Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KjetilK]

Cont.

As a Catholic, of course, I believe that there is compelling evidence to support a belief that the successor of Peter continues to hold the keys of the office of Royal Steward (cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Is. 22:20-22), and I contend that this support is far stronger than the case for the state-run Church of Norway which took control BY FORCE in 1536-37.

Then by all means produce them. I have asked over and over again for you to actually argue your case. Yet you simply keep begging the question instead.

Of course, Kjetilk may argue that he has submitted himself to his bishop. Okay, but I would then ask who his bishop is submitted to?

Well, as a bishop he has the authority of a bishop. The bishop of Rome also has the authority of a bishop. Who is he submitted to?

The king who is the constitutional head of the CoN?

I am not going to deny that he was the constitutional head of the Church of Norway. Because he was. But not with regards to doctrine. He had absolutely no power to change doctrine, and his position was comparable, on the national level, to Constantine’s position in the early Church (and I highly doubt that you are about to undermine your own Church’s position by saying that this was a principal problem). But the King of Norway no longer has that position. In our constitution, §4 used to say: “The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same.” (“Kongen skal stedse bekjende sig til den evangelisk-lutherske Religion, haandhæve og beskytte denne.”)

And §16 used to say: “The King shall give directions for all public church services and public worship, all meetings and assemblies dealing with religious matters, and shall ensure that the public teachers of religion follow the rules prescribed for them.” (“Kongen anordner al offentlig Kirke- og Gudstjeneste, alle Møder og Forsamlinger om Religionssager, og paaser, at Religionens offentlige Lærere følge de dem foreskrevne Normer.”)

§4 and §16 Now states: “The King shall always confess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion … All inhabitants of the realm have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Norwegian Church, an Evangelical-Lutheran Church, remains the People’s Church of Norway and is supported as such by the state. Specific provisions on the organisation thereof are laid down by law. All religions and religious groups are supported equally.” (“Kongen skal alltid bekjenne seg til den evangelisk-lutherske religion … Alle innbyggere i riket har fri religionsutøvelse. Den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk kirke, forblir Norges folkekirke og understøttes som sådan av staten. Nærmere bestemmelser om Kirkens ordning fastsettes ved Lov. Alle tros- og livssynssamfunn skal understøttes på lik linje.”)

So no, the king is no longer the constitutional head of the Church of Norway.

This is not a God-given authority, but the authority acquired AND MAINTAINED at the point of a sword, and while the swords have long been returned to their scabbards, the force of choice today is economic. What percentage of the paycheck drawn by a Lutheran priest in Norway comes from the state? But I digress…we need not delve too deeply into the inner workings of the state-run Church of Norway.

Well, just as much as the paycheck of the Roman Catholic priests and bishops in Norway. The Church of Norway is given a certain amount of money. This amount is divided against the number of members (which amounts to 70-80% of the population). And that amount is given to all other religious groups (and some nonreligious groups such as the Humanist society), based on members. So everyone gets the same.

Jesus left a vicarious shepherd in charge of His flock. Others have established their own flocks outside of that plan. Either one sees this or one does not. That makes all the difference.

Some people try to argue their case. Others are simply content with begging the question. That makes all the difference.

 

[KjetilK]

Do you believe the ELCA is being led by the Holy Spirit when it wrongly teaches these things contrary to the Bible? I don’t. That was the actual issue; the holy spirit leading the Lutheran Church. Surely the HS isn’t confused on these issues.

There is no such thing as ‘the Lutheran Church.’ Just as there is no such thing as ‘the Byzantine Church’ or ‘the Chaldean Church.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

When you say that Rome’s potential acknowledgement that “that the Porvoo Communion has remedied a previous deficiency” would mean that “for 400 years the people of Norway were not served by a valid priesthood.” No, it would simply mean that Rome didn’t recognise the orders.

It is a fact that Rome has not recognized the CoN orders. However, that is a separate issue.

If Porvoo corrected a deficiency in the ordination of Lutheran pastors in Norway, then that means that they were not validly ordained prior to Porvoo. Period.

Such a deficiency - if it has ever existed - is a fact completely independent of Rome’s formal statement regarding it. Either it did or did not exist before Porvoo, and either it does or does not exist today.

If Rome determines that a deficiency existed prior to Porvoo, then the absence of valid sacraments existed in Norway for 400 years before being corrected. If Rome determines that the deficiency still exists, then valid sacraments are still not being celebrated in the CoN.

You are simply begging the question. You are using your conclusion – that Rome needs to recognise orders for them to be valid – as a premise. But I don’t agree with the conclusion. Therefore you cannot argue using it as a premise. What we are discussing is whether or not Rome needs to recognise orders for them to be valid.

Yeah, kinda like the Church gathered in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to determine the validity of becoming a Christian apart from circumcision. There IS a central authority in the Church, and it is not based anywhere near Norway.

I do. It is my bishop. And bishops aren’t simply suffragans of the Pope.

No, they aren’t. But neither are they able to teach the faith infallibly apart from him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then by all means produce them. I have asked over and over again for you to actually argue your case. Yet you simply keep begging the question instead

Produce arguments in favor of the papacy? Gee, where to begin? Well, I’ll start here since no Lutheran in these forums has ever refuted this argument:

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[Randy_Carson]

Next, I’ll draw your attention to this:

Scripture Parallels: Joseph, Eliakim, and Peter

Joseph - Genesis 41:40-44
40 You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt.”

• Steward over Pharaoh’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robes with gold chain around neck as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout the land of Egypt
• No one lifts hand or foot without Joseph’s word

Eliakim - Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

• Steward over Hezekiah’s kingdom
• Second in command
• Dressed in robe and sash with key on shoulder as symbols of authority
• Universal jurisdiction throughout Jerusalem and Judah
• No one opens or shuts without Eliakim

Peter - Matthew 16:18-20
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

• Steward over Jesus’ kingdom
• Second in command (cf. John 21:15-19 vicarious shepherd of the one flock)
• Given keys as symbol of authority
• Universal jurisdiction over all of Jesus’ kingdom
• Authority to bind and loose in heaven and on earth

 

[Randy_Carson]

Finally, I will bring the following quotes from PROTESTANT scholars and scripture commentaries concerning the office of Royal Steward (please observe the presence of numerous Lutherans among the group):

16 Protestant Scholars and Commentaries on Peter as Royal Steward

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah’s position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as ‘over the household’ [2 Kings 15:5]…It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle…The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the ‘keys.’ The clauses ‘on earth,’ ‘in heaven’, have reference to the permanent character of the steward’s work.” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

William Barclay

“We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

“He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by setting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘keys’ are probably not to be understood as entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and storechambers within the house – symbols of responsibilities to be exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). ‘Bind’ and 'loose” are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page 355-356)

Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann

The prime minister, more literally ‘major-domo,’ was the man called in Hebrew ‘the one who is over the house,’ a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister’s power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing. (Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

F.F. Bruce

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

Adam Clarke

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1. “Master of the palace” {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2. “In charge of the palace” {New International Version}
3. “Master of the household” {New Revised Standard Version}
4. “In charge of the royal household” {New American Standard Bible}
5. “Comptroller of the household” {Revised English Bible}
6. “Governor of the palace” {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet. (Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

R.T. France

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty. (R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

“The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements * which are to be ‘binding’ on the people of God. In that case Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper… but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” (R.T. France, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 54)

(cont.)*

 

[Randy_Carson]

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite)

“The image of the keys likely comes from an oracle in Isaiah, which speaks of the installation of a new majordomo or steward in Hezekiah’s palace.” (Gardner, page 248)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the ‘keys of the Kingdom of heaven’ are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as ‘binding and loosing’ …the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding” and ‘loosing’ refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding…For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter…Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)

Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

In accordance with Matthew’s understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church. (Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

The Interpreter’s Bible

“19. The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. In Isa. 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11), and in Rev. 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph. 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys. Post-Apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the apostles the prerogatives of Jesus (cf. 10:40). In rabbinical language to bind and to loose is to declare certain actions forbidden or permitted [a Jewish source Terumoth 5:4 is quoted]…Thus Peter’s decisions regarding the O.T. law (e.g., in Acts 10:44-48) will be ratified in heaven.” (George Arthur Buttrick, et al The Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1951], volume 7, page 453)

New Bible Commentary

“Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3…Godward he is called my servant (20)…manward he will be a father to his community (21)…The key…of David (22) comes in this context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v. 22…emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ means the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18)… Ultimate authority, however, is claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8).” (NBC page 647)

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king’s interests. The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. ‘And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.’ (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7). (New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

New Bible Dictionary

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson’s words, is to be ‘God’s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205). (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: ‘epitropos’ (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and ‘oikonomos’ (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from ‘oikos’ (‘house’) and ‘nemo’ (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility. (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

NIV Study Bible

On verse 15: “…in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king…”

On verse 22: “…key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David’s dynasty – perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the ‘keys of the kingdom’ given to Peter (Mt 16:19) .”

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter. (J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

 

[Randy_Carson]

And just for fun (and your edification, Kjetilk), I will throw this in, also:

In addition to re-establishing the office of Royal Steward in His kingdom, we can identify His queen, as well.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother who sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom. We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:

Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.

+++

You live in a kingdom, don’t you? So, you should be familiar with these offices:

King - Jesus
Queen - Mary
Royal Steward - Peter

 

[Randy_Carson]

Having demonstrated that Jesus re-established the office of the Royal Steward by giving the keys to Peter, it’s time to move on to

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

+++

So, that’s Peter as Royal Steward and Peter as Vicarious Shepherd of the One Flock of Christ.

If you like, I can cover Peter as the rock and provide quotes from 25 Protestant and Orthodox scholars who concede that Peter - the man - is the rock of Mt. 16:18-19.

I can talk about Jesus’ prayer for Peter alone and his responsibility for strengthening his brothers. Or maybe you would like to consider the ONE passage in the gospels wherein Jesus uses the word “we” (hint: it is in conjunction with Peter).

Do you need to see this, also?

If not, should we move on the the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Please advise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One other thought for today. Did Christ really give one man so much power? St Peter himself seemed to have questions about this:

Luke Chapter 12:41-44
Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.

Christ says that the Master (i.e. Himself) will set a steward “over his household” and “set him over all his possessions.”

Okay, so Christ has said it, we know it is true. Now that means Christ has a steward “over all His possessions.” He didn’t set an Ecumenical Council “over all His possessions.” No, this universal jurisdiction is given to one single “steward.” If you look at Luke 12:41, you will see that these words are addressed to Peter.

 

[Thorolfr]

Scripture is clear that a homosexual lifestyle is not supported by Scripture.

Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:10-11, Leviticus 20:13

(openbible.info/topics/homosexuality)

Do people have feelings and inclinations toward SSA? Yep. Just as others who are attracted to the opposite sex - but if we act on sexual attractions outside of the boundaries of how God created us (for marriage) then we are committing a sin. Scripture is very clear on this.’’

God bless, all!

Rita

Since you think that the translation, interpretation and context of Scripture are all very clear in their application to modern LGB people, I assume that you also take the following verses to heart and would claim that they are very clear about how women should act in church and how they should act around men, especially when it comes to matters having to do with religion (i.e. with submissiveness):

1 Corinthians 11:7-8: For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35: As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Timothy 2:11-12: Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Should a woman ever even presume to tell a man what the meaning of Scripture is?

IMHO, Scripture is almost never completely clear if it is taken out of its original historical context and language.

Blessings

 

[KathleenGee]

Randy’s references…and much more than what was given at the seminary regarding a sequential 4 month presentation on roots of the Papacy…were reflected in them.

In Sacred Scripture, Peter was referred to 183 times…compared to the other apostles…in any other documentation of another discipline…people would readily say “yes…the number of preferences indicate primacy…”

I cannot help but believe the more I see the reservations by good Christians about returning to the Church is based on Martin’s Scrupulosity and issues with authority…yes Scripture affirms God’s authority over government…but among Christians…it is like God gave no one in particularly any authority…like so little He cares for His flock…

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by MaryT777 View Post
You believe that Lutheran Churches ordaining women, homosexuals…truly being led by the Holy Spirit?

Yes!

They may be being led, but they are not following the leading. No where in scripture or Church history does one find ordination of women.

And the issue of ordaining homosexuals is based on their homosexuality. The contradiction of scripture is based on the ELCA’s determination that a homosexual living in a “committed relationship” is OK.

Originally Posted by** LutheranScholar **
Exactly my point. Lutheran Churches tend to be a bit diverse, some denominations being very liberal indeed and others quite conservative.

I don’t consider what the ELCA has done to Christ’s Office of Public Ministry to be “diversity”. I consider it, at best, heterodoxy, diminishing the very office we depend on to bring us the means of grace in word and sacrament.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’ve got a copy of the Book of Concord (i.e. the Lutheran confessions), and I don’t believe that it has anything specifically prohibiting either women pastors or gay pastors. So the ELCA is not actually disregarding the Lutheran confessions. I could be wrong, but the differing views among Lutherans on these issues probably arise from differing interpretations of Scripture, not from something in the confessions themselves.

You’re asking the confessions to address something scripture has already prohibited, when it comes to women in the Office of Public Ministry. Equally, scripture and the confessions both contain the 6th commandment, which forbids adultery.

Jon

 

[LutheranScholar]

They may be being led, but they are not following the leading. No where in scripture or Church history does one find ordination of women.

And the issue of ordaining homosexuals is based on their homosexuality. The contradiction of scripture is based on the ELCA’s determination that a homosexual living in a “committed relationship” is OK.

I don’t consider what the ELCA has done to Christ’s Office of Public Ministry to be “diversity”. I consider it, at best, heterodoxy, diminishing the very office we depend on to bring us the means of grace in word and sacrament.

Jon

Diplomacy always, me.

 

[JonNC]

Diplomacy always, me.

You’re right. I should, too.
Sometimes, however…

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re right. I should, too.
Sometimes, however…

Jon

Hey, Jon!

Since you are active in this thread, can you give me your opinion of the Porvoo Communion and its implications for the various Lutheran groups which did or did not participate in it?

Specifically, do the Lutherans who did not participate have any reason to believe that their ordinations are suspect? Why or why not?

And if not, then what was the purpose of seeking out the “Dutch Touch” in the first place?

Thanks.