Posted on 01/17/2006 6:56:20 AM PST by HarleyD
Introduction
John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.
Cassian and His Work
Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.
It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.
Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]
In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]
The ‘Problem’ of Augustinianism
Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]
Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]
Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.
Cassian’s ‘Solution’ Examined
Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]
It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).
In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.
Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]
As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.
Cassian’s ‘Solution’ Refuted
Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.
Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.
Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”
The Official Outcome
Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in
Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]
The Abiding Influence
Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,
And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.
It is true that St. Peter did not preside over that council. No one claims he was Pope at that time. No one claims that the word "Pope" was in use that early either. Popes today also face significant opposition and promulgate their agenda often with great difficulty. It is in fact remarkable that a vision from God alone was sufficient for the Jerusalem council to abandon the centerpiece of Mosaic law, the dietetic rules. If St. Peter was not recognized as one with the special commission from Christ, he would not have been able to stand Mosaic Law on its head just because he had a dream. But pope he was not, at the time.
Babylon has always been a metaphore for temporal evil. Surely historical scripture refers to the actual Babylon, but it does not prevent St. Peter to refer to Rome, the center of evil temporal power of his day. It is certainly reasonable that he would use a code word to describe his whereabouts in times of persecution.
There is a firm record of St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary, martyred in Rome.
Whether any of that amounts to solid historical proof, matters little. We don't have a solid historical proof of many events we nevertheless know from the Holy Tradition. If you refuse to listen, that is your loss.
Best, OP
14. And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”
15. He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Gloss., non occ.: As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi.” Chrys., Hom., liv: He adds ‘of Philip,’ to distinguish it from the other Caesarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former580 place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.
Jerome: This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituraea, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Panaeas, the name of Caesarea in honour of Tiberias Caesar.
Gloss., ap. Anselm: When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, “And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?”
Origen: Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.
Gloss., non occ.: So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.
Jerome: Beautifully is the question put, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.
Chrys.: He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from wilful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was full of much malice.
Hilary: By asking, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus enquiring after men’s opinion respecting Himself, we are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself.
We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” 581
Jerome: He says not, Whom do men say that I am? but, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has ‘Son of Man,’ the phrase in the Hebrew is ‘Son of Adam.’
Origen: Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; “And they said, some say John the Baptist,” following Herod’s opinion [margin note: see Matt 14:2]; “others Elias,” supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; “others Jeremias”, whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremias was a type of Christ; “or one of the Prophets,” in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.
Jerome: It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremias, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.
Chrys.: The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him; and therefore it follows, “Jesus saith unto them, Whom say ye that I am?” You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity
Jerome: Observe how by this connexion of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but Gods. For when He had said, “Whom say ye that the Son of Man is?” He adds, “Whom say ye that I am?” as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, ye who are Gods, whom do you think Me?
Raban.: He enquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith; and the opinions of those without He enquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out582 of the hidden treasure of the LordÂ’s revelation.
Chrys.: When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and head [margin note: κορυφαῖος] of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, “Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Origen: Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, “Thou art the Christ,” which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, “the Son of the living God,” who had said by his Prophets, “I live, saith the Lord.” [Eze 33:11] And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, “I am the life.” [John 14:6]
Jerome: He calls Him “the living God,” in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.
Hilary: This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took unto Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.
Raban.: And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shews us the excellence of His divine eternity.
Hilary: This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
Jerome: This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” The Lord said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas?” Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that583 he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Barjonas in our tongue signifies The son of a dove.
Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John [ed. note: In John 21, the Vulgate has ‘Johannis,’ but in John 1, 43, ‘Jona.’], according to that question in another place, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” [John 21:15] affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted ‘The grace of God.’ But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.
Chrys.: It would be without meaning to say, Thou art the son of Jonas, unless he intended to shew that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.
Jerome: Compare what is here said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” with the Apostolic declaration, “Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood,” [Gal 1:16] meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shewn in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.
Hilary: Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.
Origen: It must be enquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shews that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus? That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is584 here blessed, not only for that he says, “Thou art the Christ,” but much more for that he adds, “the Son of the living God.”
Chrys.: And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, “Truly thou art the Son of God.” Nathanael also said, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.” [John 1:49] Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father.
But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Feather, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to shew that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,”
Jerome: As much as to say, You have said to me, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,” therefore I say unto thee, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say unto thee, and for Me to speak is to make it so [ed. note: See Mr. Newman’s Lectures on Justification, Lect iii, p.87], “that thou art Peter.” For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)
Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 53:But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said unto him, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.” [John 1:42] Chrys.: And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: “And upon this rock I will build my Church.”
Chrys.: That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.
Aug., Retract., i, 21: I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that 585 it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,” as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, “Thou art Peter.” But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.
Hilary: But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Gloss. interlin.: That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.
Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.
Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.
Raban.: The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they shew the path of destruction.
Origen: He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock;
Cyril [ed. note: ‘ This passage is quoted in the Catena from ‘Cyril in Lib. Thes.’ but does not occur in any of S. Cyril’s works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy’s Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. cl. 24. 3. and in his books ‘contr. impugn.reliq.’ and ‘contra errores Graee.’ He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected.]
According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people,586 with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, ‘et nos necessario salutis,’ the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.
Jerome: Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.
Origen: Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, “Thou art Peter;” for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.
Chrys.: Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Raban.: For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment [margin note: discretio] and power; power, by which he binds and looses; discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.
It follows, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind;” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and “whatsoever thou shalt loose,” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.
Origen: See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.
Chrys.: See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. 587 These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immoveable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.
Raban.: But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, [margin note: see Matt 18:18] and is even now in the Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.
Gloss., ap. Anselm: This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them.
But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words “upon earth” denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.
*Y'all have free will to chose to embrace things about the Bible which contradict the Church Fathers and over 2000 years of orthodox exegesis. Me, I'll stick with the orthodox exegesis and remain in the Church Jesus established and which the Triune God prevents from teaching error.
Cordially...
In and of itself, I don't see that much to which I would strongly object in Jude's statement.
On the one hand, the Scriptures do endorse the Protestant contention of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible Alone contains within itself all teaching necessary for a Finite Man to attain a perfectly-rightful (albeit Finite) understanding of the things of God:
On the other hand, however -- Jesus and His Apostles organized the Church as a Social and Presbyterically-supervised Organization, and the Scriptures themselves also reject the notion of a completely-individualistic approach to the reading and understanding of Scripture (For myself, Jude, I don't know if I can justify "a disbelief in the complete perspecuity of the Scriptures"; just to make the point, I suspect that the Scriptures were "completely perspicacious" to at least one Man, Jesus of Nazareth. However, I can certainly believe in any individual Fallen Man's propensity -- even once he is Redeemed -- to get things wrong from time to time) :
The notion that "two heads are better than one", is, we might say, enshrined in Scripture:
So God has ordained that we are supposed to understand God's Word as the only infallible rule of Faith; but God has also ordained that we are supposed to reason together, and with the help of an Under-Shepherd of Christ (i.e., a Presbyter).
The accumulation of this "Reasoning Together, under ordained Presbyters", over the centuries, constitutes the "Magisterium" -- and if you've ever taken Notes of a Pastor's Sermon, you're engaging in a Magisterial sort of practice. Nothing wrong with that; we're supposed to glean wisdom from those who have gone before us.
However, I think Jude probably would differ from the Romanists on at least three points:
Unless I am mistaken (and Jude, correct me if you disagree with any of those statements, but I'm fairly confident that you agree), that would place Jude soundly within the mainstream of Magisterial Protestantism -- and certainly no Romanist Trojan Horse within our gates (grin).
Best, OP
So, you would say that your "orthodox exegesis" of Matthew 16:18 establishes incontrovertibly that the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the Sole Infallible Vicar of Christ on Earth?
Have you, perhaps, checked with the Eastern Orthodox regarding your allegedly "orthodox" exigesis? Do they agree with the Papist glosses with which you have subverted these Scriptures since your "Pope" schismatically broke with them in 1054 AD? "You would do well to remember that the Greeks are one half of the Body of Christ; indeed, I daresay that they are the Better Half!"
That being said, it's rather difficult for me to accept as instructive any Romanist Quotation-Dump which is riddled with Origen citations. Origen's writings supporting the Pre-Existence of Souls, "metempsychosis" or Reincarnation, and his botched conception of the Trinity, utterly disqualify him in my book as being an "authoritative" Christian Teacher. At best, it is my hope and belief that he died with a basically-correct understanding of the core Gospel itself; but beyond that (at least, overall), his Heretical Teachings have served far too many Cultists and Heretics to be regarded as "Good Fruit" by any Apostolic-, Nicene-, Athanasian-Creedal Christian. Why don't you just go the extra mile, and cite some Mormons, fer cryin' out loud?
Best, OP
NOTE #145: The "Better Half" quotation is derived from Saint Luther of Wittenberg (attested but apocryphal).
You're 95% right.
[T]he Scriptures do endorse the Protestant contention of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible Alone contains within itself all teaching necessary for a Finite Man to attain a perfectly-rightful (albeit Finite) understanding of the things of God:
The phraseology I prefer is that the Bible, properly intepreted, is the only infallible rule of faith and of life.
can certainly believe in any individual Fallen Man's propensity -- even once he is Redeemed -- to get things wrong from time to time
Even the best of us - even titans of the Faith like St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas - have a tendancy to prejudice our interpretations by projecting our own experiences against the words of the text. It is simply impossible to strip all that away.
Jude would reject the "one head is better than two" Papist approach to reading Scripture and the Magisterium, favoring instead the Presbyterian-Conciliar approach ordained in Scripture itself;.
I don't subscribe to Papal infallibility, but especially this current Pope has a lot of credibility with me. He seems to recognize the most serious threat to modern Christianity is secular post-modernism. So I'll listen to him, just like I'll listen to any church leader with whom I share my disagreements.
Jude would agree with John Knox that the Reformation generally, and Calvinism in particular, produced amongst Christendom "the best school of Christ since the Apostles", affirming the Protestant contention that the Reformation (warts and all) was indeed a Work of the Holy Spirit;
I agree with Reformed theology, and believe it to be the most accurate, but there are a lot of warts there - and the resulting schism is something to be lamented. It may have been necessary, but if so, it is like chemotherapy - a radical treatment that is in fact poisonous itself.
that the longer and more-universally a Creed or Confession has become accepted amongst Bible-believing Christians, any Magisterial Teaching is always subject to the possibility of proper revision or clarification under the "Constitutional" bar of Sola Scriptura
That's certainly true in the case of the later early church father's like Augustine, or the monastics like Aquinas. I would argue, however, that the Creeds and the early writings like the Didache are the lens through which the New Testament must be interpreted, because the canon was not crystallized until after they were written, and these were unquestionably orthodox. Those writings are binding authorities on the interpretation of the Scripture.
No, I don't know the individual names of the first Christian missionaries in Scotland. You've got me there, I don't have their personal Email addresses.
However, despite my Publik Edumbifikashun, I can read a history book.
Among the historical authorities who have traced British Christianity not to a Latin but an Eastern source, we can rank the great name of Neander. After setting aside the legend of King Lucius, this historian goes on to say, "The peculiarity of the later British Church is evidence against its origin from Rome; for in many ritual matters it departed from the usage of the Roman Church, and agreed much more nearly with the churches of Asia Minor. It withstood for a long time the authority of the Romish papacy. This circumstance would seem to indicate that the Britons had received their Christianity either immediately, or through Gaul, from Asia Minor -- a thing quite possible and easy, by means of the commercial intercourse." (J.A. Wylie, "History of the Scottish Nation", Vol. 1 Ch. 19)
Best, OP
Of course it is claimed that Peter was the pope from the time the "keys" were given to him.
Except Peter did not do that except he was called to accountability by Paul. Read Galations, Peter was a part of the problem originally, Paul was the one that stood in the correct position.
Babylon has always been a metaphore for temporal evil. Surely historical scripture refers to the actual Babylon, but it does not prevent St. Peter to refer to Rome, the center of evil temporal power of his day. It is certainly reasonable that he would use a code word to describe his whereabouts in times of persecution.
Any contemporary proof of that ? Any contemporary PROOF he was ever IN Rome at all?
There is a firm record of St. Mark, St. Peter's secretary, martyred in Rome.
Where is it recorded that Mark was the secretary of Peter in contemporary writings? How does one say that their is EVIDENCE of Marks death in Rome but not the Popes? Doesn't that seem strange to you that the "secretary's" death would be recorded and not the pope? My studies on this say there is no imperial evidence that Peter was hung upside down on a cross or that it occurred in Rome. What there is a belief in that as a tradition but no contemporary writings to prove it
Whether any of that amounts to solid historical proof, matters little. We don't have a solid historical proof of many events we nevertheless know from the Holy Tradition. If you refuse to listen, that is your loss.
It may not matter to you, but to those of us that find truth as primary it is of importance.
Protestans are often criticized for our belief in salvation by faith alone. But it seems that things like Peters papacy and even his death must be taken on faith alone by Catholics. Seeing that the Catholic church teaches it is the means of salvation, it would seem to me that a Catholic must believe that on faith alone too. Maybe we are not that far apart on faith alone as it might seem :)
The problem today is as it has always been, SIN . The solution is what it has always been, Gods grace.
We can not make a goat a sheep, we can not change the unregenerate nature of the reprobate by forcing him to adhere to OUR morality . If men were saved by their own merits and "goodness" perhaps the approach of trying to enforce a Christian code of ethics on the reprobates might make sense. But if salvation rests on God and His grace alone, and if God is truly sovereign over all things making alliances with those with whom we are unequally yoked or praising the work of men or seeking alliances with unregenerate men for a social end is fruitless and sinful IMHO.
Remember in Genesis when Abram refused to take booty from the King of Sodom ? He did not want it said that the King of Sodom had any hold over him or a part of his fortune.
That was great wisdom, and something we should consider when making alliances. Even the reprobates can see the social issues among us, that gives them no spiritual standing with me..
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
"In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies":
... One wicked man represents the whole body of the wicked; in the same way as Peter, the whole body of the good, yea, the body of the Church, but in respect to the good. For if in Peter's case there were no sacramental symbol of the Church, the Lord would not have said to him, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.' If this was said only to Peter, it gives no ground of action to the Church. But if such is the case also in the Church, that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven, and what is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, for when the Church excommunicates, the excommunicated person is bound in heaven; when one is reconciled by the Church, the person so reconciled is loosed in heaven: if, such, then is the case in the Church, Peter, in receiving the keys, represented the good in the Church, and in Judas' person were represented the bad in the Church...
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?"
(Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
From the same commentary:
And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,' he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.
St. Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5.
Cordially,
A church Father, no mater how great, is not a singular source for authoritative teaching on all things.
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations...
... Objections. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies...
Catholic Encyclopedia
First question: Is the Catholic Encyclopedia an authoritative rule of faith?
Second question: What is this, "...in the original Aramaic..." thing? The inspired text was written in Greek, and in the real text (the Greek one, not the imaginary one) two different words are used, not "one and the same" word.
Furthermore, the attempt to characterize various explanations of the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else, and as "misinterpretations" unknown to anyone before the 16th century is refuted by Augustine:
...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327....In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.
The Retractations Chapter 20.1.
Cordially,
Indubitably. My point in quoting Augustine, though, is to show that his interpretation (as well as the other church fathers, I might add) of the Matthew 16 text is completely foreign to the preconceived theology that the Modern Roman Catholic church has imported into it with such things as Roman bishops' universal jurisdiction over the Church, Roman bishops as exclusive successors of Peter, infallibility, etc.
Cordially,
I couldn't disagree more.
It may have been necessary, but if so...
"If so" ?!?
To compare the Reformation to flesh-destroying chemotherapy is vile. Do you know anything of the Counter Reformation, Jude? You mimic it pretty precisely.
If one believes in a sovereign God, then one realizes all who come to faith are led exclusively by His will alone.
You nor I cannot increase or decrease the number of saved men and women by even one digit. So don't lament what you have no control over. Lament for those who are numbered among the elect, and haven't heard the Good News yet.
But rest assured. They will.
Then why are you lamenting over them?
You're right, of course. Chemotherapy is intended to save the patient. The Reformation, by the time it had progressed past its infancy, was intended to kill the patient.
We don't know that, actually. The "inspired text" is whatever Matthew originally penned. Tradition indicates he wrote it in "Hebrew" (which may mean Aramaic, but certainly doesn't mean Greek).
An Aramaic/Syriac textual tradition of Matthew still exists, called the Peshitta. (Whether it's based on an Aramaic original, or the Aramaic original, is not clear.)
LOL. God saves whom He will.
"...the restoration of the church is the work of God, and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description. Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of action, either from the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that his gospel be preached. Let us obey his command, and follow whithersoever he calls. What the success will be it is not ours to inquire. Our only duty is to wish for what is best, and beseech it of the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with patience to whatever that result may be." -- John Calvin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.