Petra/Petros argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter christismylord
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to some of the earliest traditions of the Church in Rome, Matthias’ election would still support the succession of the Papacy. Peter died before Paul. Tradition goes that when Paul heard of Peter’s death he called Linus and Clement to him, seeking to fill Peter’s apostolic ministry just as Matthias filled Judas’. These were the two bishops he had ordained to lead the Church in and around Rome when he had first visited the city many years prior: Linus within the city walls and Clement outside of it. Paul cast lots and the lot fell on upon Linus. Paul then installed Linus to succeed Peter.

So too, when Linus died, the deacons of Rome cast lots twice: one for the ministry of Peter and one for the ministry of Paul. Both times, the lot fell on the deacon Cletus. When Cletus died, the deacons cast lots over and over but there was never a winner. They were all cast equally among the candidates. The deacons called Clement into the city to find a solution as the city had been partially entrusted to him by Paul. Eventually, the deacons had Clement cast his lot and the lot fell to him: the third Pope.

This practice continued until the martyrdom of Pope Calixtus in 222. Between the martyrdom of his seven deacon companions and St. Lawrence three days later, there were no more deacons left in the city to cast lots. At that point, it fell to the bishops around Rome to vote on a new successor of the Petrine and Pauline ministries. Since then, the Pope has always been selected through election.

It is not so much that the Pope is the successor of Peter by virtue of succeeding Peter as bishop of Rome, but rather he is elected as the successor of Peter and, in taking up the mantle, becomes the bishop of Rome.
 
Last edited:
What you wrote is exactly why I find that whole “it was a personal promise” argument a bit weak.

And it is, actually, what I was taught at (Protestant) seminary, by a Patristic theology professor who was the most erudite person I ever met and an authority on Ethiopian orthodoxy. He also had zero doubts that Peter had indeed been martyred and buried in Rome, and that St Peter’s basilica had been built over his tomb.

He was a peculiar person, and a Lutheran who thought that defending the valid apostolic succession of the bishop who had ordained him was a hill well worth dying on…
 
I found this from the website Unsystematic Theology by Kyle Roberts:

"Luz suggests that neither of the four options gets it exactly right. There are probably elements of truth, more or less, in each of them. But of the four, the Roman interpretation clearly has the less interpretive legitimacy for Luz, from a biblical studies point of view. I agree.

Luz suggests we should see Peter functioning in the passage both in a typological, or democratic, sense and in a historic and unique sense for being in such proximity to Jesus. The uniqueness of Peter suggests that he ‘cannot be succeeded by anybody.’ And the historical record suggests that ‘apostolic succession’ did not actually occur in the way often suggested, since authority was far more diffuse and localized: ‘only local elders and bishops’ (70).

Democratically, Peter represents 'concretely the essence of discipleship for everybody’ (70).

This makes the ‘rock,’ upon which Christ founds his church, accessible to all disciples. Faith in Christ, the confession of faith, Christ himself — it is all the basis of the church’s vitality and endurance, from its inception until now".

I’m not arguing for its accuracy, but Roberts appears to state that Luz doesn’t quite agree. It sounds a bit flimsy to me.
 
Last edited:
Meaningless, even nonsensical private opinion. Detached from the seamless garment of Church history and apostolic teaching, anything - anything - may be made of the scriptures. Consider all of the fringe groups and quasi-christian sects out there. All of them are based on the founder’s private opinion of those scriptures - that is the danger of the written word without the authority to properly interpret.

Best to apply William of Ockham’s razor to matters theological: The simplest and most direct path is the correct one.
 
ValleyCatholic said:
Roberts appears to state that Luz doesn’t quite agree.
Click to expand...
I cannot check right now, as I don’t have Luz’ commentary at home and libraries are closed in these locked-down times, but from Roberts says here, Luz agrees Peter is the rock, even if in a typological way. He would not agree that he is the rock, nor that his particular ministry is personal and has to be transmitted in a person to person transmission line. This (and not “Peter is not the rock”) is the classical Protestant position in my part of the world.
 
Yes, I did pick up on that as well, but it seems as though Roberts is attempting to create a bit more “distance” from the grammatical interpretation of Luz.
 
Delving too deeply into such matters, like philosophy, just makes my head hurt. Knowing that the devil introduces complication into all matters theological, I prefer to keep it simple. Our Lord’s words, and the actions of the Apostles, combined with the form and function of the early Church are clear, therefore In accept them at face value.
 
po18guy said:
Delving too deeply into such matters, like philosophy, just makes my head hurt. Knowing that the devil introduces complication into all matters theological, I prefer to keep it simple. Our Lord’s words, and the actions of the Apostles, combined with the form and function of the early Church are clear, therefore In accept them at face value.
Click to expand...
Yes… The Nano-Moment I read: Petra/Petros argument

I think, Oy Vey!

_
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top