The Church, the Catechism, and the Keys

[JonNC]

Like I have a monopoly on that. I have an entire thread devoted to the problems with what you’ve just described. See post #343 heree:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=832198

But here’s the thing: in the course of its 2,000-year history, the Church has listened to all of her sons carefully evaluating all their ideas. Invariably, infallibly, she has chosen what she will and will not accept as true.

So, I’m just doing what the Church has always done.

You mean like this?

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren…If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

No…nothing supporting universal jurisdiction there.

Maybe I SEE those cherries which that support my views, but there are an awful lot of folks who do not see those that demolish theirs. For example, I have heard it argued that Peter is NOT the Rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church. What do you say? More importantly, what do the Eastern Fathers say?

Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument
Peter is the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.)

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

**The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.) **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

St. Gregory Nazianzus

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). … and "Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … “[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. “Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. “The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

+++

Gee, I think I could bake a whole pie with those cherries.

Classic example(s) of -]an/-] otherwise trustworthy ECFs getting it wrong from time to time. Were any of them 100% right?

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jon

Good think I have the

infallible Church built upon Peter the Rock and led by the Holy Spirit into ALL truth

to help me sort this out.

 

[JonNC]

Good think I have the

infallible Church built upon Peter the Rock and led by the Holy Spirit into ALL truth

to help me sort this out.

Which part of it, Randy? That Church has been divided for a thousand years. It just seems to me that unity stands still until Orthodoxy and Rome can finally determine the true role of the pope.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which part of it, Randy? That Church has been divided for a thousand years. It just seems to me that unity stands still until Orthodoxy and Rome can finally determine the true role of the pope.

Jon

Well, as I said, I stand with the infallible part. The other parts make no such claim.

Just out of curiosity, if the Orthodox and Catholics are ever reunited, what impact would that have on you as a Lutheran?

 

[JonNC]

Well, as I said, I stand with the infallible part. The other parts make no such claim.

Just out of curiosity, if the Orthodox and Catholics are ever reunited, what impact would that have on you as a Lutheran?

Dramatic! I would see it as the undeniable, irresistible movement of the Spirit within His Church, and I would join it that day, regardless of the agreed-upon understanding of the role of the Papacy, or any other doctrine.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dramatic! I would see it as the undeniable, irresistible movement of the Spirit within His Church, and I would join it that day, regardless of the agreed-upon understanding of the role of the Papacy, or any other doctrine.

Jon

Wow. Regardless?



So, you’ll remain separated from Rome for now because the schism is evidence that God is pleased with the status quo?

Your communion is dependent upon whether some stubborn, old men in robes on the other side of the world decide to agree or disagree?

:newidea:

What if the Orthodox were impressed by YOUR return and likewise followed suit?

Too big to believe? Okay, Jon, what if just one or two people from your Church or from this forum decided that, “Jon just became a Catholic…I guess it’s time for me to do the same”?

More plausible, isn’t it? Doesn’t every movement begin somewhere? Seems like everyone is standing around doing nothing because no one wants to be seen as the first one to cave.

Watch this: ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11406616]Wow. Regardless?

So, you’ll remain separated from Rome for now because the schism is evidence that God is pleased with the status quo?

You know better than to put words in my mouth, Randy. I am also separated from Othodoxy, and as it stands now, I don’t know which is right. Why would I move simply for moving’s sake when it could be the “wrong” move. God is not pleased with the status quo, even though Pope Benedict made clear that unity must come from the Spirit.

Your communion is dependent upon whether some stubborn, old men in robes on the other side of the world decide to agree or disagree?

Your question was addressed to me personally, not my communion. I wasn’t speaking for Lutheranism, though I suspect there are others that would do the same.

:newidea:

What if the Orthodox were impressed by YOUR return and likewise followed suit?

Too big to believe? Okay, Jon, what if just one or two people from your Church or from this forum decided that, “Jon just became a Catholic…I guess it’s time for me to do the same”?

More plausible, isn’t it? Doesn’t every movement begin somewhere? Seems like everyone is standing around doing nothing because no one wants to be seen as the first one to cave.

Little ole me? If a giant like Jaroslav Pelikan can join Orthodoxy and it doesn’t cause a flood of converts, and if Lutherans as imminent as Father Richard Neuhaus and Dr. Michael Root can become Catholic without a similar flood, what impact would I have?

Further, I can promise you, if I did become Catholic (or Orthodox, as there are other ways that could happen), it would not be a cave. If I were to swim the Tiber, I would have Lutheranism to thank for the swimming lessons.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jon

By the way, do you agree that the quotes from Chrysostom provide evidence that at least one of the Early Church Fathers saw Peter’s universal jurisdiction? If so, the Catholic Church’s position cannot be considered a purely modern development of doctrine.

Universal jurisdiction is your last (stated) obstacle to becoming Catholic, isn’t it?

 

[JonNC]

By the way, do you agree that the quotes from Chrysostom provide evidence that at least one of the Early Church Fathers saw Peter’s universal jurisdiction? If so, the Catholic Church’s position cannot be considered a purely modern development of doctrine.

Universal jurisdiction is your last (stated) obstacle to becoming Catholic, isn’t it?

Yes, in the context of unity.

No, I don’t see his statement as an endorsement of universal jurisdiction, as I don’t believe the concept was something considered at the time. A primacy of honor, yes, and I agree with him.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your question was addressed to me personally, not my communion. I wasn’t speaking for Lutheranism, though I suspect there are others that would do the same.

I was speaking of your personal communion with Rome, not your communion as in Lutheranism.

Little ole me? If a giant like Jaroslav Pelikan can join Orthodoxy and it doesn’t cause a flood of converts, and if Lutherans as imminent as Father Richard Neuhaus and Dr. Michael Root can become Catholic without a similar flood, what impact would I have?

Mother Teresa began by picking up one person from the street…so, you never know. But don’t deflect…I was quick to point out that your impact may be small…just one or two people that you know…you just never know with God.

Further, I can promise you, if I did become Catholic (or Orthodox, as there are other ways that could happen), it would not be a cave. If I were to swim the Tiber, I would have Lutheranism to thank for the swimming lessons.

Jon

You are right, it would not be a cave. It would simply be doing the right thing. Christian unity would be a sign to a world that desperately needs one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, in the context of unity.

No, I don’t see his statement as an endorsement of universal jurisdiction, as I don’t believe the concept was something considered at the time. A primacy of honor, yes, and I agree with him.

Jon

When someone works hard for years to earn their doctorate in a field of study, their degree and title have credibility and standing in the academic community. When someone receives an honorary degree from a university, it means little more than, “We think you’re special, and we want you to speak at our commencement ceremony this year.” Just as no one considers Oprah Winfrey an academic in subject; giving someone a title or “primacy” of honor isn’t worth a warm buck of spit.

But that’s not how Chrysostom sees Peter, is it? :nope:

“He made Peter the teacher not of that see [Jerusalem] but of the whole world.”

Peter is the teacher of the whole world, the universal teacher in the Church of Christ.

He was not like the other patriarchs whose authority was defined by the geographic boundaries of their sees; his authority was universal because he was commanded by Jesus to “strengthen” all his brothers…regardless of where they might be.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to add this: It seems to me that A Divine Privilege was granted to Peter by way of a divine revelation. In a sense, God the Father in choosing to make the revelation to Peter alone, Chose Peter the rock. Through the revelatoion and Simon’s statement of faith, Jesus working in cooperation with the Father recognized and agreed with the Father’s choice and appointed Peter as the Kepha, the rock and the steward who would carry the keys of the Kingdom. I seems to me also that far too many people struggle to resist the Matthew 16- Catholic understanding of this passage. They invariably fail to listen carefully or understand the words of our Lord. The Gospel of Mathew was written primarily for Jews. Every educated Jew who read Matthew would have immediately associate the appointment of Peter with tis passage in Isaiah 22. In Luke 22:31-32 Why does Jesus pray for Peter and not the other eleven? Jesus tells Peter that satan has demanded to sift them all as wheat. Jesus then tells Peter that He has prayed for him( singular not the other eleven), that his faith will preveil, and that when he has gone through the trial, Peter should strenghtn the other Apostles. Strenghten means to conferm, fix, estabish, make stable, place firmly, and steadfast. This is conformation of the fact that Christ made Peter the leader the rock and had invested him with the whole apostolic band would be strenghtened by the one for whom the Lord prayed- the one whom the Lord appointed as a shepherd of the flock.

 

[Novocastrian]

When someone works hard for years to earn their doctorate in a field of study, their degree and title have credibility and standing in the academic community. When someone receives an honorary degree from a university, it means little more than, “We think you’re special, and we want you to speak at our commencement ceremony this year.” Just as no one considers Oprah Winfrey an academic in subject; giving someone a title or “primacy” of honor isn’t worth a warm buck of spit.

But that’s not how Chrysostom sees Peter, is it? :nope:

“He made Peter the teacher not of that see [Jerusalem] but of the whole world.”

Peter is the teacher of the whole world, the universal teacher in the Church of Christ.

He was not like the other patriarchs whose authority was defined by the geographic boundaries of their sees; his authority was universal because he was commanded by Jesus to “strengthen” all his brothers…regardless of where they might be.

I think you (and many Anglicans and Orthodox who use the term) are making the idea of a primacy of honour weaker than it needs to be. Given the ancient world’s understanding of concepts like auctoritas, surely a primacy of honour involves more than ‘honour’ does in the modern, Western world?