I know the overarching conversation is getting a little tense, but I do hope you'll read what follows.
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.
Certainly, but the question implied here is an epistemic one. What is it that He wills? To say that it is the Roman Catholic communion is begging the question.
Luke 22
Taking verses 31 & 32 in isolation, I would honestly say that they are the most compelling evidence from Peter's primacy of any other scriptural basis that you have provided. None of the examples in Matthew, taken likewise in isolation, are as strong in my opinion - not even Matthew XVI 18-19, as I've already made what I believe is a convincing typological argument from scripture (cf. *Matthew VII 24-27) as to the way later Matthew claps back to the earlier use of stone as metaphor. These self-contained loops within the Gospels are something I want to focus on below.
Your use of Luke here is to take what the verse says on the 'ground level', which is the entirety of the problem. I just recognized how the phraseology of 'rock' found in Matthew VII is the basis for interpreting 'rock' in Matthew XVI. So too, then, must we take Luke XXII 31-32 within the context of the earlier Luke! These examples are a reason for my earlier point about the staggering amount of structure that exists in the Bible - a remarkable feature of Hebraic literature whose signature is typology! There is, thus, the ground level interpretation to be had as the story is given to it plainly, but to be fully understood it must be situated in the wider 'river' where they integrate with other parts of the device, at what I'd like to call the wisdom level.
Note two things before I go on. First, I don't say this to condescend you. Your Biblical knowledge would trounce mine. Unquestionably, you know this to be the case about the Bible's multi-tiered structure, but the doubtless fact you know this forms a 'shadow' dogging my explicit argument: you know this, but you betray it because you are goal seeking in your reading of the scripture: to confirm a tradition. You have encountered a tradition in your life, and according to that which you've been given, you endorse it by reading it into scripture. It is not my goal to uphold a concept of Sola scriptura. I am not attempting to displace the role of tradition in divine knowledge, but I do resonate with a position of prima scriptura, which I feel that all communions do implicitly - can it be denied? You are defending your tradition primarily on a scriptural basis ! And where you consult the weight of tradition, we find that the voices you seek themselves all go to scripture! So my stance is not commensurate with Sola scriptura, rather my focus is plainer and narrower. I want to take the scriptural defenses you have put forward and analyze them in Biblical terms.
Second, when I am discussing these parallel 'stacked' levels of structure in scripture, I am not referring to esoteria. These complex structures just were the literary tradition of the Hebrews. Though it may have required teaching to the illiterate by the literate, the members of the latter by the time of Christ would have just recognized these hierarchical structures as what constituted the whole of their literary tradition.
___
Let's take a broader view of Luke. What is going on generally as we are getting into the last half of Luke? Christ has entered Jerusalem, and so we find two 'parallel tracks' of development. Christ is proceeding on his arc of Passion, toward the Last Supper and His suffering. Meanwhile, the apostles are struggling to come to terms with their doubts, and with their faith, about both who the Christ is and how they relate to God/Christ as men. Within the disciple's arguments are displayed so many of these human, all too human tendencies, and they are afraid at what Christ tells them about the one among them who shall betray Christ.
The issue, of course, is that Christ is all throughout this Gospel attempting to cause his disciples to see (gnosis) what is meant by the coming Kingdom, and many parallels are raised to emphasize their basic failure on account of the need to see with their eyes. The parallel as it concerns their knowledge about the Kingdom of God follows from their refusal (despite what Jesus is telling them) to let 'their ears hear' that Christ is not here to take up the throne of David's house (as in to consummate a physical kingship as warrior). His war is spiritual, and the coming Kingdom is spiritual. So we see that a statement is being given to us about man's pride, and the future apostles are caught by Christ in their hearts quibbling over who shall be the greatest among them - for again, pride and the desire for stewardship of the keys to what they believe to be House of David are what they think is at stake! This is their Jewishness shining through, and the substance of what Christ is attempting to dispel.
To me, this is the unique emphasis of Luke, because this notion of greatness is explored deeply throughout Luke. Christ gives the disciples a few parables to answer their questions about this issue of greatness. I am referring to these parables but not summarizing them - neither of you needs this to be a Bible study.
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
In Luke XV, we're told:
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
...to which Jesus delivers the parable of the lost sheep. In verse 7:
“I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.”
How does this parable apply to the disciples?
The Parable of the Prodigal Son
Again in Luke XV there is this parable which echoes not only the same principle echoed in the parable of the lost sheep, but harkens back all the way to Cain and Abel! In verses 31-32, we get:
‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’
How does this parable apply to the disciples?
___
Let's return to the verses you held up in Chapter 22:
And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke XXII 31-32)
'Confirm' in this passage has been variously translated as 'strengthen'. A short time later in Verse 43, as Christ is praying in solitude:
And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony, he prayed the longer.
Here we have an example where the concept is applied unambiguously in a context where it represents strengthening in faith (not as an indicator of authority or higher office).
From my comment of two days ago:
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.
After giving the parables of the lost sheep and the lost brother, a few chapters later Christ tells Peter that his faith will fail. Peter falls, but in faith he is the first to see who Christ is by revelation come from the Father alone, hence Peter is the 'firstborn' (which is an Aramaic-Syrian translation of Petros). Peter's faith causes him to confess to Jesus and have faith that he is redeemed (depicted by John), and so Peter is held up like a lost sheep come home, and in his conversion he shall strengthen his brothers. Why? Because they had all been grappling throughout Luke to understand Christ, the Kingdom, and what greatness is. Luke is the answer to this question as a Gospel.
Taken within the broader context that appreciates the grandeur of these multiple tiers and 'call backs' (truly, the wisdom level of the Gospels), it is so obvious what Peter typifies.
Moreover, in itself this typecast is the setup for the very similar arc of Saul/Paul! What a 'turning back' Paul represents! And a strengthening and confirmation to Paul's brothers in the Church is come to be embodied by the entire rest of the New Testament epistles!
To take single verses from out of this complex, integrated structure to justify concrete human actions in the body of the physical Church is JUST TO MAKE THE SAME KIND OF ERROR THE APOSTLES DID EARLY IN LUKE, as it regarded their conceptions of greatness in what they had falsely predicted would be the coming physical kingdom of Christ as inheritor of the house of David!
Of course Peter is great, and it follows from what I have said that, being firstborn, the wisdom of the strengthened Peter would have been a cornerstone for the early apostles. But what never follows is that from this status, is given unto Peter an office in Church to physically represent Christ on earth. To say that one apostle is preeminent in his faith and therefore the exemplar onto which all other church members are typified, is not to say that Peter was conferred papal office. This is conflating two different worlds in a way that is not simply unjustified by scripture, but which is rebuked by the very story of Luke's gospel. These are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, which is spiritual and therefore pertain to a door which corresponds to FAITH, and NOT to the keys of the House of David as physical keys to a physical kingdom, material icons such as which by pagans are held in high esteem by their placement in the hands of Janus (the god of doors) in the Roman cultic system.
I have acknowledged in my reply to your original 6 points that there are multiple levels to anything in Scripture. And I acknowledge that you have in this reply acknowledged that I acknowledge this.
So I don't need to dispute with your interpretations, either of the rock, or Luke's gospel generally, in order to the nonetheless affirm what I have been saying.
I appreciate what you've been saying about not taking verses in isolation - I am well-acquainted with the danger of this, which is precisely why I keep citing EMJ's line about the Bible becoming a revolutionary document if taken outside if the Church. Taking the Bible out of the Church just is to do what you and I have both been doing. I am pointing at verses to help you understand that the substance of the principle is in Scripture. But I don't claim this is self-justifying; it is justified by virtue of the fact that this is what the early Church believed and taught. Then you go and point to a higher level interpretation, but you're still doing the same thing I have done - you are gleaning from the Bible what you yourself are able to, without - and you've admitted this - being any kind of Sctipture scholar.
My point in all this is that, really, this is not something we can settle by our own judgment (). We must have recourse to the Church if Scripture is to be understood, simply because there are so many layers, do many wisdom levels, and so many "hyperlinks" that no two or three guys on the internet could ever hope to get to the bottom of it. Only the Tradition of the Church, which has in it men like Augustine and Aquinas, who have poured over the entirety of Scripture and identified more of these hyperlinks and wisdom levels than we can ever hope to, can accomplish this, especially because this Tradition also includes the Apostolic wisdom that Scripture describes Christ giving to the disciples "in private" - i.e. they weren't written down. Do if Scripture itself affirms this, how can we pretend that we, by our own effort, can discern from Scripture the fullness if truth? Scripture disconnected from Tradition simply isn't readable, period - and Scripture is clear on this point, ironically enough. And for this irony to be explained, understand that I'm not saying that nothing true can be gained from Sctipture, and so we shouldn't waste our time. Nothing could be further from the truth! The graces and insights to be gained are innumerable. But the fulness of truth cannot be known without Tradition.
You conclude by saying what is said of Peter in these Gospels does not lead to an establishment of the papal office, but you don't define your understanding of this office or what ways you think it is any different from the basic reading of Luke 22:31-32, or any of the other Scriptures I've cited. You then rightly point out that Christ was not building in time the Davidic Kingdom, but in heaven - but the Church with Her papacy does not pretend or claim to be Christ's kingdom on earth. She is merely fighting to bring souls to this. Having a successor of Peter to feed the sheep of today and confirm the brethren of today is simply a continuance of the need for which Chriat said these things of Peter himself. And this remains true regardless of what deeper levels of exegesis can also apply.
Having a successor of Peter to feed the sheep of today and confirm the brethren of today is simply a continuance of the need for which Christ said these things of Peter himself. And this remains true regardless of what deeper levels of exegesis can also apply.
Did Christ explicitly speak of such a need? He did not. But of course, you'll cite another piece of scripture and say that it is contained there, and why? Well, tradition of course!
There is not much more for me to say on this subject of interpretation. I find myself running headlong into this interminable circular wall around your beliefs which is always self-justifying according to the same principles. I don't say this as an insult, just to state the fact. So for this final comment, I just want to do a kind of 'meta analysis' of what I see happening within the conversations themselves. On top of this, I can't say any more.
You claim that you have the correct tradition.
I say, "Why?"
You provide scripture name.X.Y
I spend 12,000 words putting together an analysis consisting of tying said scripture together with other scripture in a way which is coherent, effective, and straightforward - one which rings harmoniously with reason.
You say, "No. You don't have the authority to do this."
I say, "Why?"
To which you reply, "Because you are wrong, and if you aren't wrong, then at the very least your understanding is incomplete - rife with milk, but lacking meat."
I say, "Why does yours have meat?"
You say, "Because it's the correct tradition."
I am confident that the Papacy is legitimate as the earliest fathers of my tradition say it is so, because my Church is the seat of the Vicar of Christ on earth.
It is just begging the question. All around. No two ways about it.
Some observations follow. Throughout these discussions we've seen that, at bottom, the sum of your arguments rests on the argument from authority. However, by the time we arrive at the medieval tradition of the Scholastics, we find you holding up as the outstanding example of Catholic theology, the philosophy of a man deriving his conclusions not from Church authority herself, but from pure reasoning. Of course, Aquinas goes to scripture and Aquinas confirms himself against the earlier fathers of the Church, but a great deal of what Aquinas did was the result of his own exegesis.
To this you'll say, "This occurred within the Tradition", and while this is certainly true, he is the exemplar of the integration of reason into Catholic thinking. Suppose someone had wanted to denounce Aquinas' thought. What would have been their recourse? The Church authorities, of course.
Fast forward to the Second Vatican Council and the years afterward. You have made some comments to me about your disagreements with the Novus Ordo and its validity. But you have established as thoroughgoing justification in all of our recent debates the very kind of authority that makes it impossible for you to have criticized contemporary developments in Church Tradition the way that you have.
I could merely ask, "On what grounds are you justified?"
The answer can only be that you have none. You've conferred by way of Tradition this very power to that very office, and should you choose to denounce it, how should one even go about this? Rather, how does one justify it to oneself given Papal Infallibility established firmly as Church dogma?
Suppose you say, "Well I have my reason! And I appeal to THE TRADITION!"
But what you're rejecting just IS tradition!
You rebut: "The tradition™ is clear that no elaboration or clarification is able to contradict the core magisterium!" But where did the magisterium come from, and by what did it gain its authority? Well by the authority of the papacy as Vicar of Christ!
So see what has now developed: as you wish, you take the Tradition unto yourself to say what It is, for example, as you criticize contemporary development from the Vatican. Yet, as it suits you, you also throw out like paint the concept of Tradition onto a sprawling externalization of names, buildings, and histories, and say effectively: "Look at this castle! How old it is and how large its bricks! This is its power: the weight of History and Consensus."
Now this is when you say that I'm wrong, its power is God Himself by way of the Spirit, and we start right back at noon on our circle.
In this last section, I want to point out that prior to Christ, there had been a longstanding tradition in the religion of ancient Palestine, to which the Jews held with a kind of loyalty that matches yours to Rome.
We could imagine them saying, "Why should we trust your tradition? The burden of proof lies with you to show us that it is true, because history and consensus are our allies."
Then Jesus performs miracles. So establishes a new tradition, and we find that this tradition is one established solely on the words of Christ to His disciples and their compilation into text. The evidence, like rocks against which objections shatter, comes from a combination of their tendency to facilitate gnosis combined with their historicity. Since gnosis is personal and subjective (something which you could claim against me any day out of the week), then by way of argument we come to the subject of historicity. The Gospels and Pauline letters boast their closeness to Christ in his incarnate life, they boast eyewitness testimony, and finally they boast their historical accuracy by way of including landmarks within the narratives that are archaeologically/historically verifiable.
So wherefrom inside of that tradition is the Papacy discussed? It isn't.
Recall that the first true historical evidence of actual Papal authority (not merely implied) doesn't come to us until around the 4th century! Now here enters the fairly subtle problem, for your claims to unbroken tradition by necessity cannot rely on 'traditional tradition' - after all, a tradition by definition implies exactly the kind of evidence of effects in the world which yours lacks for the entire first 3 centuries.
Therefore, you rely on an intermediary 'tradition' which you call oral. If we take what unquestionably existed in the late 1st century as the Gospel Tradition (GT) and what comes later in the 4th century as the Roman Catholic Tradition (RCT), then what you're saying looks like:
GT --> X --> RCT
...with roughly a few centuries of unevidenced papal tradition contained in X. Now, I have addressed in a comment yesterday why this is simply illogical to assume that because RCT exists, that we ought to assume X is equal to and continuous with RCT. I gave the example of the beginning of recorded history to back up this argument, and I think it is a fairly good one.
But we have a puzzle with this period X that just amounts to a quagmire, frankly.
The issue is so clearly resolved by Paul. We know that Paul was converted somewhere close to 33 A.D. Paul met with Peter first after his conversion. We also know that Paul wrote his letters to the Romans from Corinth around 57-58 A.D. The first council at Jerusalem was sometime around 45-48 A.D. So we are most likely talking about a so-called Papal tradition (even orally transmitted, be that the case) which is at minimum 10 years old by the time Paul writes to the Romans.
When I pointed out that it is unthinkable (it actually is) that Paul would not have mentioned anything related to this high office, the supremacy of which belonged to Peter, nor to literally any detail that Peter was in or had ever been to Rome, you were not able to contradict that claim - because it is simply true.
Instead you told me that the truth does not come necessarily from just one book of the NT, but the composite (except you directly refuted my claim to as much, earlier in my analysis of Luke, because the authority of the Church was supposedly sufficient to justify the Papacy from one or two verses!).
Nonetheless, you said to me:
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 (1)...So it may not have suited the Apostles desire to reveal to the masses the full extent of Peter's role, at the time those epistles were being written (2). However, elements of this truth are nonetheless revealed, just not as explicitly as you would like
[the labels were inserted by me for the ability to reference these sections; italics are also mine]
(1) How do you know that? Someone else had to write that fact, no? Therefore aren't the very claims that attest to an unwritten oral tradition up for some kind of critique or verification? And does it matter that they come centuries later? I guess not. For the sake of being direct, you are now relying on making claims to extra-Biblical secret knowledge.
(2) A papal succession beginning with Supreme Peter in Rome had been going on IN ROME for a decade or longer and Paul didn't want to REVEAL IT to the Romans? What?
I apologize to both of you for being uncharitable, both in my treatment of your arguments, and in the tone I have employed. Obviously I am passionate about these issues, and tend to get fired up when I see people defending what I perceive to be schismatic or heretical beliefs, but that is no excuse for the rude, dismissive, and generally unloving tone I have employed with you both. I am sorry.
From the first article, of the first question, of the first part of the Summa Theologiae:
"knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true"
We have discussed before this notion of "true gnosis" and "false gnosis", but in reality there can only be gnosis. If the belief is not true, it cannot be known - thus it is only a false belief. Belief, of course, is full assent of the intellect without doubt (if there is doubt, it is just opinion). Obviously we are all at a point of belief with respect to our positions, which is why you have both made statements suggesting that this conversation stop, since it seems we are getting nowhere.
I blame myself for this. Yes, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. There is no doubt in my mind on this point. But as a result of this, I have been approaching these arguments with insufficient charity, and even an irrational attitude. Chiro has tried to bring this back to reason, and rightly so - where beliefs differ, reason is the only recourse to resolving such conflict (barring grace, of course). While argument alone does not determine gnosis, it can contribute to the path that leads one to it. Back when I was debating with about Orthodoxy, he often frustrated me by making statements like "I just know", and with certainty. Fine, he had belief - but in the context of a debate on the differences of his faith and mine, that was insufficient. But I have begun to do the same thing in this debate, which has caused the two of you - at least so I judge - to treat me and respond to me similarly; which is to say, there are many arguments I have also made that I feel were not treated or interpreted in a charitable spirit, but rather were dismissed because my interpretations contradict the beliefs you two hold. Again, I blame myself, as I did this first, and I am sorry.
None of what I've just said changes the fact that I do believe in what I believe in, and that I do believe getting these issues right is important for our salvation - for our ability to attain union with God. I fear that if these points are not properly addressed, we may live our lives with the temptation to pride, to personal judgment, and with a lack of sufficient humility, which could ultimately close grace out of our lives when we need it most.
So, I understand if the two of you are not willing to pretend that your beliefs aren't true, because I am not willing to do that either. I believe what I believe, without doubt, because I believe they are true. However, even if we all hold firm to our beliefs, honest debate on these issues remains possible, if we have recourse to reason, which is what Chiro was trying to return my attention to.
These debates take up time; I know that as well as you do. It is Lent (for me anyway; I guess the Orthodox Lent may start later). There are certain things I have given up this season, and I considered making Poal one of them. I did decide to give up other social media, but I didn't give up Poal (or at least, Poal message notifications) because this conversation was ongoing, and I didn't want to leave at what might have been a critical juncture. Clearly, it seems, I should have.
I have quite a long list of points both of you have made that I believe I have adequate responses to. Some of the essence of my responses are contained in what I have already written, but I can elaborate and ground these more satisfactorily such that they will no longer appear fallacious or circular.
So if the two of you are willing, not to set aside your beliefs, but to argue in what I would call a Thomistic fashion - by not being afraid to present as charitably as possible the strongest arguments against our positions, and draw both on tradition and reason to answer them as best we can - in order to in the spirit of charity and truth try to come to a better understanding of each others' positions, at the very least, if not come to a fuller picture of the Truth on these issues - then I will better structure my arguments and we can continue as we were. Maybe I will post my arguments after Lent ends. Or if you think I've made these exchanges distasteful enough through my folly, that's fine too; just let me know.
(post is archived)