www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Matthew 16:18 "Upon this rock"

RC notions of the Primacy of the Pope are not based upon or derived from any passages of scripture.

Peter was appointed directly by Jesus . . . while New Testament documents may witness to that (the meaning of the word Testament a narration of witness to events) there is nothing about the old or new testament which authorizes, legitimizes, or even disqualifies anything in regard to the church - as if it were a document having any kind of legal authority in itself from which any aspect of the church is derived.

Separation from Church authority (often occasioned by suffering under the misuse of Church authority but also caused by a misunderstanding of what church authority is saying) necessitates a separation from church authority moving from the Monarchy of the church and its appointed offices to a democratic view of the church where authority is not a granted or appointed grace given top down but seen as given bottom up (those governed invest the governors with authority).

Scriptures is entirely secondary to the Church, in addition to the church and depended upon the church.

Scripture is not a covenant, nor manual of operation, nor a constitution - from which anyone should be using in order to make judgment upon the legitimate and appointed authories of the church.

You cannot build or govern or recover, a church by using scriptures as if it were some guide book or manual of operations or proof of anything having been a certain way.

And the opinions of church fathers (called so by being influential members of the early church) remain just that, their differing or agreeing personal opinions... which means that these opinions might be right, might be somewhat right, might be some what wrong, or may be entirely wrong... and these personal opinions should be noted as being a separate body from the authorities church doctrines and governing law.

The early church fathers have been raised by some to be faultless and error free while the truth is they were human and displayed may human errors and mistakes. Never, has being a 'saint' been equated with being error free as Christ was. Taking even a majority opinion of early church fathers to settle some church doctrine dispute is a very dangerous thing to do.

Trying to correlate church father opinions and from that to construct how one imagines the church should be like - is to build one's self an and imaginary church based upon what one will and will not personally accept.

However - short of our own entrance into a mystical marriage - we all do this in one way or another.

What we imagine the church to be - is far short of the reality the church is. Our progress includes discovering the church as it is - ever more and more as we disregard our personal conclusions and accept what Providence has established.

Cheers.
-ray

Dear Ray,

I've been accused of many things here, by both Catholics and Orthodox, but being against the monarchial concept of the Church can NEVER be one of them!

I agree with your assessment of the role of Scripture in the Church, of course.

But this doesn't preclude the development of doctrine and the Church herself has never "infallibly" defined the style or nature of the papal primacy itself, the later two papal pronouncements notwithstanding.

This is why a Pope John Paul II could actually say to others, "Let's work out a workable papal primacy."

The episcopal authority is absolute, as the Orthodox also maintain.

As I said, the Orthodox do not deny papal primacy.

What they deny is that the current RC Church is "Orthodox" and without that, "Peter's Authority" cannot be active.

This is why I suggested that the RC Church should "get together" with the Orthodox and try to find out why Orthodoxy doesn't consider it "Orthodox."

Then and only when this matter is resolved can there be talk of a Pope for both East and West.

If things were as obvious as you say, we wouldn't have a divided Church today.

Alex

Dear Joe:

You said:



Can you please critique further the Catholic position that the word "rock" is merely a play on words, i.e., in Aramaic there is no difference between the word for "rock" and "Kepha," Peter?

The scriptural texts brought forward by Catholics are the two following very well-known NT passages, which should be taken together:

(a) this first is known as the "text of the promise":

(b) the second is known as the "fulfillment text":

Thanks in advance.

AmdG

Amado,

I was referring to the tradition-connection with the Old Testament's understanding of "rock."

Where do you get the idea of promise-fulfillment?

Were the Gospels written in Aramaic or Greek?

Others would suggest that thrice-command to feed the sheep was related to Peter's thrice-denial.

Peter's Profession of Jesus as the Christ (Mk 8.27-30//Mt 16.30-20//Lk9.18-21) and Peter's Denial of Jesus (Mk 14.66-72//Mt 26.30-35//Lk 22.54-62) are like two bookends containing all of the Son of Man sayings which refer to the “Suffering Usage,” that is, the full schedule of the Passion and Sufferings that the Son of Man has to endure.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

In Britain, the slang for "Roman Catholic" is "Rock-Cake."

Just thought you might like to know . . .

Alex

Ray,

You wrote: "... which means that these opinions might be right, might be somewhat right, might be some what wrong, or may be entirely wrong ..."

Well, at least THAT is clear.

So the Sacred Scriptures are not to be considered "guides" and teachings of the Church Fathers are nothing but mere "opinions?"

How does Tradition and Magesterium work?

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I think this works along the lines of an Imprimatur I once saw a bishop give a translation of the Bible.

It added, unfortunately, "the views of the authors of this text are not necessarily those of the bishop."

It's just so frustrating when the Bible and the Fathers aren't as papal as we know they should have been . . .

Alex

What!!!!!?????

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I think the good bishop's censors librorum were asleep at the switch with that one.

I showed it to my then religion teacher who laughed uncontrollably for the rest of the period.

Alex

I was not really throwing acusations - this board is for discussing and often we discuss things off the cuff. I have no real concept of your private beliefs but I would consider them pretty safe and well for you.


Yes.. it is really a 'magement problem' and we, here at the bottom, are without the authority to do anything about it.

Boy.. I only made my post about an hour ago - Monday must be the time for us bored people as I see many posts after it.

-ray

Dear RayK,

It's Wednesday where I am!

An interesting topic is an interesting topic!

And while we don't have the authority to do anything about things, as you say, Church unions have been historically destroyed by the clamour of the lay masses, as in the aftermath of Florence.

So if we can help keep that clamour down, we will have performed a great service.

(I'm a monarchist by the way and in favour of crowns of all kinds, including tiaras! ).

Alex

Ray,

Actually, I've been mailing resumes and contacting job placement agencies today in between posts and dropping my son off at school. Gotta keep looking, ya know. Its horrible staying home during the daytime for the spring-summer time of the year.

I agree with Alex. Today is Wednesday even in the U.S.

Joe

Dear All,

The issues under discussion here, it seems to me are deep and because of the nuances involved are not easily talked about in one thread. Not that the discussion should not take place, though; I just wanted to add another source to the hopper, if I may. It's been useful to me as I try to make heads or tails of dogma and doctrine.

Fr. Raymond Brown, S.S. the late scholar of the New Testament, learned and shared important things. He wrote much. He was a widely respected student and teacher concerning the New Testament. For those whose time for reading is limited, his

Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Paulist Press, 1990)

contains many of the kernels of insight from Biblical theology that resulted from his lifetime of study and sharing the results of that study.

Related to the topic of this thread are his answers to questions 97 - 100 (pages 127 - 135). In the answers to these questions he deals with Peter and the popes. He is careful not to allow anachronisms to cloud the discussion. In doing so, it seems to me that he applies academic rigor and deep faith to the discussion. He does justice to both.

He makes clear what was understood at the time by early Chrisitans. Yet he addresses the concerns of modern Chrisitans and helps us to understand how their understandings connect with and help to shape our understandings.

Let me share an example. Question 100 is, "The most important question is: Would Christians of New Testament times have looked on Peter as the pope?" (page 133)

Part of Fr. Brown's answer:

...."Obviously, first century Christians would not have thought in terms of jurisdiction or of many other features that have been associated with the papacy over the centuries. Nor would the Christians of Peter's lifetime have so totally associated Peter with Rome, since it was probably only in the last years of his life that he came to Rome. Nor would their respect for the Church at Rome have been colored by the martyrdom of Peter and Paul there, or by a later history of the roman church's preservation of the faith against heresy.

Perhaps the proper way of phrasing an answerable question pertinent to the 60s is not "Would the Christians of that period have looked on Peter as the pope?" but "Would christians of that period have looked on Peter as having roles that would contribute in an essential way to the development of the role of the papacy in the subsequent church?" I think the answer is yes, as I tried to explain in response to a previous question where I pointed out the roles that Peter had in his lifetime and the symbolisms attached to him even after his death. To my mind, they contributed enormously to seeing the bishop of Rome, the bishop of the city where Peter died , and where Paul witnessed to the truth of Christ, as the successor of Peter in care for the church universal...."(p. 134)

Fr. Brown talks about Matthew 16: 16-18 as part of the symbolisms attached to Peter (along with Luke 22:31-34 and John 21:17-19). He discusses them along with what Peter did in regard to leadership in his lifetime as the early church saw it and preserved it. The discussion of Matthew 16: 16-18 is much richer for the context.

His responses to questions using biblical theology provides, for us Catholics, a more solid and careful basis from which to engage in discussions of the Petrine office in the Church.

I'd like to share another point made by Brown from his answer to "Q. 97. You have not been specific about Peter's role in church leadership; would the early Christians have recognized him as the head of the church?" (p. 127)

"In New Testament language, that term (head of the church) is used for Christ, particularly in the Collossians and the Ephesians material. The church is the body and Christ is the head. Even with the respect that we have for the pope as the successor of Peter according to the insights of Roman Catholic doctrine, we should always make clear that this leadership supplied by the pope does not supplant our agreement with the general Christian faith that Christ is the unique head of the Chruch. Christ exercises that leadership in part through papal leadership, so that the pope is no rival to Christ." (p. 127)

Hope that the source is of some use to others interested in understanding the Biblical theology that underpins our doctrines.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Steve


For those with lots of time, the Anchor Bible Reference Library's AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT by Raymond E. Brown, S.S. is a thorough study of the New Testament. It was published by Doubleday (1996).

Right, scriptures are not arranged nor formulated to be a guide book. They are a collection of narrations by certain people who witnessed events important to the church. Hence they are called "Testament" after the word testimony (to the historical events).

Neither do the many disputes and disagreements - nor majority agreements of early church fathers - replace the offcial magestrium.

Many imagine that those who are called the early church fathers - were almost always in agreement. They we not and often had bitter disputes. Nor was every word they spoke or every teching they reportedly gave - sound church doctrine.

The very need for so many Church councils are a sure indication of divisions and disagreements and dangerously varied church doctrine - of these early fathers.

It is also ignored that many of these fathers changed thier minds and positions after some council had deliberated - and submitted to the authorioty of the council - which submission over thier own opinion was deemed proper.

Neither scripture, nor tradition, nor teachings or sayings and opinions of early church fathers should be used to make judgement over and against any authority matter belonging to proper appointed authority.

-ray

And who or what appoints the proper authority? How do we know that a proper authority has been appointed? How do we know that an appointed authority is proper? What is the criteria?

Joe