"a very monster of iniquity, reeking with the blood of his predecessor, mounts the throne of Peter. True, he [Pope Boniface VII] is expelled and condemned; but only to return again... What would you say of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold? Must he not be the 'Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God'? Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the temple as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.
But the Church of God is not subject to a wicked pope; nor even absolutely, and on all occasions, to a good one. Let us rather in our difficulties resort to our brethren of Belgium and Germany than to that city, where all things are venal, where judgment and justice are bartered for gold. Let us imitate the great church of Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman pontiff, deemed it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with his own plenary prerogative and judicature, and yet have denied it to the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in different parts of the world... Why should he not be subject in judgment to those who, though lowest in place, are his superiors in virtue and in wisdom? Yea, not even he, the prince of the apostles, declined the rebuke of Paul, though his inferior in place, and, saith the great pope Gregory, 'if a bishop be in fault, I know not any one such who is not subject to the holy see; but if faultless, let every one understand that he is the equal of the Roman pontiff himself, and as well qualified as he to give judgment in any matter.'" - Abp. Arnulf of Reims A.D. 991
This speech was given in a Council which Pope John XV naturally declared null and void. Far be it from me to say this was an eschatological interpretation or that this and not Papal Supremacy was the majority opinion. However, it does seem to show how traditional and early Gallicanism had developed against Papal Supremacy.
Showing posts with label Papacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Papacy. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
How The Roman Church Masters the Scriptures
As a previous commenter jcrng (I think I know who this is, my old Deli co-worker) made the point, any Catholic (*read Roman Catholic) would agree that Scripture is inspired and authoritative in and of itself without the Church's approval.
Here's how that breaks down in practice if not in theory.
Let's look at St. Paul's famous exposition of the struggle of the Christian life in Romans 7:20 "Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me."
How should this be interpretted?
Well in Tradition, both St. Jerome (letter 2) and St. Augustine (Nature and Grace) agree in many places that the will of the baptized Christian is not free to do good. It is free to sin or not to sin, but any good work is directly attributable to the Holy Spirit. This is because, as any plain reading of the text will tell you, St. Paul says: "sin ... dwells within me". Not concupiscence or the opportunity to sin (as the Scholastics will say), but sin. Aquinas argues in III. Q. 75, A. 2, that to use a proper noun is to signify it substantially (this is how he 'proves' transubstantiation). If this interpretive principle is applied to Rom. 7:20, this means that (Original) Sin, formally and substantially, dwells in the baptized Christian.
Simple enough, this interpretation, popular enough before Trent, suddenly leads Martin Luther et al, to say that the Christian is simul iust et peccator / at the same time righteous and a sinner.
This utterly undermines the entire system of Purgatory, Indulgences, etc., and St. Peter's still has to be built. Enter the 22 Spanish and Portugeuse bishops who somehow equal an ecumenical/universl Church council, and the Roman Church declares in Trent that: even though the apostle saith sin, the Church has never understood it to be sin proper, but concupiscence (material original sin/opportunity to sin).
...
So you have Scripture and Tradition in unity on the matter, and the Magisterium saying "wrong".
How is this justified.
First of all, the interpretation of the Bible is made impossible. The Church denies (in a logically circle argument referencing St. Peter's epistle) that Scripture is clear for the laity to understand. Likewise tradition (which had always been public tradition, ie. knowable and written down) suddenly becomes secret unwritten tradition passed on esoterically through the Church. In the end, the only person who can infallibly judge the matter is the Pope.
So Scripture (and less importantly Tradition) are both declared to be fundamentally incomprehensible, and only knowable through the Pope.
This means in practice that it is not the text or Scripture, or the proclaimed message it records, which holds the Truth, but the Papacy. God's revelation is thus only understandable by a secret (gnostic?) special revelation made clear by the Magisterium (presumably Magisterial pronouncements are clear and comprehensible?).
In the end this amounts to saying de facto, that Scripture is not inspired. It also amounts to saying that Tradition is not a valid way of interpretting Scripture either, because this can be confusing, and not all the sources are public or written down, some are secret - knowable and interpretable only by the Pope. In the end, this amounts to something like the inspiration of the Papacy, rather than the inspiration of Scripture, or even a reliance on Scripture interpretted by Tradition.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Aquinas and Balthasar ftw...
"...a Church cannot be a "branch" of a historical unity which no longer exists" - Hans Urs Von Balthasar (The Office of Peter) p. 91
""our Lord says: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of th Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar—nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church.
But it cannot be said that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever.” It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself says: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
By this, of course, we exclude the presumptuous error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing in his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the pastor of the universal Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles 4, 76. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
ok. I submit, and reject Anglicanism and other expedients as attempts for me to escape the divine command of being converted, the painful reality of sanctification, and my need to repent. It's not that I like Catholicism, it's that there is nowhere else. Henceforth, I will continue trying to find a way to like it.
I'm sorry for disappointing everyone who reads this at some point, either today, or in the last few weeks.
""our Lord says: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of th Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar—nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church.
But it cannot be said that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever.” It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself says: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
By this, of course, we exclude the presumptuous error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing in his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the pastor of the universal Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles 4, 76. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
ok. I submit, and reject Anglicanism and other expedients as attempts for me to escape the divine command of being converted, the painful reality of sanctification, and my need to repent. It's not that I like Catholicism, it's that there is nowhere else. Henceforth, I will continue trying to find a way to like it.
I'm sorry for disappointing everyone who reads this at some point, either today, or in the last few weeks.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Submission
"Islam" is an interesting term, it means in arabic, submission. Submission to God. I read a play once called "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt which had a similar theme. It was about St. Thomas More, a man who acted to the direction of his conscience and convictions, a man who had criticized and questioned the Latin Church in a great deal of ways, but in the end, gave his life in submission to it's supreme authority to every other church. Ironically the church that killed him (Anglican) even canonize him as a hero today.
I have a great many problems with Catholicism still in my mind (Infant Baptism still gives me a jolt of horror from my Anabaptist upbringing, the Sacrifice of the Mass is still foreign, and the dogma of Purgatory is a labarynthine minefield), but today - the day of my confirmation - is about (in my opinion) submission to the Church.
"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God" are the only thing I really say in the ceremony. (they've removed the abjuration of former heresy). And I find myself comforted by a beautiful phrase from Sacred Scripture "I do believe, Lord help me in my unbelief". That to me is what faith is, an affirmation of all that God says is true, whether we understand it, or not. It is the desire of the heart, and the decision of the will.
Why on earth am I entering the Church of Rome? Well as horrifying as it is, I truly believe "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved" - Lumen Gentium. Those are terribly strong words, echoing from the patristic (and even Reformation - see Luther on this issue) teaching "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - outside the church there is no salvation. Now there are hermeneutical gymnastics I could pull, invincible ignorance, etc, and what does "knowing" mean here, etc, but at the end of the day, for me, Andrew Cottrill, I feel obliged to submit to it.
But above Vatican II and plays by British Humanists I hold another source, the Word of God itself:
" Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." - Matthew 16:13-20
This I hold even as a Catholic, seems like a bad move on Christs part, but God doesnt listen to me so whatever.
Before you even start typing about petros and petra, read Scott Hahns definative defense of the Catholic position here first, it answers every objection and he even cites Evangelical scholars who are now agreeing with us (only on this one interpretation, and they dont take it to the extent we do) , here it is http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
And I close with the words of J.N.D. Kelly, a Reformed Anglican Church Historian who writes:
I have a great many problems with Catholicism still in my mind (Infant Baptism still gives me a jolt of horror from my Anabaptist upbringing, the Sacrifice of the Mass is still foreign, and the dogma of Purgatory is a labarynthine minefield), but today - the day of my confirmation - is about (in my opinion) submission to the Church.
"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God" are the only thing I really say in the ceremony. (they've removed the abjuration of former heresy). And I find myself comforted by a beautiful phrase from Sacred Scripture "I do believe, Lord help me in my unbelief". That to me is what faith is, an affirmation of all that God says is true, whether we understand it, or not. It is the desire of the heart, and the decision of the will.
Why on earth am I entering the Church of Rome? Well as horrifying as it is, I truly believe "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved" - Lumen Gentium. Those are terribly strong words, echoing from the patristic (and even Reformation - see Luther on this issue) teaching "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - outside the church there is no salvation. Now there are hermeneutical gymnastics I could pull, invincible ignorance, etc, and what does "knowing" mean here, etc, but at the end of the day, for me, Andrew Cottrill, I feel obliged to submit to it.
But above Vatican II and plays by British Humanists I hold another source, the Word of God itself:
" Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." - Matthew 16:13-20
This I hold even as a Catholic, seems like a bad move on Christs part, but God doesnt listen to me so whatever.
Before you even start typing about petros and petra, read Scott Hahns definative defense of the Catholic position here first, it answers every objection and he even cites Evangelical scholars who are now agreeing with us (only on this one interpretation, and they dont take it to the extent we do) , here it is http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
And I close with the words of J.N.D. Kelly, a Reformed Anglican Church Historian who writes:
"The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years." - J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes
Friday, March 13, 2009
Friday Night Newman
1 year before crossing the Tiber (becoming a Roman Catholic) John Henry Newman wrote this about his thoughts of Revelation in history and to the reason why the Magesterium must be without error in it's teaching:
"The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given. . . . If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of Revelation." - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman
You're free to disagree with it, but I rather like it. I don't perfectly understand it, but I understand about 90% of it. I also think that Cardinal Newman looks like Harry Potter in the above picture.
"The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given. . . . If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of Revelation." - Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman
You're free to disagree with it, but I rather like it. I don't perfectly understand it, but I understand about 90% of it. I also think that Cardinal Newman looks like Harry Potter in the above picture.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Twice the Popery
"...and history informs us, that, on a pressing occasion, the blessed St. Peter also ordained two pontiffs under him to rule the Church at Rome..." - St. Bede's "Lives of the Abbots"
I just read that sentence, and was kind of shocked. ... 2 popes at once, that'd be cool. I think Martin Luther had nightmares about that.
I meant 2 legitimate popes, after all the Great Schism (Western Schism) saw the pope and anti-popes running around Avignon and Rome.
I just read that sentence, and was kind of shocked. ... 2 popes at once, that'd be cool. I think Martin Luther had nightmares about that.
I meant 2 legitimate popes, after all the Great Schism (Western Schism) saw the pope and anti-popes running around Avignon and Rome.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Why I Cannot Be A Protestant Christian (Part 3): Petrine Supremacy
I was going to write a lengthly post on Petrine Supremacy, but I found online this short essay on the subject by Pope Benedict XVI, St. Peter's current successor, and he does a much better job than I could. Here it is:
"In recounting Jesus' first meeting with Simon, the brother of Andrew, John the Evangelist records a unique event: Jesus "looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (Jn 1:42).
It was not Jesus' practice to change his disciples' names: apart from the nickname "sons of thunder", which in specific circumstances he attributed to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mk 3:17) and never used again. He never gave any of his disciples a new name.
Yet, he gave one to Simon, calling him "Cephas". This name was later translated into Greek as Petros and into Latin as Petrus. And it was translated precisely because it was not only a name; it was a "mandate" that Petrus received in that way from the Lord. The new name Petrus was to recur frequently in the Gospels and ended by replacing "Simon", his original name.
Peter's special prominence
This fact acquires special importance if one bears in mind that in the Old Testament, a change of name usually preceded the entrustment of a mission (cf. Gn 17:5; 32:28ff., etc.).
Indeed, many signs indicate Christ's desire to give Peter special prominence within the Apostolic College: in Capernaum the Teacher enters Peter's house (cf. Mk 1:29): when the crowd becomes pressed on the shore of Lake Genesaret, seeing two boats moored there, Jesus chooses Simon's (cf. Lk 5:3); when, on certain occasions, Jesus takes only three disciples with him, Peter is always recorded as the first of the group: as in the raising of Jairus' daughter (cf. Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1: Lk 9:28) and during the agony in the Garden or Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14:33: Mt 26:37). And again: the Temple tax collectors address Peter and the Teacher pays only for himself and Peter (cf. Mt 17:24-27); it is Peter's feet that he washes first at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13:6), and for Peter alone he prays that his faith will not fail so that he will be able to strengthen the other disciples in faith (cf. Lk 22:34-31).
Moreover, Peter himself was aware of his special position: he often also spoke on behalf of the others, asking for the explanation of a difficult parable (cf. Mt 15:15), the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of a reward (cf. Mt 19:27).
It is Peter in particular who resolves certain embarrassing situations by intervening on behalf of all. Thus, when Jesus, saddened by the misunderstanding of the crowd after the Bread of Life discourse, asks: "Will you also go away?", Peter's answer is peremptory in tone: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (cf. Jn 6:67-69).
Equally decisive is the profession of faith which, again on behalf of the Twelve, he makes near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus' question: "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answers: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:15.1). Jesus responded by pronouncing the solemn declaration that defines Peter's role in the Church once and for all: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:18.19).
In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear: Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.
Thus, vivid images portray what the subsequent reflection will describe by the term: "primacy of jurisdiction".
Peter, first among the disciples
This pre-eminent position that Jesus wanted to bestow upon Peter is also encountered after the Resurrection: Jesus charges the women to announce it especially to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cf. Mk 16:7); it is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene runs to tell them that the stone has been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (cf. Jn 20:2), and John was to stand back to let Peter enter first when they arrived at the empty tomb (cf. Jn 20:4-6).
Then, Peter was to be the first witness of an appearance of the Risen One (cf. Lk 24:34; I Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cf. Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between the preeminence he had in the group of the Apostles and the pre-eminence he would continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the Book of Acts testifies (cf. 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11, 29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.).
His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14).
At the so-called Council of Jerusalem Peter played a directive role (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2:1-10), and precisely because he was a witness of authentic faith, Paul himself recognized that he had a certain quality of "leadership" (cf. I Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff., etc.).
Moreover, the fact that several of the key texts that refer to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31ff.), shows that the ministry entrusted to Peter was one of the constitutive elements of the Church, which was born from the commemoration of the Pasch celebrated in the Eucharist.
This contextualization of the Primacy of Peter at the Last Supper, at the moment of the Institution of the Eucharist, the Lord's Pasch, also points to the ultimate meaning of this Primacy: Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all.
Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ, with the love of Christ, guiding people to fulfil this love in everyday life. Let us pray that the Primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, will always be exercised in this original sense as the Lord desired, and that its true meaning will therefore always be recognized by the brethren who are not yet in full communion with us. " -Peter, the Rock by Pope Benedict XVI
"In recounting Jesus' first meeting with Simon, the brother of Andrew, John the Evangelist records a unique event: Jesus "looked at him and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (Jn 1:42).
It was not Jesus' practice to change his disciples' names: apart from the nickname "sons of thunder", which in specific circumstances he attributed to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mk 3:17) and never used again. He never gave any of his disciples a new name.
Yet, he gave one to Simon, calling him "Cephas". This name was later translated into Greek as Petros and into Latin as Petrus. And it was translated precisely because it was not only a name; it was a "mandate" that Petrus received in that way from the Lord. The new name Petrus was to recur frequently in the Gospels and ended by replacing "Simon", his original name.
Peter's special prominence
This fact acquires special importance if one bears in mind that in the Old Testament, a change of name usually preceded the entrustment of a mission (cf. Gn 17:5; 32:28ff., etc.).
Indeed, many signs indicate Christ's desire to give Peter special prominence within the Apostolic College: in Capernaum the Teacher enters Peter's house (cf. Mk 1:29): when the crowd becomes pressed on the shore of Lake Genesaret, seeing two boats moored there, Jesus chooses Simon's (cf. Lk 5:3); when, on certain occasions, Jesus takes only three disciples with him, Peter is always recorded as the first of the group: as in the raising of Jairus' daughter (cf. Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1: Lk 9:28) and during the agony in the Garden or Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14:33: Mt 26:37). And again: the Temple tax collectors address Peter and the Teacher pays only for himself and Peter (cf. Mt 17:24-27); it is Peter's feet that he washes first at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13:6), and for Peter alone he prays that his faith will not fail so that he will be able to strengthen the other disciples in faith (cf. Lk 22:34-31).
Moreover, Peter himself was aware of his special position: he often also spoke on behalf of the others, asking for the explanation of a difficult parable (cf. Mt 15:15), the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of a reward (cf. Mt 19:27).
It is Peter in particular who resolves certain embarrassing situations by intervening on behalf of all. Thus, when Jesus, saddened by the misunderstanding of the crowd after the Bread of Life discourse, asks: "Will you also go away?", Peter's answer is peremptory in tone: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (cf. Jn 6:67-69).
Equally decisive is the profession of faith which, again on behalf of the Twelve, he makes near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus' question: "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answers: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:15.1). Jesus responded by pronouncing the solemn declaration that defines Peter's role in the Church once and for all: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:18.19).
In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear: Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.
Thus, vivid images portray what the subsequent reflection will describe by the term: "primacy of jurisdiction".
Peter, first among the disciples
This pre-eminent position that Jesus wanted to bestow upon Peter is also encountered after the Resurrection: Jesus charges the women to announce it especially to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cf. Mk 16:7); it is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene runs to tell them that the stone has been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (cf. Jn 20:2), and John was to stand back to let Peter enter first when they arrived at the empty tomb (cf. Jn 20:4-6).
Then, Peter was to be the first witness of an appearance of the Risen One (cf. Lk 24:34; I Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cf. Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between the preeminence he had in the group of the Apostles and the pre-eminence he would continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the Book of Acts testifies (cf. 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11, 29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.).
His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14).
At the so-called Council of Jerusalem Peter played a directive role (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2:1-10), and precisely because he was a witness of authentic faith, Paul himself recognized that he had a certain quality of "leadership" (cf. I Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff., etc.).
Moreover, the fact that several of the key texts that refer to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31ff.), shows that the ministry entrusted to Peter was one of the constitutive elements of the Church, which was born from the commemoration of the Pasch celebrated in the Eucharist.
This contextualization of the Primacy of Peter at the Last Supper, at the moment of the Institution of the Eucharist, the Lord's Pasch, also points to the ultimate meaning of this Primacy: Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all.
Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ, with the love of Christ, guiding people to fulfil this love in everyday life. Let us pray that the Primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, will always be exercised in this original sense as the Lord desired, and that its true meaning will therefore always be recognized by the brethren who are not yet in full communion with us. " -Peter, the Rock by Pope Benedict XVI
Why I Cannot Be A Protestant Christian (Part 2) Galatians 2 Response
I would like to offer a defence of the Papacy and another explanation of Galatians 2.
These are the key words. St. Peter was not TEACHING in contradiction with the gospel, but was acting in contradiction to it. And why? because of a temporary fear, he made a mistake (sin). Nowhere in Roman Catholic teaching does it say the popes will be sinless. Lest we forget that St. Paul was a murderer before his conversion, and struggled with the 'thorn in the flesh' for all his life.
Now this is the 'nail in the coffin' of Catholic Justification in the view of many Protestants. However the great Protestant New Testament scholar and Bishop of the Church of England Dr. N.T. Wright reminds us that the phrase 'works of the law' means ceremonial jewish law observances, sacrifices, circumcision, etc. NOT good works. Furthermore I know nothing about Greek, and only know a little latin, and the question could be answered if 'faith' in verse 16 is in the Genetive/Possessive or another case. BUT my NRSV study notes say that an alternative reading can be "we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ" ie. Christ's obedience to God's will. NOT a personal faith in him apart from good works. This phrase 'faith in Jesus' or 'faith of Jesus' appears also in Gal 2:20, 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26; Phil 3:9, and the scholars in my NRSV commentary say that this phrase emphasizes Jesus' faithfulness and obedience to God on the cross.
In Short, nowhere does Roman Catholic theology say that Popes are not allowed to make mistakes, or to act in contradiction to the gospel. Once again Galatians 2 has been used to contradict a twisted version of papal infallibility.
"...when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship" - (2.9)clearly St. Paul who although he had been given a gift from God, also had to have it acknowledged by the Church.
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate FOR FEAR of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel"- (2.11-14)
These are the key words. St. Peter was not TEACHING in contradiction with the gospel, but was acting in contradiction to it. And why? because of a temporary fear, he made a mistake (sin). Nowhere in Roman Catholic teaching does it say the popes will be sinless. Lest we forget that St. Paul was a murderer before his conversion, and struggled with the 'thorn in the flesh' for all his life.
"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified* not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.* And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ,* and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law." (2.15-16)
Now this is the 'nail in the coffin' of Catholic Justification in the view of many Protestants. However the great Protestant New Testament scholar and Bishop of the Church of England Dr. N.T. Wright reminds us that the phrase 'works of the law' means ceremonial jewish law observances, sacrifices, circumcision, etc. NOT good works. Furthermore I know nothing about Greek, and only know a little latin, and the question could be answered if 'faith' in verse 16 is in the Genetive/Possessive or another case. BUT my NRSV study notes say that an alternative reading can be "we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ" ie. Christ's obedience to God's will. NOT a personal faith in him apart from good works. This phrase 'faith in Jesus' or 'faith of Jesus' appears also in Gal 2:20, 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26; Phil 3:9, and the scholars in my NRSV commentary say that this phrase emphasizes Jesus' faithfulness and obedience to God on the cross.
In Short, nowhere does Roman Catholic theology say that Popes are not allowed to make mistakes, or to act in contradiction to the gospel. Once again Galatians 2 has been used to contradict a twisted version of papal infallibility.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Ugh...God help me. (Catholic v. Protestant)... again
Ecclesiology:
"But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the churches, we shall turn to that great, ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
"there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas (Peter)’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" - St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, c.60 AD)
Justification:
"If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins... let him be anathema" - (Catholic Council of Trent c. 1550 AD)
"it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, ‘he sat down at the right hand of God’, and since then has been waiting ‘until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.’ For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." - St. Paul? Barnabas? Priscilla? (Hebrews 10:10-14 (c. 95 AD)
I have spent all of my spare time and energy in this Catholic-Protestant debate, I've lost sleep and friends and a possible future career. I am so tired. This is just a sample of what I deal with. I've discovered something strange. No matter how hard I try to read Church History, it is overwhelmingly 'Catholic', it supports the papacy and the historic episcopate (bishops), etc. BUT, No matter how hard I try to read Catholicism into the Scriptures, I find they are overwhelmingly Lutheran/Protestant.
So I'm left with this horrific situation, either turn my back on all of Church History and Sacred Tradition, including those which chose the canon of scripture, OR, to turn my back on the Sacred Word of God, eternal immutable, inspired and authoritative. The problem is that both groups claim they can read both scripture and tradition with a clear conscience, well I can't. I can't read the Council of Nicea and not be Catholic, and I can't read Romans and not be Protestant.
The other problem is that both Tradition and Scripture hold Anathemas for those who reject them. Both claiming to be from God. So St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8 that if anyone believes a different gospel than the one he taught, they are damned, and St. Irenaeus writes if anyone divides the church or is out of communion with Rome, they are anathema.
Now Protestants say obviously the church screwed up and was led into heresy, and Catholics say obviously my interpretation of scripture is wrong. I've tried so hard to read the New Testament as a Catholic, but short of removing Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and Hebrews, I could not do it. Luther - no matter how late he came in church history - I believe was correct in his interpretation of imputed righteousness and sola fide. Catholics will laugh and say 'so the gospel itself, the central message of the church was unknown to it for nearly 16 centuries?!', whilst Protestants must embarrassingly say 'yes'. Catholics must embarrassingly say that even though the scriptures clearly show this, they are wrong and that really Scripture is only a part of Tradition and can't be used against it.
And so my soul is looking like Ireland as it always is.
It is also two different conceptions of God. In Lutheranism/Anglicanism God has peace with humanity, his wrath has been satisfied, he loves everyone, and if they merely believe, they will be saved and immediately after death be in the presence of God. In Catholicism God is like 'Two-Face' in Batman, if you commit a mortal sin the gun is to your head, but if you go through the proper cleansing ritual, then suddenly he loves you again. And even if you do everything right your whole life, you still get burned (purgatory). In Luther salvation is the gift of God, in Trent it is the temporary chance of God.
Yesterday I watched Rob Bell's "The Gods Aren't Angry", and it was really good. But it was the epitome of Luther, he argues well that if this idea -of God only loving us because we offer him something - is true, then there's no more point to Christianity than Judaism or Paganism for that matter, just another group of humans, trying to appease the angry gods. So does God love me? or does he burn with righteous anger towards me because I am a heretic who actively divides his bride the church, with mortal sins on my soul which will earn me eternal damnation?....ugh, I'm so tired of this.
"But since it would take too long to set out here the successions of all the churches, we shall turn to that great, ancient and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and we shall show that the tradition it has received of the apostles and the faith that it preaches to men has come down to our time through the regular succession of its bishops; and thus we shall confute all those who, in whatever way, whether by self-complacency, vainglory, blindness or error, enter into unauthorized assemblies. For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence that every other church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree, inasmuch as in this church the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who come from everywhere." St. Irenaeus ("Against All Heresies," c. 180 A.D.)
"there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’, or ‘I belong to Apollos’, or ‘I belong to Cephas (Peter)’, or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" - St. Paul (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, c.60 AD)
Justification:
"If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins... let him be anathema" - (Catholic Council of Trent c. 1550 AD)
"it is by God’s will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, ‘he sat down at the right hand of God’, and since then has been waiting ‘until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.’ For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." - St. Paul? Barnabas? Priscilla? (Hebrews 10:10-14 (c. 95 AD)
I have spent all of my spare time and energy in this Catholic-Protestant debate, I've lost sleep and friends and a possible future career. I am so tired. This is just a sample of what I deal with. I've discovered something strange. No matter how hard I try to read Church History, it is overwhelmingly 'Catholic', it supports the papacy and the historic episcopate (bishops), etc. BUT, No matter how hard I try to read Catholicism into the Scriptures, I find they are overwhelmingly Lutheran/Protestant.
So I'm left with this horrific situation, either turn my back on all of Church History and Sacred Tradition, including those which chose the canon of scripture, OR, to turn my back on the Sacred Word of God, eternal immutable, inspired and authoritative. The problem is that both groups claim they can read both scripture and tradition with a clear conscience, well I can't. I can't read the Council of Nicea and not be Catholic, and I can't read Romans and not be Protestant.
The other problem is that both Tradition and Scripture hold Anathemas for those who reject them. Both claiming to be from God. So St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8 that if anyone believes a different gospel than the one he taught, they are damned, and St. Irenaeus writes if anyone divides the church or is out of communion with Rome, they are anathema.
Now Protestants say obviously the church screwed up and was led into heresy, and Catholics say obviously my interpretation of scripture is wrong. I've tried so hard to read the New Testament as a Catholic, but short of removing Romans, Galatians, Corinthians and Hebrews, I could not do it. Luther - no matter how late he came in church history - I believe was correct in his interpretation of imputed righteousness and sola fide. Catholics will laugh and say 'so the gospel itself, the central message of the church was unknown to it for nearly 16 centuries?!', whilst Protestants must embarrassingly say 'yes'. Catholics must embarrassingly say that even though the scriptures clearly show this, they are wrong and that really Scripture is only a part of Tradition and can't be used against it.
And so my soul is looking like Ireland as it always is.
It is also two different conceptions of God. In Lutheranism/Anglicanism God has peace with humanity, his wrath has been satisfied, he loves everyone, and if they merely believe, they will be saved and immediately after death be in the presence of God. In Catholicism God is like 'Two-Face' in Batman, if you commit a mortal sin the gun is to your head, but if you go through the proper cleansing ritual, then suddenly he loves you again. And even if you do everything right your whole life, you still get burned (purgatory). In Luther salvation is the gift of God, in Trent it is the temporary chance of God.
Yesterday I watched Rob Bell's "The Gods Aren't Angry", and it was really good. But it was the epitome of Luther, he argues well that if this idea -of God only loving us because we offer him something - is true, then there's no more point to Christianity than Judaism or Paganism for that matter, just another group of humans, trying to appease the angry gods. So does God love me? or does he burn with righteous anger towards me because I am a heretic who actively divides his bride the church, with mortal sins on my soul which will earn me eternal damnation?....ugh, I'm so tired of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)