are just grasping at straws to deny the forshadowing?

I’m being a twit… theres only a small chance that the lexicon of English was influenced by Masonry.

That said, I find that the Orthodox addition to this debate has convinced me that the Chair of St. Peter is properly understood in a conciliar role, and is not as a autocratic one.

 

[Picky_Picky]

This is true, but there is no relation. The Royal Stewart tartan is the best known tartan of the royal House of Stewart, and is also the personal tartan of Queen Elizabeth II. It can be worn by all subjects of Elizabeth II. It is related to the Stewart line of royalty, not any particular office.

Small point, I know, but actually Stewart is, I believe, an occupational surname, derived indeed from someone who was a steward.

 

[benhur]

Ben-

I should have mentioned this earlier, but it just occurred to me as I was reading tonight. Take a look at the passage in Jn 21:

10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

There are four things to note here:

1. 
   *]The disciples caught nothing all night. But when Jesus appeared, they had a miraculous catch.
   *]Simon Peter dragged the net to shore alone. John highlights this for a reason, Ben.
   *]The number of fish, 153, was thought to be the number of nations in the world at that time. Thus, the number suggests that the catch will include all nations.
   *]The net was not torn; it remained intact despite the great weight of the fish.
   
   Under the direction of Jesus, Peter manages to catch “fish” from all of the nations without the net being torn by schism.
   
   This was what Jesus intended. This was how the Holy Spirit inspired it. This was how John recorded it.

1. 
   Ok back at it .I thought we finished with Peter strengthening brethren by feeding fish to apostles. The trouble with schism analogy is that it does not break the net. here is what i mean. All nations will eventually bow, until all under His footstool, and when the gospel -via church-goes out to every nation first. Has that happened yet ? Have we hit the “153” mark yet ? The fact is for 1000 years and 500 years, the Orthodox and Protestant’s respectively have worked hand in hand in with" Peter/CC" spreading the gospel to reach that “153” .
   
   To me, the net not breaking implies the Lord, thru His church , will accomplish , the unimaginable. With 12 ordinary men the gates of hell and it’s stronghold on all the earth would eventually be broken. A lot like 12 crazy brothers (Jewish) forming twelve tribes that eventually brought forth the Messiah . Very unimaginable to the pre-pentecost apostles- just coming out “hiding”, licking their wounds.

 

[YADA]

That is my question, also. I’m still researching that.

…
I’ll work on this and see how far back it goes because I want to know, too.

Hi Randy - how’s this for an early reference:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian

From St. Ephraim’s [lived 306-373] Homily on Our Lord

1. Accordingly, the Son came to the servant; not that the Son might be presented by the servant, but that by the Son the servant might present to His Lord Priesthood and Prophecy, to be laid up with Him. For prophecy and priesthood, which were given through Moses, were handed down, both of them, and reached to Simeon. For he was a pure vessel, who sanctified himself that he might be like Moses, capable for both of them. There are small vessels which are capable for great gifts. There are gifts for which one is capable, by reason of their grace; yet many are not capable for them, by reason of their greatness. Thus, then, Simeon presented our Lord, and in Him offered both these things; so that that which was given to Moses in the wilderness, was received from Simeon in the Temple. But seeing that our Lord is the vessel wherein all fullness dwells, when Simeon was offering Him before God, he poured over Him (as a drink-offering) those two (gifts), priesthood from His hands and prophecy from His lips. Priesthood continued on the hands of Simeon, because of his purifications; and prophecy dwelt in operation upon his lips, because of revelations. When then these two powers saw Him who was Lord of both, they two united together and poured themselves into the vessel that was capable of both; that could contain priesthood and kingdom and prophecy. That Infant then, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes, because of His graciousness, clothed Himself in priesthood and prophecy because of His Majesty. For Simeon clothed Him in these, and gave Him to her who had wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. For when he gave Him to His mother, he gave along with Him the priesthood; and when he prophesied to her concerning Him, This (child) is set for the fall and rising again, Luke 2:34 he gave prophecy also with Him.

1. Then Mary received her firstborn and went forth. He was outwardly wrapped in swaddling clothes, but secretly He was clothed with prophecy and priesthood. Whatsoever then was handed down from Moses, was received from Simeon, but continued and was possessed by the Lord of both. So then the steward [Isaiah 22:22], first, and the treasurer lastly, handed over the keys of priesthood and prophecy to Him who has authority over the treasurer of them both. Therefore, His Father gave Him the spirit not by measure, [John 3:34] because all measures of the spirit are under his hand. And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards [Isaiah 22:22], He said to Simeon: To you I will give the keys of the doors. [Matthew 16:19] But how should He have given them to another, had He not received them from another? So, then, the keys which He had received from Simeon the priest, them He gave to another Simeon the Apostle; that even though the People had not hearkened to the former Simeon, the Gentiles might hearken to the latter Simeon.

The focus here is on Christ - clearly - who is the primary reference subject - but the point of the homily is that Christ **already possessed all authority **- prophetic and priestly - but that it was necessary to receive what had been handed down from Moses to other Stewards [this would include Shebna, Eliakim and all those who held the Keys from Moses to the time of Jesus] down to the High Priest Simeon - Then shown in the hands of the Incarnate God-Man who passes the Keys on to the new Steward Peter

Why did Jesus who has all of creation at His command hand over keys to Peter - St Ephraim says it is to explicitly [with all the disciples present as witnesses] pass on the Keys so the people would follow the holder [Peter- the Rock - the foundation of Christ’s Church] of the Keys and ultimately be led to and in union with our Lord.

 

[SteveVH]

Bump

 

[LionHeart777]

If someone is looking for the link between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19, Mark Bonocore addressed this in a dialogue with James White.

[White:] I’ve asked Gerry Matatics and others this question, and never gotten an answer: can you name anyone in the first 1000 years of church history who presented the argument you do from Isaiah 22?

[Bonocore:] Sure. What about St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), who writes:

‘O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.’ (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

‘On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. …I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.’

Cassian is clearly drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.

I believe the reason we don’t see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it’s rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it’s not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says … ‘David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him.’ (Aphraates, xxi, 13).

Also, St. Ephraem the Syrian (c. 350) writes …

‘Then Peter deservedly received the Vicariate of Christ over His people.’ (Ephraem, Sermon de Martyrio. SS. App. Petri et Pauli).

Source: catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keyskingdom.html

 

[LionHeart777]

If it is not found in the fathers it is by definition a novelty.

Greetings Seraphim73,

I know scholars generally have a cut off date for the ending of the Patristic period. To my understanding, many end it with St. John Damascene. But this is scholarly classification and it is not a cut off line for truth and new Theological insight being legitimate (as opposed to being an actual novelty.) Suppose you agree that St. John Damascene is the last of “the Fathers”, does this present in your mind the impossibility of a later author teaching a truth ipso facto? Let’s say he is 50 years later? I’m not arguing for novelty, just for legitimate development and progress being made in Christ’s Church after this arbitrary line you seem to have set up.

St. Vincent of Lerins wrote:

[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged [in] itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

Source: drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

Do you believe St. Vincent, writing in the 5th century, had a specific date in mind that this “real progress” would somehow stop? I can’t imagine that he did. Especially in light of Christ’s words: “…behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mt. 28:20.)

 

[YADA]

If someone is looking for the link between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19, Mark Bonocore adressed this in a dialogue with James White.

Source: catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keyskingdom.html

:yup::yup::yup:

 

[Seraphim73]

Greetings Seraphim73,

I know scholars generally have a cut off date for the ending of the Patristic period. To my understanding, many end it with St. John Damascene. But this is scholarly classification and it is not a cut off line for truth and new Theological insight being legitimate (as opposed to being an actual novelty.) Suppose you agree that St. John Damascene is the last of “the Fathers”, does this present in your mind the impossibility of a later author teaching a truth ipso facto? Let’s say he is 50 years later? I’m not arguing for novelty, just for legitimate development and progress being made in Christ’s Church after this arbitrary line you seem to have set up.

In this case I’m not setting an arbitrary line. I would be happy with any kind of support prior to the schism. It appears that support is not there.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If someone is looking for the link between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19, Mark Bonocore addressed this in a dialogue with James White.

Source: catholic-legate.com/dialogues/keyskingdom.html

Yeah, I was looking at that exact passage from Bonocore v. White a few weeks ago, but I decided to continue looking for some stronger quote from an ECF.

Then YADA bowdown dropped the Ephraim bombshell on us, and the discussion quickly went in a different direction.

 

[Randy_Carson]

St. Vincent of Lerins wrote:

Source: drbo.org/chapter/47028.htm

Do you believe St. Vincent, writing in the 5th century, had a specific date in mind that this “real progress” would somehow stop? I can’t imagine that he did. Especially in light of Christ’s words: “…behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mt. 28:20.)

THAT goes in my quote file under ECF - Doctrine, Development of.

Every day brings new and exciting confirmation of Catholic theology, doesn’t it?

It’s like picking up seashells along the beach…you never know what’s going to wash up with the tide.

 

[LionHeart777]

THAT goes in my quote file under ECF - Doctrine, Development of.

Every day brings new and exciting confirmation of Catholic theology, doesn’t it?

It’s like picking up seashells along the beach…you never know what’s going to wash up with the tide.

 

[LionHeart777]

:yup::yup::yup:

Thanks for that other citation, I hadn’t seen it before!

 

[LionHeart777]

In this case I’m not setting an arbitrary line. I would be happy with any kind of support prior to the schism. It appears that support is not there.

I apologize if I set up a straw man and tore it down. (P.S. as a second thought from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, does the Patristic era go up to Photius?) What do you make of the the Assumption of Mary then? To my understanding this is not a point of contention (excepting that some Orthodox object to the dogmatization of this belief in the Catholic Church).

Thanks,

Nick