Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Q. 10.

If we cannot prove that Jesus
advocated the papacy,
can we show that Peter,
or one of the other Apostles,
supported it?
 
IMHO (and the H stands for haughty! just kidding!),

😉

my thinking, P7 is that i’m not so sure you are correct in this one thing: You seem to be saying that, without the Sacred Tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, one is likely to get the wrong idea about what Jesus said. I think i, however, have demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. For instance, i think i’m correct in saying that Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 16 is unclear–we simply don’t know of which rock He speaks.

And i think that the reason i’m able to admit that i see this ambiguity is that i’m actually not haughty (unless having pride in one’s humility is possible)! My saving grace is that i take the attitude of Socrates, who said:Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)
And i’m quite amazed that, in all my discussions on this forum and others, i’ve never met a non-partisan, save one (and he was an agnostic who admitted he knew nothing of God). Here, i meet Catholics who say they have no doubt Peter is the one rock of whom Jesus spoke (though they sometimes admit there might be other rocks that Jesus did not mention in Matthew 16). At my favorite Protestant forum i meet partisans who are quite certain Jesus Himself, or Peter’s profession of Him, is the rock about which He spoke. Yet, no one appears willing to admit that any one of the three might be the rock of which Jesus spoke.

Me, i’m willing to admit my ignorance and say Jesus was unclear. I’m willing to admit He has left me with more questions than answers, so that i need the help of others to learn the truth (if indeed others can help me see). In fact, i *do *admit these, and i also admit that i need an authority i can trust to point the truth out to me. I’ve asked the Holy Spirit, and His reply is the sound of silence, but i’m filled with a desire (i know not whether it comes from Him, or from myself) that i cannot ignore and that compels me to keep asking, keep knocking, keep seeking, until the i find the Truth. For finding the Truth is finding Him, i think. And i don’t think it would be possible for me to continue my questioning if Jesus Himself did not tell me,
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!”

(Matthew 7:7-11)

Thank heaven for Matthew 7, 7-11.

🙂
I don’t understand why your are confused about this, frankly. Simon was renamed Cephas (ROCK) which translates to Peter in Greek, from the beginning of his calling as a disciple. Here’s the exchange from John 1:
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”
37 The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
39 He said to them,“Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Th Fact that Peter was the rock, leader of the Apostles, is obvious to everyone that does not have a preconceived reason to doubt.
 
http://www.pumpkinglow.com/images/PW99Gilligan.gif

Q. 10.

If we cannot prove that Jesus
advocated the papacy,
can we show that Peter,
or one of the other Apostles,
supported it?
In Acts 15, Peter states at the Council of Jerusalem that of all the Apostles, he was chosen to bring the message to the Gentiles. No one debates this.

In Galatians 2, Paul states that Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcized.

So we have Apostolic statements declaring Peter the leader of both the Circumcized (Jews)and the uncircumcized (Gentiles) , which of course constitutes everyone. What more do you need?
 
LOL! It seems we are *both *guilty of jumping to conclusions, here!

😃

I’m jumping to the conclusion that the Greek women were suffering from a kind of culture shock of being allowed, for the first time in their lives, to sit in the same room with men as a priest instructed them. Having been segregated all their lives, and now tasting a freedom they had never experienced, i assumed they were behaving badly.

You, James are jumping to the conclusion that there were not enough unmarried or widowed men to go around, so Paul allowed bishops, for this period of Church history only, to be married.

Neither of us has proved his case by citing evidence either in the biblical text, or outside it. So i’m content with saying i just don’t know, if you are.

🙂
yea, I think we’ve taken it about as far as possible. Especially givent he other issues you’re dealing with (Peter and all).
Having said all that we have, I hope you will agree with me that the passage discussed does not contain things “essential to salvation” and thus are more a matter of “Practice” than of “Doctrine”. Therefore a Church could make changes in practice without “Violating Scripture”.

Peace
James
 
(SNIP)

That being said, i’ve been shown something at which i’d like you to take a closer look with me. Jesus also said to Peter this:“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.”

(Matthew 16:19)
And it seems to me that Jesus’ profession of truth about Peter cannot be separated from the man about whom He professed. What do you think Jesus was 17 saying, here?
In a sense I think tha tyou have hit on the crux of the Problem. It is the problem of seperating verses (which didn’t exist when the texts were written or first interpreted) and trying to understand each on it’s own.
You have spent quite some time discussing the “Rock” issue and how unclear it is, and only now have you been “shown” something to look at more closely. That of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose. In point of fact this verse has a direct bearing on the previous verse. They are interconnected. Look at the whole thing.
Matthew 16: 17-19
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

How much more clear is it when you look at the scene in it’s fullness. Peter is named Rock because of His profession of Faith as revealed by God, and it is to this same Peter that Jesus entrusts the Keys to the Kingdom. Keys are the ancient symbol of the Authority of the “Prime minister” to the King. Thus Peter is given the PM job and the keys to that office. Included in this office is the authority to “Bind and Loose”, Bind and loose what?? “Whatever”.
A “Profession” cannot “hold keys”. A Profession cannot, “Bind and Loose”. This is something clearly given to the man Simon/Peter.
So, unless Jesus was jumping back and forth in what “You” meant in this passage, we can only come to the conclusion that It is Peter, based upon God’s revelation to him and His profession of that Revelation, to whom Jesus gave the Authority and upon whom He would build His Church.

As to whether Jesus intended Peter to be the first in a line of “Popes”.
We need to look at the way things were structured back then. Most nations were ruled by a “King”, the Roman Empire by an “Emporor”, The Jewish faith had a “High Priest” etc. Now each of these varied in structure, for instance the High priest changed every so often, and the Roman Empire had it’s Senate, A king would have some sort of inner council etc, but common to all of these, is the idea of some single person in the position of “high authority”.
Jesus established a Kingdom did He not? How often did He speak in terms of "The Kingdom of God. The Lords Prayer says, “Thy Kingdom Come”, many parables start out with, “The Kingdom of God is like…”. We refer to Jesus as “Christ the King”. Why should we be surprised that Jesus would appoint a Prime Minister (Pope) along with a council (Apostles/Bishops) to protect and defend His Kingdom?

Right after posting this, I found the following on another thread. My Thanks to JReducation for expalining this so well:
It is important to remember that the Chair of Peter is ot something that Jesus pulled out of his sleeve. There was an established tradition in the history of Israel of the Chair of Moses. Jesus speaks about it often admonishing the people to do what the leaders said, but not what they did. The concept of governing from the chair of authority was not new to the Apostles. It was a well understood concept to them. That’s probably the reason why they did not elaborate on it in the Gospels. They were writing for an audience that was familiar with this tradition. There was the Chair of Moses and the Chair of Caesar. To have the Chair of Peter as the new Moses, the new law giver and protector of the law was not lost on them as it may be lost on us today, because we are 2000 years removed from that time in history.

Peace
James
 
I don’t understand why your are confused about this, frankly. Simon was renamed Cephas (ROCK) which translates to Peter in Greek, from the beginning of his calling as a disciple. Here’s the exchange from John 1:
35 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”
37 The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38 Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
39 He said to them,“Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Th Fact that Peter was the rock, leader of the Apostles, is obvious to everyone that does not have a preconceived reason to doubt.
I’ve got no reason to doubt Peter was a leader of the Apostles. I’m just trying to figure out if a rock a papacy makes.
 
In Acts 15, Peter states at the Council of Jerusalem that of all the Apostles, he was chosen to bring the message to the Gentiles. No one debates this.

In Galatians 2, Paul states that Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcized.

So we have Apostolic statements declaring Peter the leader of both the Circumcized (Jews)and the uncircumcized (Gentiles) , which of course constitutes everyone. What more do you need?
But does an Apostle a papacy make?

🤷
 
In a sense I think tha tyou have hit on the crux of the Problem. It is the problem of seperating verses (which didn’t exist when the texts were written or first interpreted) and trying to understand each on it’s own.
True, James. The first place to begin an investigation of the true meaning of any text (biblical or not) is the immediate context. I’m surprised no one has quoted verse 19 before i did.
You have spent quite some time discussing the “Rock” issue and how unclear it is, and only now have you been “shown” something to look at more closely. That of the Keys and the authority to bind and loose. In point of fact this verse has a direct bearing on the previous verse. They are interconnected. Look at the whole thing. Matthew 16: 17-19
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
How much more clear is it when you look at the scene in it’s fullness. Peter is named Rock because of His profession of Faith as revealed by God, and it is to this same Peter that Jesus entrusts the Keys to the Kingdom. Keys are the ancient symbol of the Authority of the “Prime minister” to the King. Thus Peter is given the PM job and the keys to that office. Included in this office is the authority to “Bind and Loose”, Bind and loose what?? “Whatever”.
A “Profession” cannot “hold keys”. A Profession cannot, “Bind and Loose”. This is something clearly given to the man Simon/Peter.
I suppose much discussion could be avoided with me, or with even a partisan Protestant, if verse 18 (which is the cause of much emotion) was left out of the dialog. Consider this:Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. … 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.”

(Matthew 16:17, 19)

Notice what is missing–all that results in a heated debate about who or what is the real rock. Take out verse 18, and you have something less controversial, but more concrete. Less ambiguous, but more to the point. Jesus gives Simon (AKA Peter) the keys of the kingdom. Jesus gives Simon (AKA Peter) the authority to bind and loose on earth, as it is in heaven. There’s no doubt in my mind, now. Peter is the leader.
So, unless Jesus was jumping back and forth in what “You” meant in this passage, we can only come to the conclusion that It is Peter, based upon God’s revelation to him and His profession of that Revelation, to whom Jesus gave the Authority and upon whom He would build His Church.
I suppose a die hard Protestant might stick to his guns and go down shooting, shouting as he fell, that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, and all had equal authority. At the moment, i don’t see that. I see Jesus addressing one man–Peter. I suppose if i knew Greek or Latin, i might be able to determine definitively whether the word you in verse 19 is singular or plural, but the English appears to make it clear enough.
 
As to whether Jesus intended Peter to be the first in a line of “Popes”.
We need to look at the way things were structured back then. Most nations were ruled by a “King”, the Roman Empire by an “Emperor”, The Jewish faith had a “High Priest” etc. Now each of these varied in structure, for instance the High priest changed every so often, and the Roman Empire had it’s Senate, A king would have some sort of inner council etc, but common to all of these, is the idea of some single person in the position of “high authority”.
Jesus established a Kingdom did He not? How often did He speak in terms of "The Kingdom of God. The Lords Prayer says, “Thy Kingdom Come”, many parables start out with, “The Kingdom of God is like…”. We refer to Jesus as “Christ the King”. Why should we be surprised that Jesus would appoint a Prime Minister (Pope) along with a council (Apostles/Bishops) to protect and defend His Kingdom?

Right after posting this, I found the following on another thread. My Thanks to JReducation for explaining this so well: It is important to remember that the Chair of Peter is not something that Jesus pulled out of his sleeve. There was an established tradition in the history of Israel of the Chair of Moses. Jesus speaks about it often admonishing the people to do what the leaders said, but not what they did. The concept of governing from the chair of authority was not new to the Apostles. It was a well understood concept to them. That’s probably the reason why they did not elaborate on it in the Gospels. They were writing for an audience that was familiar with this tradition. There was the Chair of Moses and the Chair of Caesar. **To have the Chair of Peter as the new Moses, the new law giver and protector of the law was not lost on them as it may be lost on us today, because we are 2000 years removed from that time in history.**Peace
James
The thing about the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone. Perhaps Joshua was a successor to Moses (interesting that Jesus is Greek for Joshua) but no one succeeded Joshua. When the people settled in the Promised Land, there ceased to be a continuing succession of Moseses to guide them. One might say that the priests of the Temple were God’s leaders, but their only jobs were to preside over the Jewish festivals and sacrifice for the sins of the people. Besides, if the priests were the succession of rulers, they would be sitting in the Chair of Aaron, not Moses. When crises arose that demanded military action, God did rise up leaders like Moses, but only temporary ones. Gideon is one example; Samson another. When the people demanded a king, God’s reaction was anger, not gladness. The history of what follows, in 1 Kings and 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles, is one long, sad succession of sinful ruler after another, leading the people away from God rather than to Him. During this continuing reign of rebellion and tribulation and wickedness, prophets voiced God’s disapproval to deaf ears, and pointed out the sin to blind kings. Not once did the prophets predict the coming of an age when God would create a righteous succession of leaders who would rightfully rule from the long empty Chair of Moses. Instead, they spoke only of the coming Messiah (or Christ) who would one day end all evil and rule in righteousness and power from Jerusalem.

So James, you and others, having convinced me that Peter was top dog, have the more difficult task of proving that top God intended other Peters to follow him. You have to show that the papacy, rather than to have no succession, was God’s plan. You must demonstrate that God did not raise up temporary leaders (like the Judges of the past) to lead in times of revival, such as the First and Second Great Awakenings in this country and in Europe. How you proceed is up to you. I’ll go wherever you lead me.
 
The thing about the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone. Perhaps Joshua was a successor to Moses (interesting that Jesus is Greek for Joshua) but no one succeeded Joshua. When the people settled in the Promised Land, there ceased to be a continuing succession of Moseses to guide them. One might say that the priests of the Temple were God’s leaders, but their only jobs were to preside over the Jewish festivals and sacrifice for the sins of the people. Besides, if the priests were the succession of rulers, they would be sitting in the Chair of Aaron, not Moses. When crises arose that demanded military action, God did rise up leaders like Moses, but only temporary ones. Gideon is one example; Samson another. When the people demanded a king, God’s reaction was anger, not gladness. The history of what follows, in 1 Kings and 2 Kings, and 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles, is one long, sad succession of sinful ruler after another, leading the people away from God rather than to Him. During this continuing reign of rebellion and tribulation and wickedness, prophets voiced God’s disapproval to deaf ears, and pointed out the sin to blind kings. Not once did the prophets predict the coming of an age when God would create a righteous succession of leaders who would rightfully rule from the long empty Chair of Moses. Instead, they spoke only of the coming Messiah (or Christ) who would one day end all evil and rule in righteousness and power from Jerusalem.

So James, you and others, having convinced me that Peter was top dog, have the more difficult task of proving that top God intended other Peters to follow him. You have to show that the papacy, rather than to have no succession, was God’s plan. You must demonstrate that God did not raise up temporary leaders (like the Judges of the past) to lead in times of revival, such as the First and Second Great Awakenings in this country and in Europe. How you proceed is up to you. I’ll go wherever you lead me.
You raise many good points that demonstrate how God led His “Stiff Necked” people thourgh many centuries of trial, success, exile and recovery. Indeed there were many “forms” of governance used. We can also see such changes in governance in the Church since Christ founded it.
But I think that when you say that, “the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone”, you forget, or perhaps never noticed Jesus own words on the matter. I refer you to this from Matthew 23 vs 2-3:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
So your statement that the Chair of Moses had been empty is incorrect. It had been held by the Scribes and Pharisees, headed of course by the Chief Priest of the Temple. Not only that but Jesus, in spite of his distate for the scribes and pharisees sinful ways, upholds their authority to Teach, and to “Bind and loose” under the old covenent!!
Today in the Church we have the Apostolic Bishops headed by the Bishop of Rome whom carries the title of Pope.

Finally, what you say about God raising up leaders from time to time is quite correct. St Francis comes to mind as does St Catherine of Sienna, both of whom were lifted up by God to “rebuild His Church” which was mired in troubles. The raising up of these people however does not negate the authority of those who sit “On th eChair of Peter”.

What say you?

Peace
James
 
So James, you and others, having convinced me that Peter was top dog, have the more difficult task of proving that top God intended other Peters to follow him. You have to show that the papacy, rather than to have no succession, was God’s plan. You must demonstrate that God did not raise up temporary leaders (like the Judges of the past) to lead in times of revival, such as the First and Second Great Awakenings in this country and in Europe. How you proceed is up to you. I’ll go wherever you lead me.
Have you read Acts1. Peter says that the Apostles chairs need to be filled and he leads the Apostles to picking Matthias as Judas replacement.

Here it is:
20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
 
True, James. The first place to begin an investigation of the true meaning of any text (biblical or not) is the immediate context. I’m surprised no one has quoted verse 19 before i did.

I suppose much discussion could be avoided with me, or with even a partisan Protestant, if verse 18 (which is the cause of much emotion) was left out of the dialog. Consider this:Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. … 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.”

(Matthew 16:17, 19)

Notice what is missing–all that results in a heated debate about who or what is the real rock. Take out verse 18, and you have something less controversial, but more concrete. Less ambiguous, but more to the point. Jesus gives Simon (AKA Peter) the keys of the kingdom. Jesus gives Simon (AKA Peter) the authority to bind and loose on earth, as it is in heaven. There’s no doubt in my mind, now. Peter is the leader.
I suppose we all get mired in details. I never thought about looking at the passage without verse 18 either. It does make an interesting slant doesn’t it.

I suppose a die hard Protestant might stick to his guns and go down shooting, shouting as he fell, that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, and all had equal authority. At the moment, i don’t see that. I see Jesus addressing one man–Peter. I suppose if i knew Greek or Latin, i might be able to determine definitively whether the word you in verse 19 is singular or plural, but the English appears to make it clear enough.
Actually in the case of teaching All the Apostles WERE given equal authority, (See Mt 18:15-18) but Peter was named by Jesus to be their leader. The Idea that All have a “equal authority” does not detract from Peter’s leadership.
But it is important to tnote something here that our Protestant brothers seem to have a real problem getting past. NONE of the Apostles had (or have) the Authority to go off teaching something different than the others. NONE had authority to establish “local churches” that disagreed with each other and tell the others to go, “jump in the lake”.
This was a single and authoritative Church with a single set of leadership persons who would meet, or write and discuss sticky issues.
Sometimes a region would develop a “local” doctrine, but as time went on if these differences began effecting other regions and causing discord among the faithful, they would, “Tell it To The Church”,(Mt 18:17) that is the Church would meet in council and hammer out a unified doctrine. (Acts 15)

Finally I will say this. The Church, given authority to Bind and loose, has held from the earliest times that the Successor of Peter, who was Bishop of Rome, is the leader of the Church. Today that leader is selected by a councilor meeting of The Cardinals. In times past other methods were used.
The Church thus has “Bound” us to follow Peter’s successor, who is thus selected.

Peace
James
 
But I think that when you say that, “the Chair of Moses is that it belonged to Moses alone”, you forget, or perhaps never noticed Jesus own words on the matter. I refer you to this from Matthew 23 vs 2-3:
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Peace
James
It amazes me that Catholics use this verse to support the CC, :rolleyes:
All you have to do is keep reading and you discover that “holding Mosses seat” was no constellation prize on the contrary, it meant absolutely NOTHING! Jesus goes on to blast them straight to hell. The 7 woes to those who hold the seat of Mosses. I do agree that there is a likeness in the catholic church and the Pharisees, or better said the seat of Peter and the seat of Mosses, I really cant tell the difference.

C/P from ESV study bible.
23:1-12 Warnings against the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. Jesus warns the crowd and his disciples not to follow the false leadership of the Pharisees (v v. 1-12), then directly pronounces woes upon those leaders for their deadly actions (see v v. 13-39).
23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees were two distinct groups, though there was some overlap between them: the scribes were the professional interpretative experts on the Torah itself, while the Pharisees were experts in theological matters that the Torah raised. Moses’ seat. Traditionally understood as referring symbolically to the authority of Moses. However, recent archaeological evidence has revealed a literal chair found in early synagogues. Whether literal or figurative, it refers to a place from which experts on the law taught.
23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you. Jesus recognized the Pharisees’ official function as interpreters of the Law of Moses, and insofar as they accurately interpreted Scripture, they were to be obeyed. However, “so” (Gk. oun) connects this verse with v. 2 and the mention of Moses, and therefore “whatever they tell you” should probably be limited to “whatever they tell you about the Law of Moses” and does not include the Pharisees’ later extensive additions to Mosaic laws which rabbinic teachers made. but not what they do. Jesus is about to show that much of the Pharisees’ practice and their extrabiblical tradition is wrong.
23:4 Heavy burdens describes the extrabiblical tradition of the rabbis that was a pillar of the Pharisaic branch of Judaism. It was intended as a means of making the OT relevant to new life situations, but its massive obligations had become burdensome and oppressive.
23:5 phylacteries. Small cube-shaped cases made of leather, containing Scripture passages written on parchment. They were worn on the left arm and forehead as a literal way to obey the admonition of Deut 11:18 (cf. Ex 13:9; Deut 6:8). fringes. Tassels with a blue cord that were attached to the four corners of a man’s garment (Num 15:37-41; Deut 22:12), reminding the people to obey God’s commandments and to be holy (Num 15:40).

23:6 place of honor. Seating at banquets was assigned to guests based on their rank or status. best seats in the synagogues. Excavations at early Galilean synagogues indicate that bench seats were built along the sides of the synagogue (see note on Luke 4:16; and The Synagogue and Jewish Worship). In any meeting place, some seats are regarded as better than others.
23:7 Rabbi (Hb. rabbi) literally meant “my lord,” but it was used generally for outstanding teachers of the law, most frequently heads of rabbinical schools.
23:8-10 not to be called rabbi,... call no man your father... Neither be called instructors. Jesus’ disciples should not try to gain authority over one another as teachers or masters, since Jesus is ultimately each disciple’s teacher and master (you have one teacher*... one instructor), to whom the disciple is accountable. Jesus does not literally forbid use of the titles “teacher,” “doctor,” or “father” for all time in all circumstances, but he prohibits his disciples from using these terms in the way the Pharisees used them, in a spirit that wrongly exalted leaders and reinforced human pride.
23:13-36 Woes of Judgment against the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. Jesus now addresses the scribes and Pharisees directly, declaring a series of seven “woes” upon them that echoes the criticisms he has repeated throughout his ministry. These seven woes stand in contrast to the first seven “blessings” that introduce the Sermon on the Mount and describe Jesus’ true disciples (5:3-9). (For a similar list of woes, see Luke 11:37-54.)
23:13 First woe: the shut door. The woes are a mixture of condemnation, regret, and sorrow. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees are false leaders who have drawn the people away from the kingdom of heaven instead of toward it.
23:15 Second woe: entrapped converts. Jesus does not criticize proselytism per se, but the manner in which the Pharisees zealously sought converts, only to place them under the burdensome weight of the many requirements in their extrabiblical traditions. child of hell. Literally, “child of Gehenna,” a reference to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, just south of Jerusalem, where refuse was burned. Jewish and NT writings used it as a metaphorical picture of eternal punishment (see note on 18:6-9).
23:16-18 Third woe: binding oaths. The Pharisees distinguished between oaths made by the temple and those made by the gold of the temple, and between oaths made by the altar and those made by the gift on it. As in much of their belief system, they focus on misguided superficial distinctions and overlook the higher principles of the law.
23:19-22 whoever swears. Those with faith in God who recognize their constant accountability in his presence need only give a simple “yes” or “no” as a binding oath (see 5:23, 34-37).
 
23:23 Fourth woe: neglecting the weighty matters of the law. tithe. The Mosaic law required giving a tenth of all that one produced for the ongoing work of the Lord through the Levites and priests (e.g., Lev 27:30-33). mint, dill, cumin. The Pharisees were so scrupulous in following this injunction that they paid a tithe even from their smallest garden crops. Jesus does not say that they were wrong in this (“These you ought to have done”), but that they should do this without neglecting the far more important matters.
23:24 straining out a gnat. The rabbis strained wine to remove even small, unclean insects (cf. Lev 11:23, 41) that could contaminate it. swallowing a camel. The camel was the largest land animal in Palestine (cf. Matt 19:24), also ceremonially unclean (Lev 11:4). Jesus is speaking in obvious hyperbole (an intended overstatement to make a point). The Pharisees had become lost in the minute details, while neglecting the law’s overarching intent.
23:26 Fifth woe: clean outside, filthy inside. clean the inside. While seeking external purity, the Pharisees were oblivious to the corrupt internal condition of their hearts.
23:27-28 Sixth woe: whitewashed tombs. The Pharisees were like tombs, which in Jesus’ day could be outwardly very beautiful but within held nothing but death and decay. These tombs were customarily whitewashed to identify them clearly to passersby, since people would be rendered unclean for seven days through any contact with them (Num 19:16; cf. Luke 11:44).
23:29-32 Seventh woe: descendants of murderers of the prophets. In scheming to have Jesus executed, the religious leaders show that they are following in the footsteps of their ancestors, who had persecuted and murdered God’s prophets.
23:29 tombs . . . monuments. Funerary art became rich and varied around this time, with widespread ornamentation of tomb facades, ossuaries, and stone coffins, as well as wall paintings and graffiti.
23:33 serpents . . . brood of vipers. Virtually synonymous terms that magnify the guilt of these religious leaders (see notes on 3:7; 12:33-35).
23:35 The interval from the blood of righteous Abel (Gen 4:8-11) to the blood of Zechariah (2 Chron 24:20-22) encompasses all of OT biblical history. Abel was the first person murdered in the OT and Zechariah is the last murdered, since 2 Chronicles (where the murder of Zechariah is recorded) is the last book in the Hebrew canon (see 2 Chron 24:20-22). There is a difficulty with the phrase son of Barachiah, however, since in 2 Chron 24:20 Zechariah is called the “son of Jehoiada,” while the more famous prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah is “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” (Zech 1:1). Several solutions have been proposed: (1) Just as Zechariah the prophet can be called either “the son of Barachiah” (Zech 1:1) or “the son of Iddo” (Ezra 6:14; Iddo was his grandfather), so the Zechariah in 2 Chron 24:20 could have been the son of an otherwise unrecorded “Barachiah,” with “Jehoiada” (who lived 130 years; 2 Chron 24:15) being Zechariah’s grandfather. (2) As was the case with a number of people in the OT, the father of Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chron 24:20 could have been known by more than one name—i.e., Jehoiada and Barachiah. (3) The reference may not be to the Zechariah in 2 Chron 24:20-22 but to Zechariah the prophet, as is suggested by some extrabiblical Jewish literature that includes a tradition telling about the murder of Zechariah the prophet (who comes near the end of the OT prophets). (4) The phrase “son of Barachiah” may have been a very early textual addition by a scribe who thought “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” was intended (one significant early manuscript, Sinaiticus, in fact, omits the words “the son of Barachiah”). Each of these proposed solutions presents a plausible possibility, though there is not enough information to determine which is most likely.
23:36 Rather than respond to the unique opportunity they had to receive their Messiah and participate in the kingdom of heaven, the religious people of this generation would continue to spill innocent blood—now that of Jesus and his followers—and so face God’s wrath.
23:37-39 Lament over Jerusalem. Jerusalem apparently refers to the whole nation of Israel, for whom Jesus deeply laments.
23:38 house. In the OT, this is an expression for the temple; possibly here it has broader reference to Jerusalem’s leadership. All Jewish religious authority will collapse with the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
23:39 As Jesus cites Ps 118:26 (cf. Matt 21:9), he identifies himself with God’s Messiah and Savior who will once again come to his people, but only after a time of great judgment, when they are finally ready to receive him.
 
Have you read Acts1. Peter says that the Apostles chairs need to be filled and he leads the Apostles to picking Matthias as Judas replacement.

Here it is:
20 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’
21 Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
24 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25 to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
So the Apostels cast lots and it fell to Matthias. All good and well Matthias probably went on to preach the good news. So then it looks as though Jesus called another, named Paul. So what do we now believe that because Paul was not “one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us”, that he was not an Apostle? The one that that Jesus says of in, Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. Here we see Paul called apart from every precept the church of Rome teaches. The man that the NT would be greatly reduced in volume without.

The OT example is found in Numbers 11 The seventy elders are called. Eldad and Medad did not attend the formal tabernacle with the rest but still received the Spirit. What Mosses said of this is the same way that the NT church enlist its members, in spite of Joshua’s protest.

28 So Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, one of his choice men, answered and said, “Moses my lord, forbid them!”
29 Then Moses said to him, “Are you zealous for my sake? Oh, that all the LORD’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put His Spirit upon them!” 30 And Moses returned to the camp, he and the elders of Israel.

So where and how do these examples fit into the CC teachings? if they were true.
I like quoting this verse buy most dont know the story behind it, its a story I encourage you to read, the 11th chapter of Numbers. When I hear people say such things as salvation can only be found in our church I remember Numbers 11:23 And the LORD said to Moses, “Has the LORD’s arm been shortened?

For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.
 
So James, you and others, having convinced me that Peter was top dog, have the more difficult task of proving that top God intended other Peters to follow him. You have to show that the papacy, rather than to have no succession, was God’s plan. You must demonstrate that God did not raise up temporary leaders (like the Judges of the past) to lead in times of revival, such as the First and Second Great Awakenings in this country and in Europe. How you proceed is up to you. I’ll go wherever you lead me.
Dear Soc,
Code:
 the thread is experiencing an accelerated development in this stage.  I had seen that Philthy had done my job on your premises about the rock, and before going on on that line I detect that thanks to reconsidering the "keys issue"  ( BTW it was a singular "you" in greek, no question here)  you feel you are back on solid ground about petrine primacy in itself.   Keys were key. :) we could say.
It seems we are then back to what we were starting exploring.
This was post 313.

"
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus
So, please reassure me, P7. Tell me how you know, without a doubt, that Jesus desired Peter to be the first of many papal “kings” rather than a kind of temporary leader, such as Moses or Samuel? Tell me how you are absolutely certain the papacy is not a product of the same sin of the ancient Jewish people, who wanted a succession of kings rather than the temporary spokesmen appointed by God.

How do you know that, if Catholics came before Jesus on Judgement Day and asked Him, “Why did you allow us to have a succession of Popes if it was wrong?” that His answer would not be this?

“I permitted you to have papal kings because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

Dear Soc,

You did not find here a person who is able to pass such an “absolute certainty” (shouldn’t we speak about “deep persuasion”) in a few posts. …
I am afraid I can offer just a quick start, which will raise some of your able questions.
  • The apostles wanted a leadership appointed by themselves ( bishops) to succeed them in leading the Church after their own deaths and before the parousia, and settled the principle of succession.
"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. … And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe …Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry

( 1 Clement 42 and 44)
  • Even if the “you” in the Great Commssion in Matthew, does not extend, beyond the Apostles themselves, ( as some protestant brothers would mind) this momentous decision to endorse the principle of succession was taken by the apostles themselves, ie within the range of that promise by Jesus. Therefore we can trust it was assisted (aka wanted), rather than merely permitted by Him.
In this case apostolic succession is according to the divine design.

Within the Apostles Jesus had appointed a head. This was at the same time the prime minister of the High Priest and King, who is Jesus Himself…

Now, if there existed legitimate successors of the apostles, and if there always is Christ as High priest and King, why, let me ask, should we believe that to respect the divine design the job of leader of the successors of the apostles and prime minister of Jesus had to disappear after Simon Peter ?
I see you’re focusing your attention on Judges and prophets. They would receive ad hoc tasks, typically to protect God’s people from a specific threat, military or spiritual. Wouldn’t they ?

What do you mind, Soc, is “feeding Jesus’ sheep” an ad hoc temporary task, or does it look like a permanent one ?

I hope this can be helpful Soc, and am going to enjoy your questions ( and your answers).

In Christ
P7 * "

Your response then had started our present line on Magisterium.

I’m now looking forward to your considerations on the succession issue here, particularly
the questions I have now colored.
 
IMHO (and the H stands for haughty! just kidding!),

😉

my thinking, P7 is that i’m not so sure you are correct in this one thing: You seem to be saying that, without the Sacred Tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, one is likely to get the wrong idea about what Jesus said. I think i, however, have demonstrated that this is not necessarily the case. For instance, i think i’m correct in saying that Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 16 is unclear–we simply don’t know of which rock He speaks.

And i think that the reason i’m able to admit that i see this ambiguity is that i’m actually not haughty (unless having pride in one’s humility is possible)!

🙂
By:

*IMHO you’re telling me that they ( ie the staff of this “super Church”):
  • claiming no more specific authority than you and I could ( you and I could quote Hebrews 1 as well, if we decided to found a denomination together , couldn’t we ?),
  • claim (an exclusivity of) “correct judgment”, before those of other similarly self-appointed “magisteiums”,
  • and tell us the one Magisterium able to claim to succeed the Apostles and their leader is condemned, because it manifestly preaches a different Gospel …. than the Apostles *
I wasn’t specifically and directly saying what I have now underlined in your response.
Let’s explore for a while the protestant situation you described.

I am first of all proposing that protestant teaching bodies have no more legitimate chrstian authority than Soc or P7.
The great fallacy here IMHO is quoting verses pointing seemingly to universal ability in getting Revelation the right way, to build the case for one’s specific authority, or the authority of a specific self-appointed ( or ultimately appointed by somebody self-appointed ) teaching body.

let’s go a step forward here. If we’re all able to understand Scripture correctly, why should I consider the readings proposed by THAT teaching body as the CORRECT ONE, to the exclusion of Soc’s reading, P7’s reading, and anybody’s reading ? What about other protestant teaching bodies ?

Are according to you Soc those teaching bodies consistent in their claims ?
 
If you wish to understand the papacy, you must study Judaism and the promises of God to Israel. Jesus and His Apostles were Jews, after all. 😉
 
Pax:

I do appreciate you’re always sticking by my side, even though i frequently have the same effect on people that Socrates himself had, as he said:The world in general has not figured me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end.

(Theaetetus, 149)
I think you know by now that these endless questions of mine really are aimed at figuring out the truth, and that the end result is to draw me closer to it (or Him, as He is the truth). Speaking of the Truth, when Jesus says,I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(John 14:6)

i could understand if you, or someone else, said that the man Jesus cannot be separated from His words. For He is the Truth, and what He says about Himself is true. They are one and the same. And when Peter says,You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

(Matthew 16:16)
i could understand if you, or someone else, said, “Peter’s profession of faith about Christ, and Christ, cannot be separated.” However, i don’t understand how Peter and His profession of faith are one and the same. For example, a executioner at the foot of Jesus’ cross said:“Surely he was the Son of God!”

(Matthew 27:54)
By the same reasoning, wouldn’t i say that the centurion who oversaw the torture and death of Christ cannot be separated by his profession of faith? My thinking is that the one who professes the truth is *not *synonymous with the truth he professes. Even the devil can, on occasion, speak the truth.

That being said, i’ve been shown something at which i’d like you to take a closer look with me. Jesus also said to Peter this:“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.”

(Matthew 16:19)
And it seems to me that Jesus’ profession of truth about Peter cannot be separated from the man about whom He professed. What do you think Jesus was saying, here?
Soc in Christ,

I am sometimes prone to articulate things with less precision than is called for. You are right in calling me on my wording and the appropriate distinctions. Likewise, I think you get my point which I am thankful for.

“Binding and loosing” are rabbinical terms. The Pharisees and the rabinnical bodies such as the Sanhedrin exercised power and authority to bind and loose. In the NT we see an example where Jesus says the following about the scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23:2-4:
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move* loose*]them with their finger.”
So what do we see here? It is clear that the Pharisees have the authority to bind and loose and that they exercise authority because they sit on “Moses’ seat.” This reference to Moses’ seat informs us of a few important things:
  1. The authority exercised extends back to Moses. The tradition of “Moses’ seat” must have some form of succession in order to exist from Moses to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus time.
  2. Likewise, the authority of Moses is the authority of the scribes and Pharisees.
  3. The reference and pattern established here extends to the apostles and leadership in the NT Church because Jesus gives them the power to bind and loose.
The NT Church speaks of the element of succession and the power to bind and loose. In the second epistle of Clement to James II. (“Clementine Homilies,” Introduction), Peter is said to have appointed Clement as his successor, saying: “I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall **bind **what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.”

This seems pretty compelling especially when we also look at Isaiah and see how Eliakim serves as the chief steward of the king with the power to bind and loose which is described in scripture as follows:

Isaiah 22:19-22
I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 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.

The terms open and shut are the equivalents of “bind and loose” and we see a clear reference to the keys.

It is the pattern of the OT and the language of Jesus to the apostles in the NT that leads me to see authority, power to bind and loose, and succession.

What do you think?
 
Thank you. Yes, i see, but do you see that when it comes to deciding who i should trust, it’s not up to them, but to me?

🤷

Deciding who to trust is in no way a decision that the one in whom i might trust can make for me. It is in fact an individual judgment that only i can make for myself, i believe.
Fine. Here we are.

This is the way I put it in another thread.

Many non catholic brothers observe from time to time, that the catholic does have to use his own private judgment (PJ) . If only to accept the authority of the Church. Hence, they say, we’re after all on the same boat, everyone with one’s own PJ, and the catholic less consistently so.

IMHO, this point is both true and fallacious. It is very true, in that it is upon personal examination that the convert, as well as the cradle catholic looking into his heritage, accepts the Church as the best interpreter and guardian of Revelation.
He then goes on studying Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, by his own PJ, while, in principle, ready to trustfully recognize, in a dialectical relationship, that Magisterium knows better. (A real risk for the catholic when in dialogue with a NC, is coming to identify his own voice with the Magisterium. This is IMHO the seed of much of the arrogance we see in our home. )
I’d say that the catholic as well as the protestant feels as right and duty studying Revelation, this being not where the attitudes/beliefs differ.

The fundamental divergence is IMHO that, in principle, the protestant mindset is shaped by a PJ which comes to consider as the best interpreter of Revelation ( generally equated to Sacred Scriptures) … itself. In other words, rather than passing from PJ to Church and PJ, here the passage looks from PJ to PJ.
Which BTW could be seen either just subjectively ( “My self is the best interpreter for myself, yours for yourself” ), or objectively: ( “My self is the best interpreter, and that’s that, you’d just better listen to it” ), or in practice as any mix of the two. The former attitude appearing as against any real church building, the latter being IMHO the seed of the possible protestant type of arrogance, to be compared with the above mentioned catholic one.

Is my impression on this fundamental watershed essentially wrong ?

Here I had left protestant magisteriums out of the picture, for simplicity’s sake.
My persuasion ( as I was trying to show in the previous post) is that the real match is between the self and the Catholic Church, particular protestant teaching bodies having no chance against this two big guns. 🙂

(I hope I’m clear enough when stating that the catholic passes from PJ to Chruch and PJ.
I mean catholics have a dialectic relation with the Church. I use my PJ to understand what the Church teaches, as well as to read Scripture myself.
When I see I do not understand something in Scripture or Magisterium, I look for explanation at the Magisterium.
If I happen to get on a point an impression seemingly at odds with the Magisterium ,
I postulate that I’m inventing non existing conflicts or, if a conflict does seem to be there,
that I am wrong. And that when the Holy Spirit wants, I’ll see where and how I am wrong. :))

Bless you
P7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top