Successors

[Goya]

…

The election of Matthias as “One of the Twelve”, and then the sudden inclusion of Paul as a thirteenth Apostle, is very important for this discussion. If we take our cues on Apostolic Succession from Acts 1, in that an Apostle is always required to be sitting in one of the “Twelve Cathedras” or chairs, why are we concerned with preserving Peter’s chair only? They were clearly solicitous for all twelve. As to there being an existing but “headless church” without a pope: that does not flow from the analogy of the Rock & Foundation used by the Lord. Why does “rock” & “foundation” = Head/Leader?

Just for clarity’s sake, I think the Orthodox ideal of collegiality, conciliarity, and synodical government looks very much like a logical continuation of Acts 1 & Acts 15.

Note: When St. Paul began his ministry, he was brought to St. Peter–for his approval. and when St. Paul’s ministry was drawing to a close, he went to Rome–the assist St. Peter–not as bishop, or co-bishop, or the like–but simply to assist St. Peter.

…and he died on the same day as St. Peter.

These facts, imo, seem to solidify not just the primacy of St. Peter–but also, to validate the situation of the bishopric, in Rome. (Not that Rome is inherently holy or the like–but rather it serves to ratify a perplexing development–that the capital of the ‘evil empire’ of Rome, would also serve as the center of Christianity).

Further note that St. Peter is named in the New Testament more than 100 times–and more than virtually ALL of the other aposltes, combined;

St. Peter is ALWAYS named first;

St. Peter walked on water;

St. John stops at the empty tomb, to allow St. Peter to go in first–despite having arrived there first;

Christ doesn’t just state that he will build his Church on Simon–whom he renames St. Peter (petros)–he also expressly entrusts to St. Peter the keys to the kingdom, and the authority to bind and loose–where was that authority to go, upon St. Peter’s death? Why didn’t he bequeath this authority to the Twelve?

Finally, there are various comments and circumstances amongst the early CF’s showing that they acknowledged teh primacy of the bishopric of St. Peter/Rome.

 

[Classicist]

Interestingly, though Peter is called the Apostle of the Circumcision (a very limited ministry) and Paul is called the Apostle of the Uncircumcision (95% of Earth’s population), the two apostolic ministries combine at Rome. They both died and their blood hallowed the Christian church of that city, combining the apostle to the Jews & the apostle to the Gentiles in one place. What a sacred mingling of strength!

 

[Gorgias]

The only reason I ask this is the teaching of the Lord a few weeks after the sacred words were uttered to Peter.

I believe He used the second-person plural pronoun for “you” (Apostles). He does not mention the Keys here, but the effects of the Keys are mentioned: binding & loosing.

Right: in Mt 16, Peter alone is given the keys and alone is given the power of binding and loosing; in Mt 18, the verbs ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ are plural.

So, you have to ask yourself: did Jesus change his mind? Did He give this authority to Peter alone and then later decide “nah… I want every apostle to have this authority”…? That doesn’t make sense. (Of course, there are scholars who make exactly this argument.)

Rather, then, I might suggest that, while the term was identical (‘bind’ / ‘loose’), the authority given was different. The context of Mt 16 is governance of the Church; it is given to Peter alone. The context of Mt 18 is how to deal with members of the Church who are in dispute with the Church or with other members; all the apostles are given authority in this context. (Other scholars make this case for ‘context’, too, btw…)

The footnote to Mt 16:19 in the NAB reads, “there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Mt 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended.”

 

[bzkoss236]

The only reason I ask this is the teaching of the Lord a few weeks after the sacred words were uttered to Peter. As recorded in Matthew 18:18-20:

I believe He used the second-person plural pronoun for “you” (Apostles). He does not mention the Keys here, but the effects of the Keys are mentioned: binding & loosing.

Binding and loosing aren’t the power of the Keys, it’s the power of the authority of the apostles, and to the bishops as a hole. The significance of Jesus telling this to Peter alone is that Peter, while having the Keys, has a supreme role over the other bishops (or rather, at the time, apostles).

Think of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. When they gathered at the round table, they were all on equal ground, but final say still rested with King Arthur, as he still had a supreme authority over the other Knights.

In the same way, the Pope has a supreme authority over the other bishops and has the capabilities to make an infallible statement without the other bishops. But, when the other bishops assemble in council with the bishop of Rome, they can together make an infallible statement, with the bishop of Rome having final say if necessary.

The power of the Keys is the supreme authority, to have the highest authority over the Kingdom on earth until the true King returns to reclaim it.

 

[steve_b]

The only reason I ask this is the teaching of the Lord a few weeks after the sacred words were uttered to Peter. As recorded in Matthew 18:18-20:

'In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. ‘In truth I tell you once again, if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all, it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them.’

I believe He used the second-person plural pronoun for “you” (Apostles). He does not mention the Keys here, but the effects of the Keys are mentioned: binding & loosing.

The differences between Mt 16 & Mt 18 Re: bind and loose, is tense and context

Mt 16, Jesus is talking straight to Peter,

Example

I Jesus (1st person ) give you Simon (2nd person singular) … the Greek words used for “you” when talking to Peter are 2nd person singular.

• I say to you ( σοί soi dative 2nd person singular)
• *You( *σύ sy second person singular) are Rock
• *I will give you( *σοί soi dative 2nd person singular) the keys

Peter alone received the keys, and he alone can bind and loose on his own. What he binds no one can loose and what he looses no one can bind. He can loose what others bind and bind what others loose

Mt 18, the tense and context is different. if two of you on earth agree to ask anything at all, it will be granted to you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three meet in my name, I am there among them.’

Peter, in Mt 16, did not require the approval of anybody else in order to bind and loose. Not so in Mt 18 for the other apostles. While the apostles all have ministries there is one prime minister over all.

 

[steve_b]

Interestingly, though Peter is called the Apostle of the Circumcision (a very limited ministry) and Paul is called the Apostle of the Uncircumcision (95% of Earth’s population), the two apostolic ministries combine at Rome. They both died and their blood hallowed the Christian church of that city, combining the apostle to the Jews & the apostle to the Gentiles in one place. What a sacred mingling of strength!

It’s not quite so lopsided. Think of Jesus words

Mt 15:22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24* He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25* But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28* Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.”

Does that mean Jesus didn’t come for everyone else? Of course not. In the same way, in the beginning all the members of the Church were Jewish. Who opened the Church up to the gentiles? It was Peter after being given instructions from the Holy Spirit,

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

 

[Classicist]

I just want to say that the events of John 21, the reinstatement of Peter, are a remarkable antitype to Shebna, aren’t they? When the prime-minister Shebna disobeyed, he was simply replaced by Eliakim. When Peter inadvertently obeyed Christ’s prophecy by denying the Lord whom he had come to confess as Messiah (the ultimate disobedience!), Christ did not replace Peter but reinstated him. This is profound “negative” fulfillment.

All my questions are answered now. I shall return home.