annalex wrote, in reference to 2 Peter 1:12-15:
“He was speaking of his life ending, but he also said that he will endeavor that the Church continues in the knowledge that the Apostles witnessed to be true. That is a promise to keep his office through generations.”
That last sentence is NOT exegesis of the given text, but eisegesis pure and simple. Peter is plainly referring to the very epistle he was writing, not some office you assume he was establishing and conferring.
But you are correct in this, this is one of the very, very small handful of verses that the Roman church uses to try to establish some scriptural support for an ongoing papal office, an office which is, I might add, clearly one of development over time and not the result of scriptural definition and divine mandate.
The larger and more serious issue is this: Just as Jesus pointed out that one who trusts in himself that he is righteous (i.e. that he is justified before God on the basis of some quality in himself) must at the same time despise others (Luke 18:9ff.), so too must the dogmatic Romanist in order to defend his assertion of the superiority of Rome’s so-called holy tradition and magisterium belittle the Holy Scriptures. This is the point that will forever divided Rome from the rest of Christendom. At the same time much of the rest of Christendom is far too quick to dispense with tradition, often with no support from the Scriptures. In other words, the extreme assertion of Rome usually provokes an equally extreme reaction. This situation usually devolves into little more than a shouting match akin to the exchange of talking points such as one sees on cable news shows between political operatives of the opposite viewpoint.
The Holy Scripture has something to say about this; in fact, it has a lot to say about this, beginning with “Honor your father and your mother.” One does not disobey father and mother unless they teach or command contrary to the clear will of God. Then one must obey God rather than men.
The proper attitude is to honor and uphold tradition, i.e., that which we have received from our faithful forebears in so far as what we have received from them is in accord with God’s plain and manifest will, i.e., His written Word. The Catholic would turn this order around and have tradition sit in judgment of the written word. Many a Protestant (not all!) would too easily and lightly cast off tradition, any tradition, that seems to have any Catholic fingerprints on it. Both sides are wrong. And usually little light is generated in arguments between them, but heat and smoke abound.
VERY WELL PUT:
That last sentence is NOT exegesis of the given text, but eisegesis pure and simple. Peter is plainly referring to the very epistle he was writing, not some office you assume he was establishing and conferring.
But you are correct in this, this is one of the very, very small handful of verses that the Roman church uses to try to establish some scriptural support for an ongoing papal office, an office which is, I might add, clearly one of development over time and not the result of scriptural definition and divine mandate.
The larger and more serious issue is this: Just as Jesus pointed out that one who trusts in himself that he is righteous (i.e. that he is justified before God on the basis of some quality in himself) must at the same time despise others (Luke 18:9ff.), so too must the dogmatic Romanist in order to defend his assertion of the superiority of Rome’s so-called holy tradition and magisterium belittle the Holy Scriptures. This is the point that will forever divided Rome from the rest of Christendom.
"I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease" refers to something that the future generation "has" because St. Peter "will endeavour" so, that is of the apostolic origin. That would be a very strange way to describe the letter itself.
this is one of the very, very small handful of verses that the Roman church uses to try to establish some scriptural support for an ongoing papal office
Why de we need a thousand verses? Matthew 16, 18, and this I think is quite enough, and there are others that signify the St. Peter has a distinct role to play in the Church.
belittle the Holy Scriptures
Belittle how? All I do is argue from scripture with you. Here's the Protestant lie: design a theory of "faith alone" that is expressly negated in the scripture, then beat themselves on the chest that they go by scripture alone. In the age of the Internet, when everyone can check your bluff, it is not working.
The Catholic would turn this order around and have tradition sit in judgment of the written word
The written word is a product of the Holy Tradition. It cannot sit in judgment of it, it is one whole with it.