Universal Jursidiction

[steido01]

bzkoss, thanks for the link. I’ll wade my way through it.

You have a scripture verse of two which states this explicitly. You ARE a* sola scripturis*t, correct?

Lutherans profess Scripture to be the sole rule and norm for doctrine; this does not mean we are relegated to “proof texting” to support our arguments. We acknowledge the traditions of the early church and our shared fathers. This is why we discuss the early councils and their importance in the structure of the church. I would cite precisely the same verses you did. Did you read the link I provided?

So, it is your contention that Luther held that Peter really did get the keys but then having misused them, they became mere “husks”?

Umm… What? I specifically noted that the papacy =/= Peter.

Still nothing on the office of the Royal Steward, steido01?

See the Lutheran Confessions: bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

 

[bzkoss236]

Did Jesus say He gives the keys to the kingdom to Peter AND his successors? No. He gave them to Peter.

You obviously don’t understand how “giving the keys” works.

In ancient Jewish kingdoms, when the king left the kingdom for whatever reason, he “gave the keys” of the kingdom (authority) to a steward in his stead. If the steward died before the king would come back (say a battle, illness, or whatever), a successor was appointed to whom the keys were given until the king came back. The same would be said for Christ’s Kingdom and the Keys he gave to Peter.

 

[steido01]

Randy, out of curiosity, from where did you lift your original argument? If it isn’t your own, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you could list your source.

Thanks!

 

[KathleenGee]

The symbol ‘key’ is that which breaks the seal and opens the way to heaven.

Having one head is best method in maintaining unity.

Our goal as Catholics is to enter into communion with the Holy Trinity, that begins today in God’s time. And maintaining the seat of Peter, in spite of fallen humanity of popes, maintains the fullness of communion.

We have to be careful not to throw things at the papacy by just looking back at Peter.

Peter and the apostles did not keep company with Christ at Gethsemane and fell asleep.

At the Last Supper, after Christ appointing Peter as head, He named him, ‘Pedra’, rock. Symbol of stability and fortitude, secured in the Lord and unflinching in faith.

Within so many minutes or within the hour, after Peter was given grace to be head of Christ’s Church, tried to prevent Jesus from fulfilling His mission. Jesus said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan’, – for thinking the way men do…always avoiding sacrifice and taking the easy way out.

Later, and later Peter denied Jesus 3 times, abandoned him and hid in fear for 3 days. So much for being blessed with faith as a rock. We cannot expect anything more from modern Peters, but we pray for them at daily Mass, so they will not be sifted as wheat. The Church is a human institution.

Catholics are Ecclesial Deists in that we believe Christ is big enough and powerful enough to deal with frail human nature in those He has chosen.

 

[KrazyKat]

You obviously don’t understand how “giving the keys” works.

In ancient Jewish kingdoms, when the king left the kingdom for whatever reason, he “gave the keys” of the kingdom (authority) to a steward in his stead. If the steward died before the king would come back (say a battle, illness, or whatever), a successor was appointed to whom the keys were given until the king came back. The same would be said for Christ’s Kingdom and the Keys he gave to Peter.

BUT the current POPE does not name the steward that will be his successor.

 

[EIF5A]

I never really understood the “In the Jewish kingdom, it was this and this way – thus, we can apply Christian theology to it.” (e.g., Mary, Queen of heaven, pope and the key).

I get the analogy. What I don’t get is how the analogy makes legitimate the claim of St. Peter and his successors being the stewards of the kingdom of heaven.

How can we mold our idea of kingdom of heaven to human institution of monarchy?

 

[ffg]

The humans of 2000+ years ago would not have dreamed of what the world would look like today. Especially with regard to widespread literacy.

Literacy leads to opinions and opinions can lead to context of history ignored or unattended for purpose of defense of one’s thought process.

Something I find interesting is that people can be comfortable with out of context bits of history. But expanding the history base to the wider view either forward or backward in time causes reservation.

 

[steido01]

History and context are “tired arguments”? Fascinating.

By the way, hope you don’t mind that I linked you into this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

History and context are “tired arguments”? Fascinating.

I was being facetious in light of his post #7.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, twice. Should we listen to the current Pope, yes. Should the Pope be aware of all the changes by the Bishops he appoints, yes. Should he step in when errors appear, yes.
Would Peter have stepped in to correct errors, yes.

Does anyone on earth have the right to change the law of God, no.

Okay. Is there a pope who has done this in your view?

 

[Randy_Carson]

bzkoss, thanks for the link. I’ll wade my way through it.

Lutherans profess Scripture to be the sole rule and norm for doctrine; this does not mean we are relegated to “proof texting” to support our arguments. We acknowledge the traditions of the early church and our shared fathers. This is why we discuss the early councils and their importance in the structure of the church. I would cite precisely the same verses you did. Did you read the link I provided?

So, no you do not have anything from the inspired Word of God which indicates that Luther had the authority to decide that the pope had gone off the rails and that the keys that belong ultimaely to Jesus, are now mere “husks”.

Umm… What? I specifically noted that the papacy =/= Peter.

Yes, I know you did. However, Luther also stated specifically that Peter did get the keys and presumably held them for some time before screwing things up. How long was that? 1200 years? 1400 years?

See the Lutheran Confessions: bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

Nope. I’m interested in hearing what you have to say about the Royal Steward.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, out of curiosity, from where did you lift your original argument? If it isn’t your own, it would be helpful to the rest of us if you could list your source.

Thanks!

I wrote all that. It’s not all original ideas, of course…I compiled a lot of ideas from lots of Catholic apologists as a convenience because non-Catholics tend to ask the same questions over and over.

No sense reinventing the wheel.

:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

BUT the current POPE does not name the steward that will be his successor.

Neither did the royal stewards in Israel if they died suddenly or were killed in battle, etc.

You can see from the passage from Isaiah that GOD is making the change by replacing Shebna with Eliakim…Shebna did not name his successor and probably did not want to be replaced!

By the way, you can also see something along these lines when Peter speaks about filling Judas’ “office” in Acts 2. The office continues even when the man occupying the office does not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The symbol ‘key’ is that which breaks the seal and opens the way to heaven.

Having one head is best method in maintaining unity.

Our goal as Catholics is to enter into communion with the Holy Trinity, that begins today in God’s time. And maintaining the seat of Peter, in spite of fallen humanity of popes, maintains the fullness of communion.

We have to be careful not to throw things at the papacy by just looking back at Peter.

Peter and the apostles did not keep company with Christ at Gethsemane and fell asleep.

At the Last Supper, after Christ appointing Peter as head, He named him, ‘Pedra’, rock. Symbol of stability and fortitude, secured in the Lord and unflinching in faith.

Within so many minutes or within the hour, after Peter was given grace to be head of Christ’s Church, tried to prevent Jesus from fulfilling His mission. Jesus said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan’, – for thinking the way men do…always avoiding sacrifice and taking the easy way out.

Later, and later Peter denied Jesus 3 times, abandoned him and hid in fear for 3 days. So much for being blessed with faith as a rock.

Jesus judged Peter’s character and determined that he could be called “Rock”. After 2,000, I think it’s safe to say that Jesus was right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I never really understood the “In the Jewish kingdom, it was this and this way – thus, we can apply Christian theology to it.” (e.g., Mary, Queen of heaven, pope and the key).

I get the analogy. What I don’t get is how the analogy makes legitimate the claim of St. Peter and his successors being the stewards of the kingdom of heaven.

How can we mold our idea of kingdom of heaven to human institution of monarchy?

Well, for starters how many times does Jesus use the word “kingdom” in the Gospels?

 

[JonNC]

Right. This is not the first time a Roman Catholic has cited this bit of Luther. Interestingly, they tend to neglect the context and what comes next. Keep reading. What does Luther go on to say?

Ah! So Lutherans do not (nay, cannot!) deny that the Keys were given to Peter; Scripture is clear. But Peter =/= the papacy, in the Lutheran view. The Keys were given to Peter and passed to the church.

I’ve got a site bookmarked that has more information on the Lutheran view here (along with the remainder of what Luther wrote in volume 40: beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/luther-christ-gave-keys-to-peter.html

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

 

[steido01]

So, no you do not have anything from the inspired Word of God which indicates that Luther had the authority to decide that the pope had gone off the rails and that the keys that belong ultimaely to Jesus, are now mere “husks”.

I already answered your question. That you deem my response insufficient is beyond my control.

Separately, I never said that Luther had any kind of “authority to decide that the pope had gone off the rails.” I can’t defend your straw man. Please do not misrepresent me or Lutheranism; the first step in understanding others is listening, not imposing a view that your opposition won’t even defend.

Yes, I know you did. However, Luther also stated specifically that Peter did get the keys and presumably held them for some time before screwing things up. How long was that? 1200 years? 1400 years?

Randy, you’re not understanding the Lutheran position, and it’s likely due to my inadequate explanations. At the same time, I ask you to refrain from making presumptions - they do neither of us any favors as we seek to understand each other more clearly.

I’ll try to explain again: Lutherans do not say that the Office of the Keys is held by Lutherans only; we acknowledge that other Christians (including the Bishop of Rome) can -and do- also. We simply state that when this office is abused, it is nothing more than a husk. There is no magic date or individual pope who “screwed things up” - we don’t believe in any foolish notion of some “Great Apostasy.” There have been faithful Popes, and some less so. Recently, Christendom has been blessed with particularly wonderful men of God. But we Lutherans also note where we perceive them to have abused their office.

Nope. I’m interested in hearing what you have to say about the Royal Steward.

Randy, the Power and Primacy of the Pope is part of the Lutheran Book of Concord, and explains Lutheran thinking regarding the papacy and Roman Catholic teachings concerning it. If you will not read it, then this becomes an incredibly difficult conversation to continue.

 

[steido01]

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

Good point. I shouldn’t have even engaged the conversation if it wasn’t going to stay on the topic…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

I’m getting to that, Jon. I’m waiting for a little of the knee-jerk reaction to die down.

 

[steido01]

Even if Peter is = to the papacy, none of what Randy has presented provides for universal jurisdiction. Instead, you sited the important factors that determine the role of the Bishop of Rome (other than his main role as a bishop), that being the early councils. The early Church clearly saw him as having a primacy of honor, 1st among bishops who are all each of them equal.

Jon

Good point. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome and his alleged Universal Jurisdiction are entirely separate issues. I should not have engaged in a discussion where the issues had already been conflated, without first making the distinction clear…

I thought that the Lutheran opposition to Universal Jurisdiction would be clear from the answers I gave about the role of the pope - I left far too much on the periphery.