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 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.
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.
Again, neither of us are denying the Primacy of Saint Peter; what I’m denying is that the current Roman Papal claims are the manner in which the Almighty God intends to organize His Church. You can point to St. Peter until we’re purple, and unless we accept your claim that the contemporary Roman Papacy is that, we’re completely talking past each other.
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.
Agreed. Obviously, we both think we’re doing that.
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 (Acts 8:33).
In my case at least, it’s certainly not some personal judgment. It’s that the rejection of Papism is enshrined within the Lives of the Orthodox Saints.
The Orthodox - myself included - have considered the existing evidence, and have found those Papal claims lacking in Holy Traditional foundation. As far as we’ve seen, there’s no “objective, absolute proof” either way, and no existing evidences outside of our specific Traditional rejections of said Claims, are free from being subject to inescapable confirmation bias. We both see the same evidence, and conclude that it confirms our respective Traditions. What’s more, as I said; rejection of Papism is itself enshrined within Orthodoxy, with mountains of Scriptural and Patristic exegesis and the Lives of many Saints supporting it.
A man is absolutely obliged in any case to confront the competing claims, weighing them against each other, and decide which claims he believes, and which ones he does not. I found the Orthodox claims to ring more truly, and I proceeded thusly. Similarly, the Papal claims seemed truer to you, and you proceeded that way.
There’s literally zero point arguing about it. By this point, Papal spirituality has diverged so far from Orthodoxy, that they’re now entirely different religions. They share a thousand years of history, but they’re completely dissimilar in terms of focus and emphasis.
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.
It’s like, I’d say virtually the same thing to an Orthodox Christian if they start feeling the pull of Papism.
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?
What a skeevy thing to say, that Protestantism and “the East” are “united on this point” ! Trying to impugn the Church of the Holy Fathers and the Nine Ecumenical Councils with such a thing ... Protestants aren’t united about anything, and most couldn’t care less whether St. Peter was even a Bishop! And for what, to score points in a pointless argument? The very chutzpah of the thing.
(post is archived)