1.
The Pope is the vicar of Christ; the Pope stands, temporally in Christ's place as head, because it is Christ's will that this be how His Church be managed and protected.
(A)
The very first use of the phrase 'Vicar of Christ' (to refer unambiguously to a person) did not occur until the 5th century A.D., where it was used with regard to Pope Gelasius I.
The first possible reference to the concept of a Vicar of Christ comes from the Epistle to the Magnesians of St. Ignatius (probably 1st century A.D.), which says: "your bishop presides in the place of God". Contextually, 'in the place of X' is undeniably ambiguous. Had it instead read, 'in place of God', the ambiguity would be dissolved. As written, it most straightforwardly says that a bishop presides in the church (where the church = the place of God).
The second historical usage of the phrase comes from Tertullian circa 3rd century A.D., where he specifically uses it to refer to the Holy Spirit. This fact is incredibly telling, given that Tertullian was the first major author to establish a Latin body of Christian literature, AND he was doing so from within the auspices of the Roman province, indicating that (if Roman Catholic history is true) Tertullian would have certainly possessed knowledge of the apostolic authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Instead, Tertullian says that because Christ is not performing miracles within the Church as the incarnate Jesus, it is the Holy Spirit which acts as His Vicar on His behalf, and that it is the Spirit which prevents the Church from error. Again this usage preceded the synodial declaration of later Catholic bishops by perhaps two centuries. Why would the first major Christian author (and one in Rome, no less) have been mistaken about the sanctified authority of the Bishop of Rome as late as the 3rd century?
(B)
Focusing on the content of your quoted statement, one cannot ignore how distinctly this statement requires a reading into the scripture. Forget for a moment the entire body of evidence which Catholics offer to support this exegesis; it is undeniable that what you have specifically asserted in this statement is simply not contained in scripture. It just isn't. The point here is that every facet of that statement requires a rather circuitous exegesis.
Note that I'm not claiming the exegesis is false or impossible to reach confidently. Rather, I'm working from two things that are eminently clear to me: (1) neither God the Father nor the Son were anything beside abundantly clear when it came to their direct instruction to man, and (2) that if your statement is true, then if it had been given to one or more apostles as foreknowledge, it would constitute some of the most important and sweeping things God ever told man in the whole Bible. Why are these important?
When God issued the Commandments, these were so unambiguous that any primitive could understand them. Christ spoke the Beatitudes absent any vagueness, so clearly that they couldn't be misinterpreted by any strained exegesis. What is implied by your statement above is a matter of historical import that cannot be overstated, and yet unlike every other instruction God gave pertaining to His plans for earth (whether through the Father or the Son), this one is supposed to merely be implied? God did not require exegesis for the Commandments. There are no 3-layer embedded meanings in the Beatitudes. I mean that when we find God speaking to man about concrete things to happen (or to do) in the world, these are without exception communicated straightforwardly by God.
"Thou shalt not steal", yet we are to think that God meant to establish something as concrete as a temporal representative office for Christ's Vicar on earth by means of calling a man a rock.
Let me be direct: Christ taught moral lessons as parables and allegories. However, Christ doesn't issue direct instructions ambiguously. Take the Great Commission:
'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'
Take the metaphorical phrase: "You are a cup overfloweth." Attribute this to Jesus hypothetically.
If Christ wanted to describe to a peasant in Jerusalem how the peasant's body related to the Holy Spirit, we could easily imagine Christ having said: "In me, you are a cup overfloweth."
However, if Christ had merely meant to give a practical instruction to one of His disciples to fetch Him a pail of water, He would have said, "Go. Fetch a pail of water." He would not have said, "You are a cup overfloweth." In other words, He wouldn't have called a man a pail if what Christ had wanted was some water. Despite its silliness, this is effectively what it appears the Catholic church is attempting to do. When God had a set of Laws to give to man, He gave it to a man to carve a numbered list of instructions into stone. He gave the instructions on rocks. But Christ is supposed to have established a clear Church hierarchy by calling a man a rock?
Or is it likelier that this figurative statement had another meaning? (more on this momentarily)
2.
I'll deal here with the entirety of your block of quotations. Compared with my primary interest in the earliest and most scripturally-evidenced basis for the papal argument, my interest with respect to whether the Eastern tradition supports it or not pales.
Each of these quoted passages comes from authoritative Church voices which are relatively much later in history.
The weight of tradition is not something I discount, but you must see that given the supreme importance of the facts about Christ's commission, and how early they occur in the life of the Church (which is really to say that they are initiatory), then the divergence of opinion is a fork not at some point downriver, but at the river's source. Therefore, any testimony, even from important figures in the history of the Church, is necessarily downstream of the point of divergence. By the time we arrive at Justinian, for example, in the 6th century, it is hardly decisive of the facts that he supports the Catholic view. Because he supports the tradition of the Church to which he claims faith, it's simply common sense that he would weigh on the issue in the manner he does. So too with the others.
3.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I understand why Catholics justify the succession from Peter on the basis of this passage, and yet I don't find it convincing, according to what the papacy is that it should follow from this metaphor. The metaphorical contents of the term could be making use of one or several qualities of rock, including but not limited to the strength of rock, the notion of using stones to set a foundation for a building, or in the durability of stone, or all of the above.
We must hold in mind the entire arc of Peter's story, as you have laid it out in the selected verses quite perfectly for this purpose. This is a story about faith tested, doubt, and redemption. Peter becomes an icon for all of mankind which inevitably encounters the 'storm' of doubt. Why does Christ say that the 'gates of Hell shall not prevail against it?' Precisely because it has been tested, failed, but having been redeemed in Christ is strengthened so as to never again show fault.
Think of Matthew VII 24-25:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
In my opinion, this is the clearest scriptural indicator of the rock metaphor elicited by Christ in His words to Peter. We see here that Christ clearly alludes to 'rock' again, even so much as to refer to building on rock! What is described in verse 25 is the challenge against the foundation of a building built on stone. To Peter, Christ says, "upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."
If it's the case in Matthew VII 25 that Christ is speaking about faith in Him as corresponding with a foundation of rock, it logically follows that what Christ is doing in Matthew XVI 18 by referring again to building on stone, is to speak of Peter's entire story arc as initiating a principle of faith upon which the Church is to grow. Peter first doubts Christ thrice and is redeemed when he confirms Christ thrice, whereupon Peter is lifted up 'as though on a foundation of stone' to again become a fisher of men. Christ's instruction to 'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep' is but the confirmation that Peter has been redeemed with respect to his apostolic place.
When Christ speaks of 'the rock', it is with respect to a much broader picture: man's failure, man's confession, man's redemption in Christ. THAT is the foundation of the Church, and the example upon which its foundation is to be built.
It is also precisely why it will be a foundation that shall resist the gates of Hell, because Christ's grace/redemption of man's failure is the example which will secure the faith of those to whom Peter is to minister: to the many who have failed on account of their fallen nature, but who are to be restored to grace in Christ. Man's fallen nature is the gate to Hell, and it is the gate of the many (Matthew VII 13: the gate to Hell is wide and the road that leads to it is easy...) to which Christ knew Peter would go among and build the Church from saving. This MUST be the rock on which the Church is built, because Christ knew to whom Peter was to minister: fallen man. You cannot build a Church based on the faith of the fallen from the example of a perfect stone (for only Christ is perfect), no, the foundation stone of the Church is fallen by its nature but perfected in Christ - just as each subsequent rock is to be perfected by this same mode.
In this sense, Peter is typological and represents every human brick which will be added to the Church, where Peter is the first stone that has been placed. Peter represents a particularly effective example of the principle of grace and Christ's true status as the Son of God, because being an apostle, Peter's fall is truly literary in scope. It is a tragedy for which Christ is the redeemer, and Christ's ability to restore Peter to his apostolic state is an attestation itself to Christ's divine status. Christ is saying: "You are the first rock of this new Church for your faith is now like a stone, in Me, and therefore you are now Petra (like stone)."
To put the capstone on my argument here, look again at the structure of Matthew VII 24-25: (1) a wise man builds his house upon a rock, (2) a storm/flood comes and beats the house, and (3) it does not fall for it was founded on a rock. Compare this with Peter's story arc: Peter is built upon the rock of Christ, a storm of doubt challenges Peter and he falls, and finally by professing his love of God thrice (confession) the grace of Christ restores him. Of course, the kind of fall the house described in Matthew might take is not the same kind as Peter does, but Peter's fall is not meant to be seen as a falling structure, rather as the inescapable and invariable storm that all men shall face in the world (doubt), through which only the grace of Christ can continually and at every timeless instant rebuild us. Of course Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, for Peter is the first redeemed (strengthened) stone of a faith-based Church. Peter's exemplary failure and exemplary confession/faith are the rock, and Peter is the house that because of Christ stands after the storm has passed. Simon becomes Petra, and the first of many bricks which Peter is commissioned to multiply, for as Luke XXII 32 tells us: now that Peter has turned back (been redeemed), he will strengthen his brothers.
At no point is there established in any of this a starting point for the succession of leadership of the global church as an office substituting for Christ on earth.
4.
That Paul first visits Peter after his conversion is not compelling to me at all. Paul converted in Damascus. Peter was in Jerusalem. The walk from Damascus to Jerusalem is but a few days. Let's even be generous and say that it represents a week long trip - this is still far less hazardous than to go to Greece, Rome, India or Ethiopia. Of course we know that later, Paul did travel, but that he sought out Peter's company first by no means indicates that this is because Paul recognized by revelation from God alone that Peter (in Jerusalem) was to become the Vicar of Christ in Rome.
5.
One of the most outstanding pieces of evidence against the Catholic exegesis is that at no point in Paul's letters to the Romans is there:
(a) any indication of Peter's status as Vicar of Christ
(b) or any indication whatsoever that Peter is even in Rome
According to what has already been said, Paul first visited Peter in Jerusalem. Therefore, Paul had been introduced to Peter. By 58-60 A.D., then, if the papal succession had indeed begun with Peter who established the pontificate in Rome, it is simply unthinkable that Paul would have made no reference to any detail relevant to this high office or to Peter in his letters to Rome.
The fact of an empty grave discovered in the so-called burial site for Peter in Rome is merely a capstone on what amounts to a complete absence of evidence for Peter having ever travelled there.
6.
On account of the foregoing, consider at last that this title of pontiff was a historical inheritance from the literal pontiff of the Imperial Roman Cult, i.e. the Caesar.
Given 1. (above), that this coincides with a period in time that Christianity itself had been the source of political instability in Rome, and further that Constantine attempted to reconcile Rome's pagan system with Christianity in the same period, it's likely that the system of popery emerged as a means of uniting Christianity with the Cult of Rome.
After all, this cult had simply blended political rulership with deity through the title of pontiff anyway, so to elevate the Bishop of Rome to the ascendant title of pontiff represented a political expedient favorable to the integration of the Christian Church with the rest of Roman society. This would have been a decision of the highest practical order, not for the least reason that Rome had already been in the throes of its difficulty administrating so many diverse groups in its outer regions. A united monotheism with a great deal of secular financial backing might together purchase unification of the diverse pagan elements of Rome's fringe constituencies.
Of course Constantine maintained his Pontifex title until death along with most of the solar imagery that surrounded him. It also appears as if the development of hierarchy in the Church itself did not begin with the office of Pope, proper, but emerged quite naturally due to the many theological controversies and heterogeneity of belief in early Christianity in Rome. By the early 2nd century you have Ignatius urging other churches and their presbyters in Rome to adopt these new structures. Similarly, the concept of apostolic succession was not initially identified with Popery, but was an early principle by which the office of bishops was viewed as a spiritual succession that connected them to the original apostles.
It seems feasible and logical that by the time of Constantine, the existing heterogeneity of structure in the early Church would have nearly begged to the existing Pontifex Maximus (Constantine, who had only known unification of Rome under the Caesarian dictatorship) to unify the churches of Rome under the same kind of pontificate. And so from the marriage of these two concepts, Roman Cultic Pontifex Maximus (principal of Rome's priests and earthly god) together with the appointed Bishop of Rome, we get the Pope: Vicar of Christ (principal bishop and earthly representative of God).
I will respond to this point-by-point later. In the meantime, some points to consider:
1) You have completely omitted any mention of Christ giving the keys to Heaven to this "mere rock" of Peter
2) You speak at one point with a diminutive tone with respect to tradition ("The weight of tradition is not something I discount, but") - there is no "but". Tradition is that to which any and all opinions must submit entirely. Yes, we have more evidence from the 4th and 5th entry onward than we have in the 1st century of explicit recognitions of the Papacy; and yes, the terminology used to describe it ("pontiff") came from the mesh between pagan Rome and the Church; but I have already addressed the good ways in which the Church baptizes the pagan; and I will point out that there would not snd could not have been such a unity of opinion with respect to Rome if this had not been recognized in the tradition in earlier centuries, albeit in less explicit gorm, or through use of different terminology. The fact is that Peter is the prince of the apostles, and this is clear from Scripture. For Christ to establish a prince among bishops cannot be dismissed as non-meaningful. Finally, it is Tradition that determines what exegesis of Scripture is sound and what is not; whether you find explicitly contained within the cured passages an establishment of the Papacy, again, is irrelevant - what matters is that the early Church did recognize this as the meaning of these Scriptures - and we must remember that, unlike you and me, those doing the early interpretations had access to St. Paul's meat, rather than mere milk.
Those are fair points, and I'm especially interested in (1). I'm not as familiar with this concept scripturally, so I will have to look into it more closely. I will also try to get back to your response later this evening. I don't mean for my tone to tradition to be diminutive. In at least one sense, there is no way for me to challenge any of this without some apparent disrespect - anything less than admitting to its truth is going to net that effect. I'd only stress that I don't do it with any pointed kind of harshness. The objections I have come from an authentic place that doesn't desire to transmit itself as an insult.
I recognize that you aren't approaching this with harshness, but sincerity. Nevertheless, it is a grievous error to reject the role of Rome in the Church, and I can scarcely oppose this error without coming across as hostile - but please understand my hostility is toward the error, not you who consider it.
I'll quote Aquinas in the Summa Contra Gentiles on this error to you later, in addition to more directly addressing your points.
Matthew 16:18 is the verse where Christ names Peter the rock; the very next verse He gives Peter the keys.
1. (A)
The very first use of the phrase 'Vicar of Christ' (to refer unambiguously to a person) did not occur until the 5th century A.D., where it was used with regard to Pope Gelasius I.
I'm not arguing about terminology, but the principle. Just as "pontiff" was baptized into the Church, and thus only began to be used some centuries after Christ, likewise "Vicar of Christ" as a formalized title entered the scene later on. This isn't relevant to the fact that the ecclesiastical office itself existed (or at the very least could have existed in theory, for the sake of argument) prior to its associatation with any given term - and therefore the fact that this term did not enjoy immediate use does not detract at all from the possibility of this office existing in theory.
A corollary of this is that other uses of the term "vicar" or "place of Christ" need not be seen as making reference (or omitting reference) to the Bishop of Rome, since 1) "Vicar" formally may not have applied to the Pope at these times, and 2) there are multiple ways in which any term can apply to anything - which is to say univocal usage is not the only kind of usage - in which case a phrase like "place of Christ" could refer to the Holy Spirit in a fashion equivocal with respect to the way in which it could be applied in theory, and would later be applied in practice, to the Pope.
And if that much is insufficient: in response to your question, "Why would the first major Christian author (and one in Rome, no less) have been mistaken about the sanctified authority of the Bishop of Rome as late as the 3rd century?", I answer that it is the Holy Spirit that protects and guides the Magisterium, including that of the Pope, and thus there is no contradiction or error in what Tertullian said. It is not as if the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible by virtue of his own nature. That is absurd.
1. (B)
Focusing on the content of your quoted statement, one cannot ignore how distinctly this statement requires a reading into the scripture. Forget for a moment the entire body of evidence which Catholics offer to support this exegesis; it is undeniable that what you have specifically asserted in this statement is simply not contained in scripture. It just isn't. The point here is that every facet of that statement requires a rather circuitous exegesis.
See what I have said recently about Scripture's relation to Tradition. Because Scripture is what it is, it is expected that its truths be "read out" by those with the authority to do so. And Scripture itself teaches this.
First, Scripture affirms explicitly what St. Paul says implicitly with respect to meat and milk () whenever it refers to teachings that are promulgated "by word or epistle" (, ), since in this way it affirms (unsurprisingly) that not only written teachings carry authority, but spoken / unwriitten ones also. Needless to say, Scripture does not capture all the unwritten / spoken teachings. But the Tradition does.
Secondly, and more to my point, tells of the disciple Philip finding a eunuch, and then, inspired by the Holy Spirit, he goes and tells the eunuch (layperson) what the Scripture means. This is the Tradition of the Church, which is wider and more comprehensive than Scripture (meat vs milk) informing the reader of Scripture.
I will also emphase in particular since it affirms what I have been recently trying to express to :
"In humility his judgment was taken away." If we are expected to judge the meaning of Scripture ourselves, as the Protestants try to do, contra what Acts 8 teaches us, we are dooming ourselves. If we are expected to judge which Church is best interpreting old Tradition to apply it to contemporary matters, we are dooming ourselves. Only a living Church with Apostolic succession and continued teaching authority can provide this. This is the Roman Catholic Church.
I think what I've said here speaks to the rest of 1. (B), which falsely assumes that Scripture is supposed to be so clear that its meanings can be discerned by any reader without recourse to Tradition. Scripture itself speaks against this (in rather clear terms), but furthermore, it is a fact that every time Christ addressed the masses, He did so in parables. And, as Scripture also makes clear, these parables required explanation, but these explanations were not given by Christ directly to the masses (since what He gave them directly were the parables), but rather, Christ told His disciples what the parables meant, and as Acts 8 makes clear, it is then up to the disciples to explain these things to the masses. This is what I've been saying about God willing to work through His creatures, and especially so His Church. explicitly supports what I've just said:
"And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples."
Doesn't get clearer than that.
2
It seems here that you are calling into question the authenticity of the Tradition of the Church by suggesting that it may have diverged very early on from what Christ actually taught to the disciples. But this is untenable; the verses I have quoted thus far establish clearly that there was a definitive distinction between the public / written teachings and the private / oral teachings, and that it was Christ's intention that the latter serve the former. What else does "feed my sheep" mean if not make use of the Apostolic knowledge and Tradition to interpret Scripture for the flocks? But for this to be done, there must exist a living Church, a definitive class of "shepherds" to do the feeding in the first place. This is the priesthood, which is guided by the Holy Spirit (see Pentecost, ), and is passed on by the bishops throughout time. This just is the Catholic Church. To question the authenticity of the Church and her tradition would be to question the authenticity of the priesthood and the Apostolic succession. Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have Apostolic succession, and both have the same tradition. The problem, as I've just pointed out to KOWA, is trying to interpret the early tradition separate from the unifying force of Peter, prince of the Apostles, especially as it applies to contemporary issues.
Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (); to suggest that immediately after Christ died the true Church, true priesthood, and true Tradition went underground, leaving a false Church to produce saints with the stigmata, and pronounce on faith and morals for 2000 years, is just not serious to me. The Catholic Church must be both living and visible. That Peter has a successor is what makes it living, and that She is seated in Rome is what makes Her visible. Either of these points can suffer hiccups at times, but never total erasure.
3
I understand why Catholics justify the succession from Peter on the basis of this passage, and yet I don't find it convincing, according to what the papacy is that it should follow from this metaphor.
I reiterate that it doesn't matter one iota whether you, or I, or any of us find it convincing. The eunuch had the humility to allow his judgment to be taken away, to submit to the Church. We must do the same, or else the doubt that arises will have no end. Without the Church, there can be no true confident in what the faith constitutes. Christ did not err in establishing the Church, and He did not err is choosing Peter to be Her temporal head, in His place within history.
Your points about Peter being a type of the Church are accurate and useful, but are not exhaustive. As I said to KOWA, if Peter being a type of the Church were exhaustive, I would find it a very strange metaphor indeed for the Church to be built on a rock that, after all, only serves to signify the Church. Yes, Peter is a model of all the faithful - and of all sinners. Judas betrayed Christ, but his real error was in not believing in His forgiveness - since he killed himself. Peter, on the other hand, "wept bitterly" after his three-fold denial, and later was redeemed by Christ by three times affirming his love for his Lord. Peter, thus, is the model for us all - Christ, in choosing Peter to hold such a foremost role in the temporal Church, is signalling to the faithful, first that, if such a great saint and leader can sin so grieveously, and yet be forgiven, that we ourselves should likewise trust in Christ and not despair on account of sin; and secondly that even the Popes themselves, who will succeed Peter, will be sinners, but that nonetheless the charism granted to Peter will be affirmed by Christ, and that charism of the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and ever feed Christ's sheep.
So again we deal with there being more modes of reference than merely the univocal. It can be the case that Peter is a type for the Church and the faithful, and the bishops more specifically, and the successors of Peter even more specifically, while it also being the case that Christ did choose Peter for a special mission within His Church.
4
That Paul first visits Peter after his conversion is not compelling to me at all.
Again, not to be rude, but I don't care if it compels you. It was compelling to St John Chrysostom, as I already quoted:
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
whose authority in the Church so vastly exceeds yours or mine that the matter is simply settled by virtue of his finding this noteworthy.
5
One of the most outstanding pieces of evidence against the Catholic exegesis is that at no point in Paul's letters to the Romans is there:
(a) any indication of Peter's status as Vicar of Christ
(b) or any indication whatsoever that Peter is even in Rome
First of all, even if this were true, it wouldn't matter based on what has been said about meat vs milk. What the Church knows about the history of the Apostles exceeds what is written in Scripture about them.
However, I do think this information is contained - if you permit me to strip away the I think unjustified restriction to St. Paul's letters to the Romans. If we understand all of Scripture as informed by the same Principle (God), and understand that not every detail of every truth is contained 1) in Scripture at all, or 2) exactly where we expect or demand it be contained, then there is no reason to limit our search to those particular letters. The epistles and even Gospel verses already quoted show how this sense of Peter's princeship among the Apostles is established - whether this truth was expressed within public records by the Church prior to its later formalization is not important; since we recognize, from Scripture itself, that there are things written down, and things maintained orally only, then it follows that those things maintained orally need not immediately become manifest in the public, until the time is right, as judged by those who hold the knowledge. So it may not have suited the Apostles desired to reveal to the masses the full extent of Peter's role, at the time those epistles were being written. However, elements of this truth are nonetheless revealed, just not as explicitly as you would like, in verses we've already gone over.
As for Peter being in Rome, is an oft-cited chapter by Catholics because of how clear it expresses these not-yet-fully-revealed truths about Peter's dignity and office. Peter, in this letter, refers to "the Church in babylon", by which the Tradition understands him to be metaphorically referring to Rome, from which he is greeting the universal Church, to whom he is writing.
Also, Peter's tomb is not empty; his bones are in St. Peter's Basilica.
6
As for this title of pontiff, I have already addressed this sufficiently, I think.
"And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples."
So why didn't any of the disciples act as if Christ explained Peter's official supremacy to them? Again, given the worldly and historical import of this massive layout of authority, it seems prudent that the Gospels would have made something of a 'to do' about it, given the authors' recognition that acquiescence to the Church of Rome is apparently a doctrinal matter of salvation.
Why were the disciples debating with each other about who was greatest even up until the evening of the Last Supper?
___
I don't mean for the shortness of this reply to be dismissive. Instead, I think that we've said what we have to say, and there isn't much more use (at least at this point) to carrying on this debate. This is one of those difficult areas where gnosis is doing more work than philosophy/debate, and it's unlikely that you or I will change the other's mind here and now. So I'm prepared to shelve the topic provisionally.
At the very same time that the Apostles are thus arguing, it is Peter that Christ turns to and expresses His will that Peter will "confirm his brethren" in the faith.
True gnosis can only be had if we approach God with folded hands, willing to submit to whatever He wills, knowing that it is good by virtue of His willing it.
I sense that your reluctance to accept the Church's teaching on this point is rather an opinion fueled by doubt planted by the Enemy, a personal judgment that should be taken away ().
One's responsibility when faced with such doubt is to empty oneself and one's ego and listen to what the Church doctors and saints have to say, and certainly not let blossom seeds planted by heretical children of Satan, like Seventh Day Adventists.
If Protestants and the East are united in this point, and bybuniting in this point their diverse heresies are made possible, and we know that most of them are guilty of heresy, why accept such a point, contra the saints?
I’ve been straining for a few hours to think of a finer piece of writing on this subject, and/or a way to follow it up with a meaningful comment.
I appreciate that, King. I was thinking about your compliment this morning, and it occurred to me that if I'd written exactly what I did mid-16th century, and it received the praise you gave to it, then on the same day the following week I might have been burned alive. It's not just that this would have been a possibility, but a relative likelihood, that makes it a heavy thing to think about. Of course, if I'd just said it to a guy in a pub or something (like we are talking here), it's less likely. It's not as if this is being circulated :).
(post is archived)