The Roots of the Papacy and the Primacy of Peter

To the above, I would like to add this link.

Thanks for post and all of the links, NYer!

Never thought through the words “prime minister” before and where “prime minister” might have come from.

Fascinating post! <><

The posts forget about the Coptic Christian church started by Mark and the even older Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church which can trace it roots back to the Second Temple.

The posts forget about the Coptic Christian church started by Mark and the even older Ethiopian Orthodox Christian church which can trace it roots back to the Second Temple.

Not at all.

The Catholic Church

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

They also forgot the Antiochian Church. I am content to let the Roman Church determine its own hierarchy, just as the Eastern Churches have done so from day one.

No disrespect meant to those that want to worship Jesus as a Catholic does but to me, this:

They are fathers (“pope” means “papa”) who hold a unique office for one reason: they were called by Christ to hold the keys of the household of God.

doesn't jibe with this:

Matt 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ

Not only the Pope but Priests (or Mary) standing between Jesus and me are also off my list because:

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

I think you're taking one passage of Scripture out of context and misunderstanding it. Please read this article. Short version: Jesus was speaking hyperbolically against the Pharisees who wanted to kill him. Paul directly endorses and claims for himself the mantle of spiritual father in 1 Cor 4:14-15.

Not only the Pope but Priests (or Mary) standing between Jesus and me are also off my list

I'm a Catholic, and I don't think of priests as "standing between Jesus and me" at all. They hold their office as part of God's plan to bring Jesus to me.

Again, the passage you quote does not say anything against priests, the Pope, or Mary. In fact, taken in context, it's part of a passage that specifically commands intercessory prayer (cf 1 Tm 2:1-2). It's not mediation to the Father instead of Jesus' mediation with the Father, but mediation that proceeds through that mediation of the One Mediator and relies on it.

Otherwise, we're forced to conclude that it's some kind of offense to the mediation of Christ for Christians to pray for one another. However, Scripture directly commands Christians to pray for one another! (cf James 5:16, Gal 6:2, Heb 13:18, 2 Thess 3:1, etc.)

I have no wish to debate since I stopped reading after the first sentence regarding the Old Testament background. Using one king’s cabinet makeup (there is no proof that “and his successors” as you’ve put it, ever followed his example) to defend the position of the papacy is a stretch and extremely weak at best.
Furthermore his cabinet dealt with ruling a nation and had nothing to do with worship and sacrifices to God as that fell to the tribe of Levi and the Temple he built.

More about the Old Testament here"

The Sacred Page

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy: The Readings for the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time

In terms of Catholic “preachability,” today’s Readings are a soft-ball pitch, a long high arc that every homilist ought to be able to knock out of the park. The lectionary readings have been set up for a clear explanation of the nature of the Papacy and its basis in Scripture.

The context of the Old Testament Reading should be explained. During the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah, the royal steward of the palace, a certain Shebna, was arrogating to himself royal privileges. In particular, he was having a tomb cut for himself in the area reserved for the royal Sons of David. Like Denethor in The Return of the King , he was forgetting his place as steward and confusing his role with that of the king (not an accidental parallel, by the way--Tolkien was Catholic). As a result, the LORD sends an oracle to Shebna via Isaiah, to the effect that Shebna will be replaced in his position by a more righteous man, a certain Eliakim son of Hilkiah:

Is 22:19-23

Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family."

The role of “master of the palace,” literally “the one over the house” (Heb. ‘asher ‘al-habayith), was the Number Two position of authority after the King (observe the dynamic in 1 Kings 18:1-5, for example). The office was first established by Solomon (1 Kings 4:6). Apparently, the badge of his office was the wearing of the key to the palace on the shoulder (Isa 22:22). The steward controlled access to the king, either by unlocking or locking the palace doors to those who sought the king’s presence.

Michael Barber has done work showing that the Royal Steward was understood as a priestly character. I cannot repeat all his evidence, but I will point out the connections of which I am aware: (1) the girdle (Heb. ‘abnet) mentioned in the passage (“sash” in the Lectionary translation) is only mentioned elsewhere in the OT as a priestly garment, usually along with the robe (Heb. kuttonet): Ex. 28:4, 39, 40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4. (2) The steward is said to be a father to the House of Judah. “Father” is a priestly title in the Old Testament (Gen 45:8; Judg 17:10; 18:19). (3) Eliakim is the son of Hilkiah. Although we are not sure which Hilkiah this is, it is notable that the name “Hilkiah” is only used by Levites in the Old Testament (Jeremiah, a Levite, is also “son of Hilkiah,” Jer 1:1), and at least two Hilkiahs were in fact High Priests (2 Kings 22:4 etc. and parallels in 2 Chron 34; Neh 12:7).

In summary, the Kingdom of David included the office of the Royal Steward (‘asher ‘al-habayit), a position associated with priesthood and second only to the king in authority.

As we move toward today’s Gospel reading, let’s not forget that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both take great pains in their opening chapters to emphasize Jesus’ royal Davidic lineage. He is the Son of David come to fulfill all the promises of the Davidic Covenant (see Jer 33:15, 19-21). However, we as Christian readers usually practice a sort of literary schizophrenia when reading the Gospels. We do not connect the "Kingdom of David" promised to Jesus with the "Kingdom of Heaven" that Jesus proclaims in his ministry:

Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

However, already in the Old Testament, there was an awareness that the Kingdom of David was a manifestation of God’s own Kingdom:

2Chr. 13:8 “And now you think to withstand the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David?

The Kingdom of Heaven, manifested on earth as the Church, is also the Kingdom of David, and in its structures it reflects that Davidic heritage.

This Old Testament background elucidates the Gospel reading, a controversial one whose meaning is hotly debated because of the importance of its implications:

Mt 16:13-20

Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and
he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples
to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Isaiah 22 is clearly the background for the promise of the “keys to the Kingdom.” Aside from Judges 3:23-25, which has no thematic parallels, Isaiah 22 is the only passage of the Old Testament where the word “key” even occurs. The thematic parallels are strong: the promise to Eliakim concerning “opening” and “shutting” is repeated to Peter, although using the terms “binding” and “loosing.” “Binding” and “loosing” were technical terms in first century Judaism referring to the authority to decide matters of halakhah (lit. “the walk”, i.e. “the behavior” or “how one behaves”), that is, the practical application of divine law.

Jesus did not decide all matters of the application of divine law himself. Nor did he write down a book with the answers to all controversies in this area that would ever arise in the history of the Church. He did, however, invest Peter with the authority to make decisions in this regard.

Even some non-Catholic commentators (most notably, W.F. Albright, father of American biblical archeology and Old Testament studies) recognize that, in Matt 16, Jesus is investing Peter with role of royal steward in the Kingdom that Jesus is establishing.

The Church has always held that Peter’s authority—like the authority of the apostles in general—was passed down to his successors. Otherwise, passages like Matt 16:13-20 and others which speak to us of the authority of the apostles are simply matters of historical curiosity for us: "So Jesus invested Peter and the apostles with authority over the Church. After they died, however, Jesus left no provision for the governance of the Church, so now it is every believer for him- or herself." This is the view I once held myself.

It implies that apparently Jesus didn’t recognize the continuing need for authoritative leadership in the Church. Maybe Jesus thought he was going to return before the apostles died (but he was mistaken). Or maybe he thought that while the Church was small, it would need strong and visible leadership, but in subsequent generations, when it spread all over the world to a host of cultures and a host of controversies would arise, there would no longer be the need for strong and visible leadership to maintain the Church’s unity and doctrine.

Let me voice my disagreement with the above-mentioned position. I do not think Jesus made a mistake about the timing of his return, nor that he did not foresee the continuing need for leadership in the Church. The succession of subsequent generations to the authority of the apostles is already visible in Scripture itself (Acts 6:1-6; Titus 1:5; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Peter 5:1-2).

The Church was not mistaken in understanding Peter’s authority to be passed to his successors. So we see, already in the first or early second century, Clement of Rome exercising a spiritual authority over churches far away from his immediate geographical jurisdiction (see 1 Clement).

The priestly and paternal roles of the Royal Steward, Peter and his successors, is reflected in titles given to the Bishop of Rome: “pontifex maximus” (“greatest priest”) and “Papa” or “Pope,” meaning “Father.”

He continues to authoritatively “bind” and “loose,” making decisions of halakhah for the People of God. A pertinent modern example: how does divine law apply to physical and chemical contraceptives, which were not as widely available in previous centuries? Paul VI gave an authoritative halakhic decision: they are impermissible. The decision remains universally controversial, but Christians who will not accept it, I am afraid, will find themselves voluntarily extinguishing their own communities as the generations pass.

I do love you guys!

All very interesting. The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-17) promised among other things that there would be a sure land for Israel forever. (Gen. 17; 2 Sam. 7:10). It was an everlasting covenant. And it included dwelling safely in the land God had promised them. Luke 22:30 says that Christ told the 12 Disciples they would sit upon twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in the Kingdom. That He will establish at His coming. So, my question to you is to which of the 12 tribes do you belong? If Peter is going to sit on a throne judging the 12 tribes of Israel during the Kingdom, and you follow Peter and believe he has the keys to the Kingdom, then you must believe that you must endure the tribulation in order to enter that Kingdom. And that you are Israel.

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

I think you're taking one passage of Scripture out of context and misunderstanding it.

Of course I disagree. Jesus spoke of what the religious elite of His day enjoyed - titles and human admiration - and warned His disciples not to take that path. Undeserved titles for human recognition of some spirituality. Paul spoke of himself as the spiritual father of the Corinthians as they were infintile Christians. He actually brought them up in the nurture and admonision of Christ. The pope has done neither for me personally and therefore could not possibly be my spiritual father.

They hold their office as part of God's plan to bring Jesus to me.

As a protestant, I understand God's plan to be for God to bring Jesus to me, outside of the priesthood. Hebrews details the redundancy of earthly priests and our High Priest. Since Christ is my High Priest forever, there is no further need for any earthly priest to point the way or pave the way. Christ already completed that fully at the cross. It may be symantics - what you call a priest I call a pastor/elder.

the passage you quote does not say anything against priests, the Pope, or Mary

It does tell me there is no other mediator except One. And the context, as you stated, distinguishes making intercessions for others and mediation. Praying, to Christ (sole mediator), for others (health, blessings, instruction etc) = acceptable and pleasing. Praying to someone other than Christ = unacceptable because there is no other and there is to be no other.

Therefore, I do not need the redundancy of a co-mediatrix assisting Christ on my behalf. I do not need a titular-only Father (my own dad was my spiritual mentor or spiritual father). No need for a priest to usher me into the presence of Christ or to bring Christ to me or to distinguish right from wrong for me(Heb 5:14 "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.").

In summary, as a protestant, looking into the Catholic practices, I see unnecessary redundancy in my quest for Christ and in the daily exercise of my Christ-quest. As in all things, however, I may be wrong and I will certainly give an account one day.

I have respect for people who want to worship as they will but I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue.

Please understand that this is not against Catholic people but the Church leadership itself. The Catholic church is a prime example why governments should never be controlled by a Church.

And all of this is aside from the doctrinal differences I have with the Church.

Scott Hahn would be proud.

Good reading materials. Excellent.

I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue.

These are broad statements. Can you back them up with some specifics?

In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

“I do love you guys!”

Amen, Thanks for all the time and energy you spend compiling your info. I appreciate it and enjoy reading it. It helps educate me and I use some of it in conversations to educate others.

You are lights which are not covered by a basket!

**I have respect for people who want to worship as they will but I could never become a member of the Catholic Church. It has the blood of too many on its hands. Too many burnings at the stake. Too much political intrigue. **

It might be good for you to get part of the real truth — Try Ken Follett’s book “Pillars of the Earth.” Very explicit in some parts, but quite well researched on the building of a cathedral and the treatment of Catholics by those in control.

And I will bet you a steak dinner that there are many more Catholic martyrs, killed for their faith, that you would ever imagine.