The Eastern Schism - Causes and Characters

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I enjoy your posts, and even where I disagree with you I think you ask interesting questions. I’m sure others feel likewise; we wouldn’t be reading otherwise. But statements like this spoil such threads. It’s not scholarly or gentlemanly to wind up or poke fun at one’s interlocutors like this. If your arguments have merit, then they don’t need jibes; if they don’t have merit, then jibes will be of no use to you anyway.

I look forward to reading more of your posts,

N.

Thank you. I realize that good-natured ribbing and genuine animosity can often be confused in the cold black-and-white of forum text.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That you seem not to have not thought about the passage very much.

More than some, apparently.

Except that St. Ephraim did not actually make that connection.

I’ll whittle it down some more. Ephraim wrote:

And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards, He said to Simeon [Peter]: To you I will give the keys of the doors.

Jesus received the keys of the former stewards and gave them to Peter.

Cav, I know this is hard for you. You have to explain this away because of its significance. If the office of Royal Steward is:

a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above),
e. perpetual, and
f. ancient (ie., patristic) in origin,

then all Orthodox must admit that the Pope of Rome is everything that Catholics say that he is.

It’s life or death, isn’t it?

(Well, not really. But it’s a really big deal, and you know that. :yup

 

[Randy_Carson]

Does the cadaver synod speak volumes about the political intrigue swirling around the city of Rome in the 10th century? Of course it does. But then God can produce saints even in such politically unstable circumstances.

And what of the Borgias, the Saeculum Obscurum, the Tusculan Papacy, etc?

Acknowledged, admitted, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

But irrelevant for this discussion.

 

[Seraphim73]

First, since Ephraim of Syria wrote about this in the fourth century, it is reasonable to assume that lots of people who have read the fathers through the centuries were familiar with his work and his argument.

Second, was this original with Ephraim? Or did he first hear this from someone else? If the latter, then the concept may have been much more generally undestood than a single extant quote suggests.

Finally, it ought to be much easier for you to come up with a reasonable exegesis of scripture that confounds my argument since you have the Bible right in front of you, right?

And since this is an extremely common understanding in our day (held by Catholic AND Protestant scholars alike), surely some intrepid Orthodox have put something together that you can purloin. Shouldn’t take you but a few minutes on Google.

I met your challenge. You’re up.

PROVE to me from scripture that Jesus did not establish Peter as His royal steward.

All of a sudden St Ephraim becomes the most influential and widely read father in history?

First of all I agree with Cavaradossi that this passage doesn’t mean what you say it means. Nothing at all about a perpetual office or that office being passed on to the bishops and the Bishop of Rome in particular. Either way that’s not all that relevant. If this was some deeply meaningful connection people would have written about it and it would have been commented on. As it stands it’s obviously not a common interpretation because it took you weeks to dig up one single quote. If there was anything like a patristic consensus it would be easy to find. You would also expect that the Roman Church itself would trumpet it as part of its claims if there was any kind of prevalence of the opinion at all, much less a consensus. And you want me to prove Jesus did not establish Peter as the Royal Steward? Very easy. Jesus did not say Peter is the royal steward. In fact He never uses the phrase even once. That’s all the proof you need.

 

[Randy_Carson]

All of a sudden St Ephraim becomes the most influential and widely read father in history?

I don’t think that’s what I actually said, is it?

If my writing is so difficult to interpret, is there any wonder why the Fathers seem so elusive?

First of all I agree with Cavaradossi that this passage doesn’t mean what you say it means. Nothing at all about a perpetual office or that office being passed on to the bishops and the Bishop of Rome in particular. Either way that’s not all that relevant. If this was some deeply meaningful connection people would have written about it and it would have been commented on. As it stands it’s obviously not a common interpretation because it took you weeks to dig up one single quote. If there was anything like a patristic consensus it would be easy to find. You would also expect that the Roman Church itself would trumpet it as part of its claims if there was any kind of prevalence of the opinion at all, much less a consensus.

Weeks? Like I was spending full time on this?

I spent about 15 minutes searching at CCEL.org and came up with nothing. However, YADA chimed in almost immediately with this passage. Make what you will of that. But let’s review:

1… At least one ECF has made the connection.
2. Dozens of Protestant scholars have made the connection, and they have no reason to support the papacy. The oldest of these that I am CURRENTLY aware of is from the 1800’s, but who knows how far back I could push this? Of course, 1517 would be the backstop there.
3. Catholic apologists make the case by the dozens if not hundreds.

And I have spent MORE time Googling the royal steward to see what arguments have been made against it. I came up empty there, too.

So, here we have an old argument, possibly an ancient argument, that no one has bothered to refute. Weird, huh?

Here’s your chance to make history. I have provided you with a Father who supports the Royal Steward argument. Turn about is fair play.

**SECOND REQUEST

Please provide me with solid exegesis of any scripture verses you feel prove Peter was not established in the perpetual office of the Royal Steward.**

And you want me to prove Jesus did not establish Peter as the Royal Steward? Very easy. Jesus did not say Peter is the royal steward. In fact He never uses the phrase even once. That’s all the proof you need.

Jesus never said the word “trinity”, either. So, your first attempt at disproving my argument is woefully inadequate. Was that REALLY the best you’ve got?

Thanks.

 

[Seraphim73]

I don’t think that’s what I actually said, is it?

If my writing is so difficult to interpret, is there any wonder why the Fathers seem so elusive?

I was teasing. Either way it’s not being elusive just because they didn’t make the connection that you have made.

Weeks? Like I was spending full time on this?

Ok Mr 13,000 posts you spend quite a bit of time looking at this stuff.

I googled “Royal Steward” and tried to find something to no avail. Even the modern Catholic apologists who support this view don’t support it from patristics. So as I said it wasn’t a view the fathers took, not even in small measure.

I spent about 15 minutes searching at CCEL.org and came up with nothing. However, YADA chimed in almost immediately with this passage. Make what you will of that. But let’s review:

1… At least one ECF has made the connection.

Not the connection Catholic apologists make.

1. Dozens of Protestant scholars have made the connection, and they have no reason to support the papacy. The oldest of these that I am CURRENTLY aware of is from the 1800’s, but who knows how far back I could push this? Of course, 1517 would be the backstop there.

True children of the Roman Church. Two sides of the same coin really.

And I have spent MORE time Googling the royal steward to see what arguments have been made against it. I came up empty there, too.

So, here we have an old argument, possibly an ancient argument, that no one has bothered to refute. Weird, huh?

Here’s your chance to make history. I have provided you with a Father who supports the Royal Steward argument. Turn about is fair play.

**SECOND REQUEST

Please provide me with solid exegesis of any scripture verses you feel prove Peter was not established in the perpetual office of the Royal Steward.**

Thanks.

Again Randy why would you expect to see arguments against a position that no one took? Of course even the entire premise of arguing this is faulty. No one had any reason disprove what St Peter is. The fact that you would even expect to see that just baffles me.

 

[Cavaradossi]

More than some, apparently.

I’ll whittle it down some more. Ephraim wrote:

And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards, He said to Simeon [Peter]: To you I will give the keys of the doors.

Jesus received the keys of the former stewards and gave them to Peter.

Cav, I know this is hard for you. You have to explain this away because of its significance. If the office of Royal Steward is:

a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above),
e. perpetual, and
f. ancient (ie., patristic) in origin,

then all Orthodox must admit that the Pope of Rome is everything that Catholics say that he is.

It’s life or death, isn’t it?

(Well, not really. But it’s a really big deal, and you know that. :yup

If you believe that Peter was the only Apostle to have received the keys of priesthood and prophecy mentioned in St. Ephraim’s homily, then I must ask how you can square that with patristic and liturgical statements to the contrary. For example, that all bishops are high priests is easily demonstrated from what is sung to the bishop during the hierarchical blessing at the end of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, “τον δεσποτην και αρχιερεα ημων…” meaning “our master and high priest.” Indeed, St. Jerome in his Against Jovinianus explicitly wrote that all the apostles received the keys, and Pope St. Leo taught similarly in his fourth homily that what was laid down in Christ’s decree in Matthew 16:18 applied to all apostles and leaders of the church.

I do not believe that your exegesis of the passage in question is sound in that light, because if you argue that Christ passing the keys to Peter is a sign of him passing the unique office royal stewardship to him, then you must argue the same of the other apostles in interpreting other fathers for the sake of consistency, at which point, such an office would not be unique.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was teasing. Either way it’s not being elusive just because they didn’t make the connection that you have made.

Oh. Sorry. I didn’t know you were kidding.

Ok Mr 13,000 posts you spend quite a bit of time looking at this stuff.

I googled “Royal Steward” and tried to find something to no avail. Even the modern Catholic apologists who support this view don’t support it from patristics. So as I said it wasn’t a view the fathers took, not even in small measure.

First, it wasn’t MY idea to try to prove anything from the Fathers. If everyone will recall, I first posted my argument to the Lutherans (you chimed in on that thread). Then, having attracted some Orthodox posters, I started the same thread (with a slight twist) for Orthodox. At this point you and/or Cavaradossi threw out the obligatory, “What Fathers made this argument” objection. And at about that time, Isaiah was hammering me and yucking it up with you and others about my sola scriptura approach.

Protestants have to have everything proven from scripture. Orthodox have to have everything from Patristics.

So, being a diligent amateur apologist, I started working to accommodate your weakness by finding a Father who saw a connection between Peter and the steward of the OT. I say “weakness” because EO just don’t seem to be able to think outside of a very narrowly defined box. Just sayin’. Anyway, I was plugging away, finding nothing, when YADA came up BIG.

Now, I never set out to make the case that the typology of the Royal Steward was a big theme of the ECF’s. Why? Because I have a brain and can see the plain words on the page for myself (as have a dozen Protestant scholars with all kinds of formal training).

But now, you’re dodging again, because having been presented with evidence that Randy Carson and a few Protestants and a boatload of Catholics aren’t the only ones to have seen the connection, you’re claiming that one Father isn’t enough.

For you maybe, but my case is made because if Ephraim saw this in the fourth century and Protestants saw it in the 19th century, you can bet your sweet bippy that others did, too, in the 1,500 years in between.

The only real stunner at this point is that you can’t see it in the 21st century. But that is because you are willfully ignoring it - not to mention moving the goalposts every time you get an answer from me that you don’t like.

I posted the reasons for this to Cavaradossi, but they apply to you, too.

The implications of the perpetual office of Royal Steward in the Kingdom of our Lord, Jesus, are breathtaking for you.

True children of the Roman Church. Two sides of the same coin really.

Please, you’ve used this line before and it is still meaningless.

Again Randy why would you expect to see arguments against a position that no one took? Of course even the entire premise of arguing this is faulty. No one had any reason disprove what St Peter is. The fact that you would even expect to see that just baffles me.

Jerome took issue with Helvidius when the latter first suggested that Mary was not ever-Virgin. Why no outcry against Ephraim for suggesting that Jesus received the keys from Simeon and gave them to Peter? Ephraim is not taking *that *from any verse of scripture, is he? Did he make the whole thing up or was he simply expressing an idea that is intuitively obvious to anyone remotely familiar with kings and their courts.

Maybe there were no arguments against Peter as the Royal Steward precisely because the commissioning of Peter with language taken from Isaiah as well as the symbols of office, the keys, make the connection so clear that no one disputed it.

Why argue against something that is commonly understood and agreed upon? Just like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Except that in this case, you don’t even have a “Helvidius” of your own to dispute the premise.

I don’t want to make arguments from silence, so in closing, I return to my original position:

Read the passages for yourself. Compare them word for word. Note how God is present in both facilitating the transfer of the keys to the steward. Consider how God enabled Joseph to answer Pharoah’s questions and Peter to answer Jesus’ question. Revelation from God resulted in both becoming second in command only to the king.

Is this just a coincidence? Or did Jesus intentionally re-establish the perpetual office of the Royal Steward in His Kingdom?

(And Mary as the Gebirah? )

 

[Randy_Carson]

At this point, I think I’ve said about all that needs to be said regarding Peter as the Royal Steward in the kingdom of God.

I hope that folks such as Novocastrian, Peter J, and RyanBlack among others will comment on the discussion. We could use some fresh perspectives.

Naturally, I expect to be hammered by you guys, but then, what’s new?

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh. Sorry. I didn’t know you were kidding.



First, it wasn’t MY idea to try to prove anything from the Fathers. If everyone will recall, I first posted my argument to the Lutherans (you chimed in on that thread). Then, having attracted some Orthodox posters, I started the same thread (with a slight twist) for Orthodox. At this point you and/or Cavaradossi threw out the obligatory, “What Fathers made this argument” objection. And at about that time, Isaiah was hammering me and yucking it up with you and others about my sola scriptura approach.

Protestants have to have everything proven from scripture. Orthodox have to have everything from Patristics.

So, being a diligent amateur apologist, I started working to accommodate your weakness by finding a Father who saw a connection between Peter and the steward of the OT. I say “weakness” because EO just don’t seem to be able to think outside of a very narrowly defined box. Just sayin’. Anyway, I was plugging away, finding nothing, when YADA came up BIG.

Now, I never set out to make the case that the typology of the Royal Steward was a big theme of the ECF’s. Why? Because I have a brain and can see the plain words on the page for myself (as have a dozen Protestant scholars with all kinds of formal training).

But now, you’re dodging again, because having been presented with evidence that Randy Carson and a few Protestants and a boatload of Catholics aren’t the only ones to have seen the connection, you’re claiming that one Father isn’t enough.

For you maybe, but my case is made because if Ephraim saw this in the fourth century and Protestants saw it in the 19th century, you can bet your sweet bippy that others did, too, in the 1,500 years in between.

The only real stunner at this point is that you can’t see it in the 21st century. But that is because you are willfully ignoring it - not to mention moving the goalposts every time you get an answer from me that you don’t like.

I posted the reasons for this to Cavaradossi, but they apply to you, too.

The implications of the perpetual office of Royal Steward in the Kingdom of our Lord, Jesus, are breathtaking for you.

Please, you’ve used this line before and it is still meaningless.

Jerome took issue with Helvidius when the latter first suggested that Mary was not ever-Virgin. Why no outcry against Ephraim for suggesting that Jesus received the keys from Simeon and gave them to Peter? Ephraim is not taking *that *from any verse of scripture, is he? Did he make the whole thing up or was he simply expressing an idea that is intuitively obvious to anyone remotely familiar with kings and their courts.

Maybe there were no arguments against Peter as the Royal Steward precisely because the commissioning of Peter with language taken from Isaiah as well as the symbols of office, the keys, make the connection so clear that no one disputed it.

Why argue against something that is commonly understood and agreed upon?

But in closing, I return to my original position: Read the passages for yourself. Compare them word for word. Note how God is present in both facilitating the transfer of the keys to the steward. Consider how God enabled Joseph to answer Pharoah’s questions and Peter to answer Jesus’ question. Revelation from God resulted in both becoming second in command only to the king.

Is this just a coincidence? Or did Jesus intentionally re-establish the perpetual office of the Royal Steward in His Kingdom?

(And Mary as the Gebirah? )

It’s simple really. Because the ever virginity of Mary is a dogmatic belief that the Church held and has a direct bearing on what we believe about Christ. The royal steward connection is not something the Church held so one solitary saint making what is really a minor connection wouldn’t draw the attention, much less the ire of people.

I will say it is absolutely fascinating to watch how you maneuver to support your beliefs. One singe, solitary, obscure quote from one single, solitary saint out of over 1,000 years of history is a HUGE, ENORMOUS revelation. But multiple quotes by many saints over the course of hundreds of years is insignificant. That’s not even mentioning canons from various ecumenical councils.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And at about that time, Isaiah was hammering me and yucking it up with you and others about my sola scriptura approach.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As well I know given that I am your personal nail. (seven? eight?)

What is your opinion of the actual argument I’ve made in this and several other threads concerning Peter as Royal Steward?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could you actually name any others?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other.

 

[guanophore]

And he sticks the landing. Outstanding. I expected no less. :clapping:

BTW - Don’t forget that I have asked you for a book recommendation both in a thread as well as by PM. Please help this ignorant Catholic learn the truth about the Eastern Schism. Thanks!

I commend your willingness to learn the position of your opponent. I am certain this will improve your already fine apologetics skills.

 

[tdgesq]

Indeed, St. Jerome in his Against Jovinianus explicitly wrote that all the apostles received the keys, and Pope St. Leo taught similarly in his fourth homily that what was laid down in Christ’s decree in Matthew 16:18 applied to all apostles and leaders of the church.

Cavaradossi,

Do you have Sermon IV from St. Leo? I’ve never been able to find it and would appreciate it if you could link me to it. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I commend your willingness to learn the position of your opponent. I am certain this will improve your already fine apologetics skills.

Which may explain the reticence of some to make recommendations.

I’m currently reading Here I Stand by Roland Bainton which was recommended to me by some of our Lutheran guests.

So far, Luther seems like a really nice guy with some valid concerns about indulgences. Who knew?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed, St. Jerome in his Against Jovinianus explicitly wrote that all the apostles received the keys,

And the passage proves too much, for it reads:

But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, **yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. **

You like the blue (though Jerome has no scripture to support his contention).

I like the red (and have lots of verses to support it).

A head has been appointed. Schism is bad. Time to re-unite with the head, the Royal Steward of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus as the Davidic Temple Builder and Peter’s Priestly Role in Matthew 16:16-19
By Michael Patrick Barber
Journal of Biblical Literature
jbl.metapress.com/content/62365185632832p1/

"The article synthesizes part of my doctoral dissertation, which is currently being revised for publication. "

Abstract
It is widely accepted that Matthew presents Jesus as fulfilling Jewish eschatological expectations, particularly, Davidic hopes. However, although Jesus frequently speaks positively about his disciples’ participation in the cult in Matthew’s narrative (e.g., 5:23-24), little attention has been paid to Matthew’s interest in Christ’s fulfillment of the cultic dimensions of future hopes. In fact, ancient Jewish sources repeatedly express not only the belief in an eschatological temple but also expectations of a reformed and/or new priesthood. In this article, I argue that such hopes inform Matt 16:17-19. I begin by arguing that Jesus’ building of the church is best understood in light of Matthew’s Davidic Christology, an aspect of the evangelist’s portrait of Jesus that many scholars have noted. Specifically, building on the work of others, I contend that Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession involves allusions to Davidic traditions of temple building (cf. 2 Sam 7:12-13; 1 Chr 17:7-10) (e.g., Ådna, Meyer, Wright). **Going on, I demonstrate that Jesus’ description of Peter’s role in the following verses seems to portray him as one holding a priestly role. In particular, as many scholars have noted, Jesus’ words to Peter appear to echo the description of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 (e.g., Davies and Allison, Hagner, Willis). What is frequently overlooked is that this passage describes Eliakim as wearing garments usually associated with the high priest (cf. Isa 22:21 with Exod 28:4), an aspect of the passage not lost on Jewish readers (e.g., Tg. on Isaiah; b. Tacan. 29a). **“Binding” and “loosing” also seem linked to responsibilities typically associated with the priesthood (teaching, judging, mediating divine forgiveness). In light of this I argue that this passage provides Jesus with the perfect quarry: if the church is a temple, its leadership is naturally described in terms related to priestly responsibilities.

+++

What is often overlooked, however, is that there is good reason to think that the figure described in Isaiah 22 is a priestly figure. I can’t develop this in great deal here, for a fuller argument, see my JBL article on Matthew 16 linked to above. Briefly, let me just point out that Shebna and Eliakim are described as wearing special garments: the “robe” and the “girdle”. These garments are only closely associated with the high priest. In describing Peter, Jesus is comparing him to a priestly figure.

This makes sense. The church is the new temple and so its leadership is, therefore, not surprisingly described in priestly terms. Put simply, in Matthew 16, Peter is a priestly figure.

Source: thesacredpage.com/2014/06/on-this-rock-readings-for-solemnity-of.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

And now we move back into the 18th century with another Protestant begrudgingly admitting that Peter is the Steward:

Edmund Gibson

II. The truth of this will further appear, in the explication of the next words, which expound those of which I have now treated: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, it shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

The sense of which is not so plain and obvious as Bellarmine pretends, but we agree that they are a plain allusion to the words of the prophet Isaiah concerning Eliakim, Is. 22:23. I will give thee the keys of the house of David, i.e. make thee not High-priest, as he [Bellarmine] grossly mistakes, but Steward of the Royal Family, to take in and thrust out whom thou shalt think fit. Such was the power here promised to Peter by our Lord, who saith of himself, that he hath the key of David, Rev. 3:7 i.e. of the house or family of David, which he alone governs by an absolute power, but he tells Peter he intended to make him, under himself, his supreme Lord and Master, such a steward in the Church as Eliakim had been in the court (Against the Doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, edited by Edmond Gibson, p. 10, 1738).

If Gibson is referring to arguments made by Robert Bellarmine, then we can easily conclude that the argument for Peter as steward was being advanced at the end of the 16th century.

Kinda neat, huh?