Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:
"Anyways, what does the RCC have to say regarding Origen's commentary on Matt 16:18?"
Different Catholics will respond in different ways. One Catholic might argue that Origen's comments aren't meant to deny that a papal reading of the passage is also appropriate, another Catholic might argue that Origen and other early sources don't have much relevance, because the understanding of the papacy hadn't developed sufficiently yet, and another Catholic might dismiss Origen's interpretation because he was a heretic. (However, Catholic apologists and the documents of the Catholic hierarchy often cite Origen. Any claim that Origen shouldn't be cited at all, because he's a heretic, is suspect on Roman Catholic grounds.) The Roman Catholic scholar Robert Eno wrote, "a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origen's thoughts" (The Rise Of The Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43). I've seen Catholics cite another passage in Origen that refers to Peter as a rock without referring to other Christians as such, but if Origen thought of all Christians as rocks, then it would follow that Peter is a rock. A reference to Peter as a rock doesn't prove that he was thought of as the only rock or that his unique status as such, if it were unique, has papal implications. No Christian should deny that Peter is a foundation stone of the church and a rock in other contexts, but the same can be said of other Christians (Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 21:14).
The fact that Catholics are going to Matthew 16 to begin with is telling. The passage can more reasonably be interpreted in a non-papal manner. A papal interpretation requires reading multiple dubious assumptions into the text. See here.
Do we have to resort to something like a Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 in order to find justification for the office of bishop or the office of deacon in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles? Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first sixty years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy. The Catholic attempt to read a papacy into passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 has the appearance of revisionism.
If later generations had wanted to read a Pauline or Johannine papacy into the New Testament, they could have taken a Roman Catholic approach toward a passage like 2 Corinthians 11:28 or John's self-designation as "the elder", for example. But if a Pauline or Johannine papacy had been intended, we would expect much more to be said of it, both in terms of frequency and in terms of explicitness. The same is true of a Petrine papacy.
Since Petrine primacy of some type doesn't lead us to the conclusion of Roman primacy or primacy of a jurisdictional nature in particular, Catholics will sometimes cite a passage like Romans 1:8 in order to go beyond a mere Petrine primacy. But we could similarly cite something like Acts 20:28 or the fact that Revelation 2-3 cites the Ephesian church before any other church as evidence of an Ephesian primacy. Maybe Revelation 2:2 is meant to refer to the Ephesian church's role as the guardian of apostolic authority. I think that those of us who have had significant experience interacting with Roman Catholics can imagine what Catholics would make of a passage like 2 Corinthians 11:28, 2 John 1, Acts 20:28, or Revelation 2:1-2 if it had been directed at Peter, the bishops of Rome, or the Roman church.
And speaking of Origen, imagine what Catholics would make of the following passage in Origen if it had been said of Peter:
"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)
Since Origen mentions Paul instead of Peter, most Catholics probably haven't ever heard of this passage before, nor would they think it has papal implications. Elsewhere, Origen refers to somebody other than Christ as "the head of the Church" (Joseph Lienhard, translator, Origen: Homilies On Luke, Fragments On Luke [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 1996], pp. 138, 140). Is he referring to the bishop of Rome? No, he's referring to an angel.
While I always enjoy the bantering on this site, I must ask a personal question, given the general windy nature of the posts: does anyone here hold a regular job or have a spouse or children they must tend to?
ReplyDeleteI can picture Mrs. Hayes or Mrs. Manata screaming in the background: "Are you arguing with those apostates again?? It's 11:30pm! Your daughter needs a bath and the trash needs to be taken out!!"
;-)
James, when you're familiar with the subject matter, and are adept at argumentation, it probably takes no more time than any other dedicated hobby--an hour or two every other night.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I imagine some of the people at Triablogue have jobs that allow them time to invest in this ministry a great deal. You'd need to do more than suggest that these people have no lives, including making some kind of argument as to why, even if they did spend lots of time here, it would be useless or unworthy to do so.
Greetings! Saw your post in Google Blogsearch and came to read. I answered your earlier Origin post first. Nice to find a non-Catholic Christian reading Origin. Most non-Catholic Christians are nearly devoid of church history before 1500. My thoughts:
ReplyDelete>"Any claim that Origen shouldn't be cited at all, because he's a heretic, is suspect on Roman Catholic grounds."
Even though Origin wandered into heresy, that doesn't rule out everything that Origin wrote as error. Most heresies include some truth or they don't last very long. Origin, like modern Protestants got much correct. When we compare Origin to the breadth of Church writings, one can discern those things that Origin got right and those things Origin got wrong. Ditto for Protestant sects.
>"A reference to Peter as a rock doesn't prove that he was thought of as the only rock or that his unique status as such, if it were unique, has papal implications. No Christian should deny that Peter is a foundation stone of the church and a rock in other contexts, but the same can be said of other Christians"
While this sounds all well and good, the elephant in the room is being ignored. The name "Peter" means rock. The apostles real name was "Simon". Jesus, God Incarnate, changed Simon's name to Peter. This brings up certain questions:
What does having one's name changed by God signify in the scriptures?
Who else in scripture had their name changed by God and what did their name change signify?
Why is Simon the only one of the Twelve to have his name changed by God?
What did God's renaming of Simon indicate to his fellow Apostles and to the Jews of the day?
>"The passage can more reasonably be interpreted in a non-papal manner. A papal interpretation requires reading multiple dubious assumptions into the text."
Catholics readily acknowledge that scripture can be interpreted on many levels. Its is quite possible for Matthew 16:15-19 to have secondary and tertiary meanings. However, was is the primary meaning of Matthew 16:15-19 as intended by Saint Matthew? What was Matthew writing for the Jews and gentiles of the day?
Regarding "dubious assumptions", that seems rather subjective on your part. Catholics find nothig "dubious" nor "assumed."
>"If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often?"
No, one wouldn't necessarily expect the office to be mentioned explicitly and often. The Gospels and Epistles were late in being written. Christianty had been functioning without a New Testament for decades after Christ. Those things that were well understood are least mentioned. For example, baptism is never described in detail anywhere in the NT because like the Petrine office, it was already established and understood. Thus we never find explicit instructions for baptism and Christians will continue to argue regarding immersion or pouring, once or thrice, trinitarian or unitarian, naked or clothed, river or pool, etc. If baptism is an ordinance of Christ, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often?
>"there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc."
First, I believe the NT contains two books of Peter, the Bishop (Episkopos) of Rome. Peter write that he is at "Babylon" (Rome).
Second, there is no scriptural requirement that the NT contain such data. Its not a history book. We have ample written evidence from early Roman and Jewish historians listing the bishops of Rome, as we have for all of the Eastern Catholic Churches (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Damascus, etc).
>"Since Petrine primacy of some type doesn't lead us to the conclusion of Roman primacy or primacy of a jurisdictional nature in particular,"
You wrote it, now defend it. Why not and what proof do you offer?
Why does Peter's being renamed, being mentioned first in all the gospels, and being told three times by Christ to feed His sheep not lead us to the conclusion of Roman primacy or primacy of a jurisdictional nature in particular?
CLOSING
I understand your problems with the papacy. If the papacy is true, then much of your theology is wrong. That's a bad position to find oneself. Its far easier to try and disprove the papacy than to re-examine all the Reformation doctrines one holds. Fair enough.
You also would have an easier job if the bishops of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Churchs had not recently met in Ravenna, Italy and reaffirmed the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Petrine office. You're here arguing on a blog against Roman primacy and bishops from the ancient Churches of the Great Schism are signing agreements on Roman primacy. I feel your pain.
God bless...
+Timothy
>"does anyone here hold a regular job or have a spouse or children they must tend to?"
Yep, full time M-F, 8-6, youngest started college this week. Pray for her.
"You're here arguing on a blog against Roman primacy and bishops from the ancient Churches of the Great Schism are signing agreements on Roman primacy. I feel your pain."
ReplyDeleteYeah, too bad they don't believe in Petrine Primacy in the sense defined by Vatican I.
Also, many scholars in your own communion have already acknowledged that a.) the monarchical episcopate did not exist until the mid-second century, b.) the Primacy of Rome only existed as a primacy of honor at the Council of Nicea, c.) the Primacy of Rome as Vatican I now defines it was not an ecumenically believed position and was frequently and emphatically denied by many of the church fathers, and d.) the majority of the church fathers did not interpret the 'Rock' of Matt. 16:18 as referring to Peter ALONE thus refuting Vatican I's claim that it was the "unanimous consent of the church fathers".
[See Klaus Schatz's Papal Primacy.]
Church history refutes your own Church's ecclesiology. We feel your pain.
P.S. Try to read something other than Jurgens, Keating, Madrid, Ray, and other Catholic pop-apologetic works and start reading real historians, please.
Timothy said:
ReplyDelete“Nice to find a non-Catholic Christian reading Origin. Most non-Catholic Christians are nearly devoid of church history before 1500.”
I don’t normally make an issue of people’s spelling and grammatical errors, but your misspelling of Origen’s name doesn’t go well with your reference to the historical ignorance of non-Catholics.
You write:
“When we compare Origin to the breadth of Church writings, one can discern those things that Origin got right and those things Origin got wrong.”
Would you, for example, note that Origen’s opposition to prayers to the deceased and the veneration of images is widely corroborated by other ante-Nicene sources, then conclude that Origen was part of the Christian mainstream of his day on such issues?
You write:
“Ditto for Protestant sects.”
We could refer to your denomination as a sect as well.
You write:
“What does having one's name changed by God signify in the scriptures?”
Not that the person was being made a Pope.
Not that we should expect an unbroken succession of other people fulfilling the same role that was fulfilled by the person whose name was changed.
Not that we should expect such successors to come from a religious community in a city that later became highly influential for other reasons.
And why are we supposed to think that Simon’s name was changed? He’s still sometimes referred to as Simon or with both names. He was given an additional name, much like John, James, and other early Christian leaders (Mark 3:17). And he was given that additional name before the words of Matthew 16 were spoken (John 1:42). His fellow disciples seemed to be unaware that the additional name had something like papal implications (Luke 9:46, 22:24).
You write:
“Why is Simon the only one of the Twelve to have his name changed by God?”
He isn’t the only one given an additional name.
And if he had been the only one, it wouldn’t follow that he was a Pope.
And if it did follow that he was a Pope, it wouldn’t follow that he would have successors in that role.
And if it did follow that he would have successors in that role, it wouldn’t follow that the successors would be the bishops of Rome.
And if it did follow that the successors would be the bishops of Rome, it wouldn’t follow that their role in the church would have the sort of infallibility and perpetuity Roman Catholics claim.
Etc.
You write:
“What did God's renaming of Simon indicate to his fellow Apostles and to the Jews of the day?”
That the role of the greatest disciple was still unsettled (Luke 9:46, 22:24), that Peter shared the highest rank in the church with other people (1 Corinthians 12:28), that Peter was to be named second as one of three reputed pillars in the church (Galatians 2:9), etc.
Peter refers to his roles as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1), as an eyewitness of Christ (2 Peter 1:16), and in furthering the proclamation of the gospel (Acts 15:7), but says nothing of a role as Pope. If it’s going to be suggested that Peter refrained from referring to his papal authority out of humility, for example, then why didn’t he refrain from referring to other privileged roles he had in passages like those I’ve just cited?
Peter is highly regarded in some contexts. He seems to have had a personality that tended toward leadership, and he was the most highly regarded of the original disciples of Jesus. But such roles aren’t equivalent to a papacy, and we have no reason to believe that those roles resulted from his being given an additional name.
You write:
“Its is quite possible for Matthew 16:15-19 to have secondary and tertiary meanings. However, was is the primary meaning of Matthew 16:15-19 as intended by Saint Matthew? What was Matthew writing for the Jews and gentiles of the day? Regarding ‘dubious assumptions’, that seems rather subjective on your part. Catholics find nothig ‘dubious’ nor ‘assumed.’”
I’ve linked, above, to an article in which I discuss Matthew 16 in some depth and cite objective evidence in support of my interpretation. You haven’t done the same for your interpretation in this thread, and you haven’t interacted with my arguments for my interpretation.
You write:
“The Gospels and Epistles were late in being written.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument. And how would the lateness of such documents explain the absence of a papacy in those documents?
You write:
“Those things that were well understood are least mentioned.”
Jesus’ Messiahship, monotheism, the resurrection, and many other concepts that were understood well are mentioned explicitly and often. It’s not as though people didn’t well understand the offices of bishop and deacon. Yet, as I’ve documented, those offices are referred to explicitly and often. People were familiar with Peter’s apostleship, yet he mentions it when writing letters.
Even if people are familiar with a concept, they often mention it anyway. It comes up in the process of discussing other issues. There’s some aspect of the concept that people aren’t so familiar with, despite their familiarity with the larger concept, so the latter will be mentioned in the process of discussing the former. Etc. Familiarity with a papacy doesn’t sufficiently explain the lack of mention of a papacy in the early sources.
And you’ve given us no reason to conclude that a papacy was “well understood”. Rather, you’re assuming what you have to assume in order to maintain your desired conclusion.
You write:
“For example, baptism is never described in detail anywhere in the NT because like the Petrine office, it was already established and understood.”
You haven’t even established that a papacy is mentioned at all. Comparing the papacy’s absence to the absence of detailed discussions of baptism isn’t sufficient.
You write:
“If baptism is an ordinance of Christ, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often?”
Yes, and it is mentioned explicitly and often. If you want to make a more accurate comparison, the papacy’s presence in the Bible would be comparable if the universal jurisdiction of Peter and the bishops of Rome were mentioned explicitly and often, but without details such as what authority the Pope has over the state, how often Peter exercised his infallibility, etc.
You write:
“First, I believe the NT contains two books of Peter, the Bishop (Episkopos) of Rome. Peter write that he is at ‘Babylon’ (Rome).”
Aside from your failure to address the evidence against an early monarchical episcopate in Rome and your failure to address what the earliest sources say about Peter’s relationship with the Roman church, would you argue that Paul was a monarchical bishop of the church in every city he visited? If not, then what’s the relevance of Peter’s presence in Rome?
You write:
“We have ample written evidence from early Roman and Jewish historians listing the bishops of Rome”
Produce your evidence. What “Jewish historian(s)” do you have in mind? Are you aware that the earliest sources to comment on such subjects refer to Paul and Peter together as the apostles of the Roman church and as the ones who appointed the first Roman bishop, without distinguishing between Paul and Peter and without saying that Peter himself was a bishop of Rome? Are you aware that the lists of Roman bishops differ in some places?
You write:
“You wrote it, now defend it. Why not and what proof do you offer? Why does Peter's being renamed, being mentioned first in all the gospels, and being told three times by Christ to feed His sheep not lead us to the conclusion of Roman primacy or primacy of a jurisdictional nature in particular?”
Read my article on the subject, which I linked above. Jurisdictional primacy isn’t the only type of primacy that exists. The fact that such a concept has to be explained to you doesn’t speak well for your knowledge of the issues or your discernment skills. Do you realize that Eastern Orthodox and Protestant scholars often refer to an honorary primacy of Peter, for example?
And do you apply the same reasoning to the Old Testament and other sources? Do you look to see if somebody is named first in more than one Old Testament book, then conclude that he was a Pope? Do you conclude that people given an additional name in the Old Testament were Popes?
If Peter denies Christ three times, why is a triple affirmation of his love for Christ and a triple call to tend the sheep in John 21, when Jesus apparently is restoring him from that earlier fall, supposed to have papal implications? The reason why Thomas, John, or Matthew wouldn’t need such a triple restoration is because they weren’t involved in a triple denial. Peter isn’t the only New Testament leader who’s told to shepherd the sheep (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).
You write:
“You're here arguing on a blog against Roman primacy and bishops from the ancient Churches of the Great Schism are signing agreements on Roman primacy.”
What type of primacy? Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the papacy’s claim to jurisdictional primacy.
And I’m not Eastern Orthodox. Something that’s more relevant to this discussion is the acknowledgement of the early absence of a papacy with universal jurisdiction by scholars of your own denomination. See, for example, Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996).
Reading A Papacy Into The Bible
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Then does the Magisterium support eisegesis as an acceptable hermeneutic?
P.S. Thanks Jason for picking up my comment-question as a basis for a triablogue post.
James wrote:
ReplyDelete“While I always enjoy the bantering on this site, I must ask a personal question, given the general windy nature of the posts: does anyone here hold a regular job or have a spouse or children they must tend to?”
There are better reasons for reading a site such as this one than enjoyment of “bantering”, if you’re saying that the bantering itself is all you’re interested in. And most sites on the web are “windy” in comparison to your posts. Making unconvincing assertions is one thing. Making a convincing argument, with the appropriate documentation and nuance, and providing people with information that isn’t commonly disseminated, is something else.
Some of us are married, and some aren’t. I don’t think any of us are unemployed. But it’s not as if people who don’t do this sort of work would only be doing something like working for an employer or tending to a spouse or children instead. Rather, people do a lot of other things as well, such as watching television and going to sporting events. Time spent on work such as we do here doesn’t have to replace time that would have been spent as you describe.
As Matthew has noted, knowledge of a subject matter and the repetition of material can lessen the amount of time it takes to write a post. I have a lot of material saved in my files, which I can easily bring up and copy and paste when needed. And there are several people on our staff. There isn’t one person who’s writing everything.
But it does sometimes take a large amount of time to research or write. You have to make decisions about priorities. Sometimes you have to give up something to gain something else. Ideas have consequences. There’s significant potential for pleasing God and influencing people through writing. And what’s learned in the process can be applied to other areas of life.
Truth Unites… and Divides wrote:
ReplyDelete“Then does the Magisterium support eisegesis as an acceptable hermeneutic?”
The title of my post was meant to describe what Catholics do, not what they claim they do or what the hierarchy claims they should do.
Catholics would argue that we should accept the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s interpretations of scripture, even if we wouldn’t arrive at those interpretations by interpreting the Bible in the same manner in which we normally interpret other documents. But they would argue that the hierarchy is led by God to those interpretations. God can lead them to knowledge of a secondary meaning of a passage, or a meaning that involves more than the text and context suggest, that we wouldn’t otherwise know about.
What they would need to do, then, is make an objective case for the Divine guidance of their hierarchy. They can’t.
Some Catholics argue that such Divine guidance isn’t needed to derive a papacy from the Bible. They would argue that a papal interpretation is the result of interpreting the Bible as we would normally interpret other documents. I’m saying that, instead, they’re reading something into the Bible that isn’t there.