B
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
Mt. 16:18-19. the passage in question, what’s NOT clear? Jesus switches tense from plural “you” when speaking to His apostles to singular “you” when speaking to Peter. Everything Jesus said to Peter is in the singular, not plural. Peter was singled out and given a very special role.
This isn’t the only passage where Jesus singles Peter out from the others for his unique and singular role.
consider 2 other passages
Last Supper:
an argument broke out among the apostles, over who was the greatest among THEM. Jesus ended their argument by confirming one of them would be the greatest. This apostle would
ἡγέομαι hēgeomai [Lk 22:26]
1) to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
1) to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
Who was Jesus talking about ?
- Peter.
Jesus tells them the reason they were arguing over who is greatest… Jesus said Satan asked to sift THEM all like wheat. But who did Jesus say He prayed for singularly as a result of all the sifting? The one who He said would ἡγέομαι *hēgeomai *them
- Peter
- Peter
ποιμαίνω poimainō [Jn 21:16]
1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a) to rule, govern
1) of rulers
2) to furnish pasture for food
3) to nourish
4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
Peter is the leader of them i,e, the Church. And Jesus prayed in a special way for Peter that his faith will never fail. Think Jesus prayer goes unfulfilled?
C:
Let’s just say, we know who it is that is sifting people away from the Catholic Church and causing all this division.
C:
That’s quite a rant.
C:
For my part, I don’t assume one has bad faith or good faith. I wait for them to demonstrate what they have. It will show up soon enough
C:
Catholics believe the Church is the proper interpreter of scripture not the individual.
C
Contarini
Guest
- Why Matthew has this passage and Mark doesn’t
- What “ekklesia” means in Matthew
- Whether Jesus’ pun on petros/petra constitutes identification of Peter as the Rock
- If so, how this is to be applied beyond the individual person of the Apostle Peter
- If not, what the Rock is
- What “binding” and “loosing” means
- What it means for the “gates of Hades” to prevail or not to prevail (or perhaps “hold out”?) against the “ekklesia” built on the “petra.”
By saying that these questions are not “clear,” I do not mean that it is impossible to come to any conclusion about their meaning. I simply mean that reasonable people can differ and have differed concerning their meaning, and to reach more than probability we will need resources beyond mere exegesis (which is supposed to be a Catholic argument!).
That argument works much better in Luke 22:31-32. Here there’s an obvious reason for the switch to singular–Peter was the one who responded. That leaves open the possibility that whatever is said to Peter is said to all who share Peter’s confession.
Very true. That’s not under dispute.
I think this is a perfectly fine argument, and I agree with it. However, exegesis alone will not get you from there to the conclusion that Peter would be the first holder of an office possessed of the gift of infallibility. Indeed, since the link between 26-27 and 31-31 is merely inferential (though strong, in my opinion), the identification of Peter as the “hegemon” is much less certain than the qualifications Jesus lays out for the “hegemon”–namely that he is to act as a servant. That, of course, is why Popes have traditionally called themselves “servants of the servants of God.” But Luke 22 could quite easily be interpreted to say that Peter’s successors would be those who humbled themselves and acted as the servants of all. By itself, it provides no support for the idea that Peter’s successors would be exclusively and inevitably the bishops of the city where he died, and that their authority would be independent of their conformity to the high standard Jesus lays out in this passage. It certainly does not support the idea that the Church is supposed to be constructed in such a way as to mimic the authority structures of the Gentile nations, whose rulers are *not *to be models for those who govern the Church!
Again, that’s a straw man argument, since no one thinks that Peter’s personal faith ever failed. Indeed, one could say that the bishops of Rome will never apostasize (indefectibility) without agreeing that they will never make mistakes in what they impose as dogma on the faithful (infallibility), or that their decisions are beyond appeal.
I’m glad you are impressed–but am I wrong? If it were really true that the evidence is so clear that all people of good will easily accept it and become Catholic, then it surely would be the right thing for the government to take action to prevent those wicked people who resist the truth from poisoning the minds of the ignorant and immature. The concept of freedom of religion rests on the recognition that there are many reasonable people of good will who, for whatever reason, do not at this point accept the truth of the true religion. How savage the repression of heretics should be is another matter–but some government action to keep heretics from spreading their lies would be entirely reasonable.
Edwin
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Thanks for posting all that, Steve. I had assumed Edwin knew it and, as an intelligent, well informed, honest debater, he’d apply it to my remarks about Mt. 16:18-19. He says knows it. Maybe there’s a gap between knowing it and actually applying the knowledge.
He also knows, as I said to him, the Church has believed the verses literally for 2000 years. In the context of Jn. 16:13, which he has cited to me, and Mt. 18:20, any intelligent, well informed individual would find irrational the proposition that the Lord vanished and the Spirit didn’t show up for 1500 years – until the arrival of M. Luther as the new lord and savior. Of course there ARE intelligent, well informed people who actually believe that, calling into question just how intelligent they really are.
One would think just comparing the thousands of still-splintering Protestant sects against the One, Holy, Catholic, Apolstolic Church would be informative to an intelligent, well informed individual. One would think…
He also knows, as I said to him, the Church has believed the verses literally for 2000 years. In the context of Jn. 16:13, which he has cited to me, and Mt. 18:20, any intelligent, well informed individual would find irrational the proposition that the Lord vanished and the Spirit didn’t show up for 1500 years – until the arrival of M. Luther as the new lord and savior. Of course there ARE intelligent, well informed people who actually believe that, calling into question just how intelligent they really are.
One would think just comparing the thousands of still-splintering Protestant sects against the One, Holy, Catholic, Apolstolic Church would be informative to an intelligent, well informed individual. One would think…
C
Contarini
Guest
Or maybe I know that this is the Catholic interpretation, and I don’t find that interpretation conclusive
No, I know quite the reverse. I know that the Fathers interpreted Matt. 16 in several different ways.
Of course. And anyone who has had any interaction with me before should know that I believe no such thing. Indeed, only the most extreme fundamentalists believe anything of the sort–and they typically don’t like Luther that much anyway. So you’re creating a remarkably silly straw man here.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the Protestant position in general is tenable (even though it isn’t as ridiculous as you describe it). If your Church is wrong, then either the Orthodox are right or traditional Christianity is false.
Of course. But for one thing one can be a Protestant without taking on the defense of all the Protestant sects. Much more to the point, I don’t think Protestantism is the alternative to Catholicism–I think Orthodoxy is. If I were convinced that Catholicism were false, I would seek to become Orthodox as soon as possible, either individually or communally. And if Catholicism and Orthodoxy were to unite, I would seek union with that reunited Church immediately. I have said that repeatedly on these forums.
Edwin
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Just curious, why don’t you convert to Catholicism if you’re not convinced that it’s false? And why is Holy Orthodoxy out for you as well? You seem very critical of Anglicanism and especially Protestantism seeing as how you view it as untenable. You’re a huge fan of the Fathers, a student of history, and you seem like a prime candidate for either Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Your views on WO are definitely not in line with either but in most respects you tend to agree with them. Why stay in the Anglican realm? I know I’ve asked you this in another thread, another post, somewhere, but never saw the answer. I have no doubt you answered it, I just lost track! Sometimes I get posting on too many threads and forget to follow up! 
Sometimes I get posting on too many threads and forget to follow up!
J
JimCBrooklyn
Guest
I don’t dispute for a second that Christ is talking about Peter. That seems awfully clear to me. What doesn’t is the papacy derived from him. At least, it’s not implied in Matthew.
C
Contarini
Guest
How can one possibly convert to all the things one isn’t convinced are false?
When faced with multiple options, do you usually find that you are convinced all of them but one are false?
Not being convinced something is false means that it’s not “out.” But one has to have a reason to choose one over the other.
There are, of course, multiple reasons to choose both. So as long as the vote is “split,” I remain Anglican by default. This will end when
- The Catholics and Orthodox unite; or
- I find some clear reason to prefer one over the other; or
- I give up on Christianity altogether (though I hope that will never happen)
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Oh, boy. You are really meticulous, Contarini.
Careful not to jump to conclusions.I only wonder, why are you less prudent when judging the Papacy?
Why do you tell us again and again, in your posts, that the Papacy is disfunctional. That the Papacy has become increasingly disfunctional during the past 1000 years. You just throw the accusation, without any proof or example, without your legendary meticulosity, and attention to detail. In short, you are jumping to conclusions. But only when you want to. Only when you are about to condemn the Papacy as disfunctional.What’s going on, Contarini?
Do you have an agenda? Regarding your points #3 and #5, bolded above, you could say that both the person and the confession are the Rock. But please, explain to me, how can Simon the person NOT BE the rock, in view of this:
Jesus does not rename John the Baptist, Andrew, John the Apostle, Philip, or Nathanael as Cephas-Peter-Rock, even though they all confessed that he is the Messiah. Thus, their confession doesn’t automatically turn them into “Rock”. However, Jesus immediately foretells/prophecies, as soon as he meets Simon the son of John, that he will be called Cephas.
I hope John 1:42 does shed some light for you on Mt 16:18 (“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”), amid your confusion.
I hope you won’t find my approach too “fundamentalist”.
Try looking at tradition and Church history - Pope St. Clement I, for example. And how St. Clement thinks that God’s Holy Spirit is speaking through him. He thinks he is infallible!
I do not regard this Church structure as adaptation of a gentile invention. God did the same thing with Moses and Israel - they got one leader, his name was Moses, he wasn’t even perfect or sinless (he did not get to enter the Promised Land as a punishment for his failing at one time, he had to die at the entrance of that land), and they were stuck with this one leader for better or worse. God did not give them another leader, or a council of leaders (Ecumenical Council or whatever) instead of Moses. The Pope’s role reminds me of Moses’ role.
S
steve_b
Guest
- Matthew is true and so is Mark. They don’t have to be mirror copies of each other.
- ἐκκλησία ekklēsia is what Jesus says He will build on Peter
- Very few argue against Peter as Rock anymore.
- Peter called for the offices they held to have successors (Acts 1)
- At Ceserea Philippi there were 3 rocks. Jesus, Simon renamed (Rock) Peter, and a massive rock behind them that designates this place. That rock is a pagan shrine to pan 1/2 goat and 1/2 man. Who is Jesus speaking directly to?
- In Church context which is how Jesus is using it, bind and loose is used with matters of faith and morals?
- The one who spoke in the beginning and all came into being, is declaring nothing will prevail against His Church ἐκκλησία *ekklēsia *that He builds on Peter. NOT even hell will prevail. I’ll take that promise
The CC has been here from the beginning. From the earliest primary writings, some of which I have already quoted and linked to. Satan is always sifting people away from the CC. That’s NOT a safe position for those people to be in.
C:
Jesus didn’t undo what He just did for Peter a few passages earlier. This passage shows that Peter is going to be sifted just like all the others. Jesus said it’s Peter who will lead THEM. This is NOT about Peter’s confession or anyone ELSE who says what Peter said. This is yet another place where Jesus confirms Peter as the leader. Does Satan ever stop sifting? No way.!! Peter and his successor is always needed
C:
Did Peter teach the Church error? No. If you say Paul rebuled Peter, Paul criticized Peter’s actions not his teaching. And Paul later adopts for himself actions that he criticized Peter for. [1 cor 9:20] ergo Paul adopted Peter’s style
C:
Not inferential. It’s strong and Clear.
C:
It’s not by itself though. We have ECF’s, and 2000 years of history. And popes aren’t independent of the standards Jesus lays out. THEY will be judged by Jesus on their actions just like you and I will.
C:
Who says it mimics models not appropriate for the Church?
C:
That’s cynical and circular. Popes don’t argue that way and neither does the Church.
C:
As I said earlier, I don’t assume up front that anyone is of good will/bad will or good faith/bad faith. I wait for them to show me.
For example
in Jn 6:50… those who followed Him from the feeding of the 5000 (good will or bad will)?- Did Jesus give them proper teaching? Yes
- Did they have complete freedom to say yes or no? Absolutely
- Were they forced in any way to agree with Jesus ? No
- Did they have enough grace to say yes to Jesus? Of course. They were in the presence and fount of ALL grace
- When they left Jesus saying all this is hard to believe, did Jesus go after them? No. He let them go. That is frightening IMO! But it is reality to learn from.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Then the Spirit did not guide the Church to all truth (thus Jesus lied) and Mt. 28:20 is a broken promise which allowed Satan to guide the Church to error. There can be no other conclusion whether you agree or not. The Catholic Church was THE Church for the first thousand (or more) years. Do the math. If you want to talk about Orthodox claims, you’ll have to show me some indication there was an Orthodox Church before the split. Them saying there was won’t do it.Or maybe I know that this is the Catholic interpretation, and I don’t find that interpretation conclusive
We’re not talking about interpretations here. It’s about facts revealed by the Gospel writers concerning the Lord’s relationship with Peter; His revelations about him, His instructions to him and the authority He gives to him exclusive of the others. Those are ‘facts’ plural. Protestants think they need to be interpreted to remove the Catholic stench, but they are still facts and facts need no interpretation.
It is instrustive that none of these facts were written by Peter, but by others, especially John who, with his brother, had already tried to obtain for himself a position in heaven superior to the rest. It is instructive to note that John goes out of his way to tell us he out-ran Peter to the tomb, but waited outside so Peter could enter first. That is not an irrelevant passage. You may not believe in the primacy of Peter, but it appears John, Matthew and Luke did by their reporting of all the facts listed by Steve and other facts contained in Scripture which you know.
A nonsequitur. Irrespective of how they interpreted it, the ECFs eventually came to the same conclusion and THE CHURCH has believed in the primacy of Peter for 2000 years. Your remark is a classic red herring.
Edwin, it took over two centuries of disagreement, searching and prayer for the ECFs to agree about the nature of Christ. The conclusions of the ECFs didn’t come in a Cracker Jacks box. There’s a difference between guiding to all truth and revealing it. Revelation can come in an instant. Guidance is a process that involves weeding our error before arriving at the truth.
You insist on flattering me, but I won’t take the bait. It was you who said intelligent, well informed people can come to different conclusions about the things you’re now calling a straw man. The ‘different conclusions’ were hatched in the 16th Century. There is no straw man in noting it’s illogical to presume those different conclusions could possibly be valid in light of Jn. 16:13 and Mt. 28:20.
In that case, it’s time for you to seek out the nearest RCIA class and get yourself involved. The Catholic Church is not wrong. If it is, Jesus Christ is wrong, Scripture is wrong and 2000 years worth of some of the most brilliant people who ever lived are wrong.
It is my fervent, daily prayer that you will not have long to wait.
J
Joseph_L_Varga
Guest
Contarini: Edwin, I apologize for the tone of my last post. 
I would like to know, though, in what way do you consider the Papacy as disfunctional.
Starting with the 1990s, I’ve heard my friends repeatedly criticize the Pope. These friends were Protestants, one was a Jehovah’s Witness. Finally I started to think, “Yeah, the Papacy is something of a despotic institution, a dictatorship of sorts. How can one man, one single person, have such concentrated power and authority?” The friends also made sure to talk about the Borgia Popes, their sexual immorality, crimes, and nepotism. Then, in 2004 I met some EO people who told me, it’s the conciliar structure, and Ecumenical Councils, what God intended. Power and authority should rest with the Ecumenical Councils, not with the Pope.
Finally, after studying and reflecting upon the famous Petrine passages in the Bible (Mt 16:18, Lk 22:31, John 21:15-17), I came to the conclusion that Vatican I, affirming the infallibility of the Pope, and Vatican II, affirming the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Bishops teaching in agreement with each other AND with the Pope, have gotten it right. Now I regard the concentrated power and authority of the Pope as justified, because it was clearly given to him by Jesus Christ. It may be surprising that Christ gave so much authority to one single person, but that’s how I understand the Petrine passages. And I no longer see the Papacy as dictatoric or despotic, for this reason. I also fail to see it as disfunctional.
How do you see it as disfunctional? Could you give some examples?
I already know you do not see the personal sins of Popes, such as living immoral lives themselves, while teaching and upholding God’s commandments on morality, as a valid argument against Papacy.
I would like to know, though, in what way do you consider the Papacy as disfunctional.
Starting with the 1990s, I’ve heard my friends repeatedly criticize the Pope. These friends were Protestants, one was a Jehovah’s Witness. Finally I started to think, “Yeah, the Papacy is something of a despotic institution, a dictatorship of sorts. How can one man, one single person, have such concentrated power and authority?” The friends also made sure to talk about the Borgia Popes, their sexual immorality, crimes, and nepotism. Then, in 2004 I met some EO people who told me, it’s the conciliar structure, and Ecumenical Councils, what God intended. Power and authority should rest with the Ecumenical Councils, not with the Pope.
Finally, after studying and reflecting upon the famous Petrine passages in the Bible (Mt 16:18, Lk 22:31, John 21:15-17), I came to the conclusion that Vatican I, affirming the infallibility of the Pope, and Vatican II, affirming the infallibility of the Magisterium and the Bishops teaching in agreement with each other AND with the Pope, have gotten it right. Now I regard the concentrated power and authority of the Pope as justified, because it was clearly given to him by Jesus Christ. It may be surprising that Christ gave so much authority to one single person, but that’s how I understand the Petrine passages. And I no longer see the Papacy as dictatoric or despotic, for this reason. I also fail to see it as disfunctional.
How do you see it as disfunctional? Could you give some examples?
I already know you do not see the personal sins of Popes, such as living immoral lives themselves, while teaching and upholding God’s commandments on morality, as a valid argument against Papacy.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Don’t try and take the absolute that if the Catholic Church=/=the Church of the first millennium, then Jesus lied. You have no way to objectively prove that. Otherwise, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would have never left, and likely, the Protestants wouldn’t have, either. Some, anyway.
On the flip side, show me that the Church of the first millennium was objectively and without question the Catholic Church we know today?
Using a quote with small c catholic won’t do it; as others have said, the Orthodox consider their church Catholic and us Catholics consider our church orthodox. (in fact, I think it might have been mentioned, but a name for the EOC is Orthodox Catholic Church)But, can you prove that Peter was infallible? Can you prove that he was absolute ruler over the Twelve, a “bishop of bishops” of sorts?
So, even though there were questions about the nature of Christ in the early Church, there DEFINITELY wasn’t any question that the Roman See was absolutely dominant, and what Rome said went every single time?
See above. Don’t try and use an absolute; it’s far too grandiose a claim to make, and falls flat on its face when you can line up quotes from the Fathers to say just about anything you like. ONE of the Churches here is right. But it doesn’t mean that “If the Catholic Church is wrong then Jesus lied.” You cannot objectively prove that the Catholic Church was without question the Church of the first millennium. If you say it is, fine. If you say it’s not and it’s either the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox, I can dig that. But if you say that if one of these Churches is wrong then Jesus must have lied, then I can’t take you seriously.
J
JimCBrooklyn
Guest
Agreed. 100%. That line of argument is completely in the wrong direction. It is making a lot of assumptions that cannot be made, based on logical leaps that reek of Protestantism, and this is not coming from someone who wishes to prove the Church wrong, but from a Catholic with questions who would like more than anything for his church to show him that it is right.Don’t try and take the absolute that if the Catholic Church=/=the Church of the first millennium, then Jesus lied. You have no way to objectively prove that. Otherwise, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would have never left, and likely, the Protestants wouldn’t have, either. Some, anyway.
On the flip side, show me that the Church of the first millennium was objectively and without question the Catholic Church we know today?
But, can you prove that Peter was infallible? Can you prove that he was absolute ruler over the Twelve, a “bishop of bishops” of sorts?
So, even though there were questions about the nature of Christ in the early Church, there DEFINITELY wasn’t any question that the Roman See was absolutely dominant, and what Rome said went every single time?
See above. Don’t try and use an absolute; it’s far too grandiose a claim to make, and falls flat on its face when you can line up quotes from the Fathers to say just about anything you like. ONE of the Churches here is right. But it doesn’t mean that “If the Catholic Church is wrong then Jesus lied.” You cannot objectively prove that the Catholic Church was without question the Church of the first millennium. If you say it is, fine. If you say it’s not and it’s either the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox, I can dig that. But if you say that if one of these Churches is wrong then Jesus must have lied, then I can’t take you seriously.
I don’t WANT, objectively, all faith aside, to go Orthodox; my life, overall, would become more difficult/complicated, save the reconciliation of faith with my wife. I would much prefer that we find together that Rome has the whole Truth!
C
Contarini
Guest
Fine, but this is a point that many exegetes (including Catholics, though you doubt you think they aren’t “real” Catholics) have raised.
Circular, obviously. Ekklesia most basically means something like “assembly” or “congregation.” In Matt. 18, it appears to mean a local congregation. It surely must mean more than that here, but what exactly?
The dominant position within modern exegesis seems to be that Peter is the Rock, certainly. (And I agree.) But do you want to base your claims on that? The dominant position in modern exegesis also holds that this passage was probably added by Matthew to the account he took from Mark. You clearly don’t believe that. So you pick and choose from scholarly exegesis. That’s fine as long as you don’t make sweeping claims about the passage needing no interpretation. Clearly it does. It has taken a good deal of study and debate to reach the present consensus, and you don’t agree with that consensus on all points.
Just to clarify what it is that responsible modern scholars teach concerning this passage, here’s Dale Allison (a very respected contemporary Protestant exegete). Note that he rejects both the traditional Protestant view (Peter is just a representative believer/disciple) and the Catholic claim that Peter is the first holder of a church office.
Peter seemed to think that there needed to be *twelve *apostles to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection. Since there are way more than twelve bishops, and since not all the apostles have individual successors today (indeed, Peter’s the only one for whom such individual succession is generally considered important, though some of the others are claimed by other Sees or regions of the Church, generally with much less solid basis), Peter cannot be talking about exactly what we mean when we say that bishops are successors of the Apostles. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that Matthias took over Judas’s responsibilities as treasurer, so it’s not clear that he was a successor to Judas specifically rather than someone chosen to fill up the empty place among the Twelve.
Note: I don’t have a problem saying that the choosing of Matthias points toward the practice of choosing bishops as successors to the apostles. I’m just saying that it’s not quite the same thing, since Matthias was chosen to be an apostle and not just to be a successor to the Apostles, and since the dominant reason for choosing him was clearly that they needed twelve Apostles to proclaim the Resurrection. Hence, you can’t use this to prove that Peter has successors to this day in whatever special role Jesus gave him. If Allison is right, Peter is being chosen to have a particular role in salvation history–a once-for-all role that does not have successors.
You’re assuming that it must mean either a physical rock or a person who can be called a rock–that it couldn’t mean faith or the confession of Jesus’ Messiahship or something like that. That’s petitio principii–begging the question. (Note: I’m not necessarily arguing for these views. I’m just pointing out that the passage is not crystal clear.)
Exactly. In the context of later Catholic teaching. You are begging the question again.
You’re just paraphrasing. You haven’t shown how you get from this to infallibility.
This is confusing. Your basis for saying that the earlier passage (describing the humility that is to characterize the “hegemon”) refers to Peter is precisely this passage here. So I don’t get what you are saying here.
And that appears most likely to be speaking directly of the testing of the disciples when Jesus is arrested and they flee in terror. Not that it can’t have a broader application as well.
You’re muddling things again Earlier Jesus didn’t name who would lead. You’re arguing that in light of the earlier language about a “leader,” this passage is saying that Peter will be the leader. I agree–but n an indirect and arguably conditional manner.
C
Contarini
Guest
There’s no evidence that Paul ever refused to eat with Gentile believers. But you may be right that Paul came to see that Peter wasn’t as completely wrong as he had thought!
Anyway, that’s not the point here. The point I’m making is that Jesus lays out certain qualifications for the “hegemon.” If you want to argue that this is another passage pointing to Peter as leader (which seems like a legitimate interpretation to me), then there’s baggage that comes with that. It doesn’t sound, on the face of it, as if Jesus is saying “follow the hegemon blindly.” What if the hegemon acts just like the rulers of the Gentiles? What then? You assume–without argument–that the hegemon retains authority in that case. It’s interesting that you’re so concerned about Jesus “lying” in other contexts, but here you’re willing to say that his description of what the hegemon is supposed to be like is merely good advice which the hegemon can ignore and still retain authority! (That’s the only way you can argue that the Papacy has unconditional authority based on this passage.) Your hermeneutical principle seems to be: “any passage that seems to give the papacy authority is to be interpreted in its strongest sense; any passage that seems to limit that authority is to be watered down or ignored.”
So do the Orthodox. In the eleventh century the Orthodox said, “Wait a minute–the Papacy is claiming authority like that of an emperor–authority that it has not had until now.” You are willing simply to dismiss this. I’m not.
But the passage in question seems to be saying that this is an essential characteristic of the hegemon–precisely the point that separates the hegemon of Jesus’ followers from his Gentile/pagan/civil counterparts. The rulers of the nations will be judged as well, so that’s not enough to explain this passage.
Put this in context of the broader debate: apologists for your Communion often criticize the Orthodox precisely because they don’t have a central authority with “real” power. How is this “real” power being defined? Generally by analogies with secular models. Similarly, many folks (including me) have concerns about the Orthodox history of subservience to the state. But one way the Orthodox can defend this is that the Church isn’t supposed to set up a rival power structure that can contest with the State using political methods (as the Western Church has done). Instead, the Church is supposed to bear witness through suffering and martyrdom if necessary. (Certainly the Orthodox have often failed in this regard–but I presume we can agree that all groups of Christians have failed at times in this regard. The question is which model is the appropriate one.)
I do
More seriously, Jesus said in the passage you cited that authority in the Church was not supposed to be exercised in the way that authority is exercised by the “rulers of the Gentiles.” So we have Jesus’ word for it that civil models are not appropriate. If I were following your example, I’d declare that this settles the matter and that the passage doesn’t need to be interpreted. But of course that would be silly. It’s hard to see how we can have any authority at all without it looking somewhat like civil government. So what exactly did Jesus mean? In practice, it seems to me that your Communion in particular reduces His meaning to simply “don’t abuse authority–rule in a manner that is loving and takes into account the needs of those you rule.” But frankly, that’s just good advice to any ruler. It’s hard to believe that Jesus meant something quite so anodyne as that.
At the very least, this passage should surely be a warning against our relying on worldly assumptions about what “real” authority looks like or about what an effective management style is.
Sorry for my confusing syntax. (You appear to have thought I meant that the Popes made up infallibility as a way of covering for their apostasy, which is certainly not what I believe.) What I meant to say was this: it’s logically possible for the Church to be indefectible and not infallible. Catholic apologists often ignore this when arguing from Matt. 16. It’s possible that Jesus is promising “Peter’s successors will never apostasize” but not “Peter’s successors will never make a doctrinal mistake when speaking ex cathedra” or even “whenever there is a controversy in the Church, Peter’s successors are the ones whose side you should be on.” (For instance, if Fr. Louis Bouyer is right that the Catholics and the Orthodox are still essentially one Church, then it’s possible that Rome was wrong in the issues that caused the schism but is still part of the true Church. That is in fact my present position, and that’s my only excuse for remaining Anglican. I think Rome is wrong, so I can’t join you guys–but I don’t want to become Orthodox because they wouldn’t let me agree with Fr. Bouyer that both you and they are fully part of the Church. Admittedly, not wanting to split from the Christians with whom I’m presently worshiping is an important part of it as well.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Non sequitur. The Orthodox may be correct. Or the Spirit might still be at work guiding the Church to all truth–we might not be there yet!
No. First of all, the Orthodox might be the true Church. And in the second place, as I have pointed out several times, the promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” can mean a lot of things. It might mean that eventually the Church will overcome the powers of evil. It might mean that there will always be true Christians in the world. It might mean a lot of things. You can’t just assume that it means “the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter and thus will never err when they teach faith and morals ex cathedra or in company with a gathering which they have declared to be an Ecumenical Council.” Especially given the ambiguities about just what is ex cathedra, what counts as a “teaching of the Church,” etc.
Petitio principii. You claim to be the sole heirs of the Catholic Church of the first millennium.
And your saying that the second-millennium body in communion with Rome is exactly the same as (and/or the sole heir to) the first-millennium Catholic Church won’t do it either. Nor does the fact that you call yourselves “the Catholic Church” prove anything. The one making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. I’m saying that from my perspective either you or the Orthodox could be the continuation of the first-millennium Catholic Church. (Or both–but of course that puts me at odds with both of you–which is why I’m staying Anglican until either you guys unite or I become certain which one of you is right.) Neither of you, at the schism, simply said “we repudiate these things which we used to believe and practice.” The Orthodox have a good case that you guys changed your faith and practice in some significant ways, by adding the Filioque to the Creed and by greatly expanding the Papal claims of authority (and in a number of other subsequent ways–extraliturgical Eucharistic adoration, scholastic theological methodology, Anselmian Atonement theory, etc.). But you would claim that these were developments, not rejections, of previous faith and practice. And on your side, you can point out that the Eastern Church obviously broke communion with Rome, and you can argue that they therefore backpedaled on previous statements they had made about Rome’s authority. (They typically claim that you’re exaggerating the significance of these earlier statements, of course.)
Now if you want to persuade me otherwise, *you *need to make the case. You can’t simply assume that your Church is right and challenge me to prove otherwise. (If I were trying to persuade you to leave the Roman Communion, of course I’d have to do that–but I’m not trying to do any such thing.)
Yes, we quite obviously are. When you say “it means X” and I say “it means Y,” we are talking about interpretations. When learned and pious people interpret the facts differently, we are talking about interpretations.
Indeed, we are always talking about interpretations. There are no facts that don’t need interpretation. There are facts that are very easy to interpret, and facts that are very hard to interpret. But interpretation is always involved.
I wonder what you think interpretation is? I am using the word (as I think most people use it) in this sense: “the act of determining what something means.” You seem to think that it means some kind of complex and difficult process that is only required in rare instances. The only way we can say anything about what anything means is through an act of interpretation. Sometimes it is so easy that we don’t stop to think about it, but we are still doing it.
And your evidence for this is? Clearly the Orthodox disagree!
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. Because the evidence not only needed to be interpreted (everything does, as I said above) but was very difficult to interpret. And the same is clearly the case here.
Actually no–I was not talking about the view that the Church vanished between the Apostles and Luther. That is the straw man. You gratuitously assume that that’s what Protestants believe, when in fact very few Protestants believe this. In fact, I will stand by the claim that no Protestants with any competence in church history believe that the Church vanished for fifteen centuries and was restored by Luther.
The Mormons believe that the Church apostasized shortly after the time of the Apostles. But the Mormons are heretics by anyone’s definition, and don’t think Luther restored the Church.
The Anabaptists initially spoke as if the Church had vanished for centuries. But qtuie early on (by the time of the Martyrs’ Mirror at least, in the late 16th century) they started claiming continuity with groups like the Waldenses. (Indeed, they may always have made such claims–but the MM is the first example that comes to mind right now.) And this is the tack taken by later radical groups. Many Protestants combined the appeal to an “underground church” with the admission that the medieval Church was only corrupt, not entirely apostate. And today the pure “trail of blood” theory is held by no one I can think of who has any serious expertise in church history. It’s a dead theory except among fundamentalists.
In short: practically no one thinks that the Church vanished altogether, and almost no one with any intellectual credibility thinks that the Church existed solely within dissenting groups. Instead, Protestants typically argue (and Protestants of serious scholarly credentials have pretty much always argued) that the medieval Church continued to be truly Christian (even though it was wrong on a lot of points), even as its errors and corruptions provoked dissenting movements which were sometimes also truly Christian. (Sometimes they were not, which is why no serious scholar believes the pure “Trail of Blood” theory.)
Even the hardline conservative Reformed think that the Catholic Church only became fully apostate at the Council of Trent.
None of this means that Protestants don’t have a problem. They have a very serious problem here and always have. They need to claim that the medieval Church was apostate in order to justify the actions of the Reformers, but they can’t claim this without serious qualification because it cuts off the branch they are sitting on. The point is that they have various ways of trying to get around this problem. I don’t think any of them work–but they exist and you need to recognize them if you want to have a serious discussion with Protestants instead of gleefully burning straw heretics at the stake
The straw man is that you don’t recognize what these conclusions actually are. Instead, you make up a particularly extreme claim which is precisely the impossible position Protestants are trying desperately to avoid.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
The claims of “universal ordinary jurisdiction,” “plenitudo potestatis,” and exemption of the Pope’s decisions from any appeal, are dysfunctional claims. They distort the nature of the Church.Contarini: Edwin, I apologize for the tone of my last post.
I would like to know, though, in what way do you consider the Papacy as disfunctional.
I say this with confidence because I observe a lot of much vaguer and harder to define dysfunctions which match exactly what one would expect from a Church making these claims. In other words, some RC apologists and theologians (the most effective ones, in my opinion), minimize the significance of the phrases I mentioned above, attempting to bring them in line with the more traditional and orthodox way of thinking about the Church in terms of communion. Pope Benedict is one of these theologians. The problem is that the harsher, more authoritarian reading of these concepts is the one that seems to be reflected in the way the Roman Communion actually functions. So it’s reasonable to say that the claims themselves are dysfunctional–you have to work hard to make them anything else, and what you wind up with is something that looks quite different from the empirically observable reality of the RCC.
I think that’s tempting but a big mistake. It leads to a lot of red herrings, because it implies that any institution that has bad leaders must be wrong. We need to look at how the Roman Communion functions under *good *Popes. That’s the truly damning evidence, in my opinion.
It’s not the Borgia Popes who worry me. Boniface VIII worries me, but not primarily because he was a bad Pope–rather because he produced a statement that looks like it fits the criteria to be “ex cathedra.” The Popes who worry me most are Gregory VII, Innocent III, Paul IV, Piux IX, Pius X, Pius XII, and others like that (even JPII and B16 to some degree).
I have some problems with this too, when the Orthodox speak as if Ecumenical Councils were juridical institutions replacing the Papacy. (This was the fatal flaw in late medieval Western conciliarism, I think–other than the fact that they were already out of communion with the East and had dogmatized the Filioque, etc.!) George Florovsky says that Councils are “charismatic events” through which the Holy Spirit speaks–the true authority lies with the Holy Spirit guiding the whole Church, not with any institution that can be defined juridically. (In other words, you can’t say: “gather a Council of X number of bishops representing different regions of the Church, called by a Pope or emperor or whatever, and following these specific guidelines, and you can be sure that its decrees will be right.”)
Well, and that’s the question. I don’t see anything of the sort. I see Peter being given a special role, and I see good arguments for thinking that the Pope exercises those functions. But I do not see “concentrated power and authority.” On the contrary, I see Jesus warning in Luke 22 (and as Ferde points out, this warning is right next to one of the Petrine passages) that the leaders of the Church are not to rule in the way the Gentiles do. And I don’t think we can water this down to “don’t abuse your authority.” I think it has something to do with the kind of authority Jesus is giving Peter and the other apostles in the first place.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, that’s actually part of my problem. I can argue points of detail rather well. But when it comes to the big picture, the details are never enough to add up. The same is true on the other side–my Protestant friends are also puzzled by why I state so dogmatically that either Catholicism or Orthodoxy must be true. At some point you have to jump from the observation of detail to a broad conclusion, at the risk of never seeing the forest for the trees!I only wonder, why are you less prudent when judging the Papacy?
I think there are all sorts of details that point toward the Papacy being dysfunctional. That the centralization of the past millennium has led to problems is a point on which most Catholic scholars and theologians would agree, I think. To take an extreme example–practically no one would deny that the way the Pope treated the Patriarch of Constantinople and other representatives of the Eastern Church at the Council of Florence (insisting that they kiss his foot as inferiors) reflected an unhealthy understanding of Papal authority. Most scholars and theologians would agree that the Papacy reacted to the French Revolution and subsequent events by assuming a position of extreme authoritarianism which later needed to be balanced by a stronger emphasis on collegiality and communion. Again: I don’t offer any of this as proof, so much as explanation of why I tend to take for granted that there are problems with how the Papacy has functioned in modern times. The question as I see it is whether the formal teaching is wrong, or just the way the teaching has been interpreted and applied.
Parallels: no reasonable Orthodox theologian or scholar would deny that there have been some serious dysfunctions in how the Orthodox relate to worldly authority, or that “phyletism” is a serious problem in modern Orthodoxy, or that the jurisdictional chaos of American Orthodoxy does not rightly and properly embody what the Church is supposed to look like. Again, the question is whether these problems point to basic problems in Orthodoxy’s claims about itself, or whether they are simply historical dysfunctions that have arisen from human weakness and the difficulties the Church faces on its pilgrimage through time.
Or again: the Protestant scholars and theologians I know would agree that Protestantism has huge problems with division, individualism, and a lack of respect for history and tradition. And yet again, the question is whether these problems indicate that the Reformers were wrong in their basic claims, or simply that Protestants are sinful human beings who fail to live out fully the faith that they hold! Even someone like Alister McGrath, who glorifies Protestant diversity and dynamism in what I find to be a nauseatingly triumphalist manner, would admit that these characteristics have their dark side and present certain dangers. (Note that Protestants aren’t committed to as strong a claim about themselves as the other two, which of course is itself one of the reasons why Protestantism has the particular problems it does, but also means that Protestants could say that the Reformers were wrong in some quite fundamental ways, without ceasing to be Protestants!)
In other words, I take it for granted that there are dysfunctions in all forms of Christianity, and I tend to take it for granted that in your Communion many of the dysfunctions stem from an overly authoritarian Papacy.
Like any big claim about historical trends, this is hard to prove at all, or even to support meaningfully in anything like a succinct fashion. It’s a conclusion that I’ve come to based on quite a bit of study of history and observation of contemporary Catholicism, and it’s a conclusion that I have found to be fairly uncontroversial outside extremely hardline sections of your Communion. (And no, I don’t mean that people like Richard McBrien and Hans Kung would agree with this claim, though of course they would, and indeed they’d go further than I would! I mean that people like Pope Benedict would agree with this claim!)
I don’t take offense at your challenge at all, by the way. It’s an entirely legitimate one.
In Christ,
Edwin
What’s going on, Contarini?
Do you have an agenda? Regarding your points #3 and #5, bolded above, you could say that both the person and the confession are the Rock. But please, explain to me, how can Simon the person NOT BE the rock, in view of this:
Jesus does not rename John the Baptist, Andrew, John the Apostle, Philip, or Nathanael as Cephas-Peter-Rock, even though they all confessed that he is the Messiah. Thus, their confession doesn’t automatically turn them into “Rock”. However, Jesus immediately foretells/prophecies, as soon as he meets Simon the son of John, that he will be called Cephas.
I hope John 1:42 does shed some light for you on Mt 16:18 (“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”), amid your confusion.
I hope you won’t find my approach too “fundamentalist”.
Try looking at tradition and Church history - Pope St. Clement I, for example. And how St. Clement thinks that God’s Holy Spirit is speaking through him. He thinks he is infallible!
I do not regard this Church structure as adaptation of a gentile invention. God did the same thing with Moses and Israel - they got one leader, his name was Moses, he wasn’t even perfect or sinless (he did not get to enter the Promised Land as a punishment for his failing at one time, he had to die at the entrance of that land), and they were stuck with this one leader for better or worse. God did not give them another leader, or a council of leaders (Ecumenical Council or whatever) instead of Moses. The Pope’s role reminds me of Moses’ role.
- Status