In a way, this is a prudential matter. Yes, both heaven and the Church use the monarchist model (although I find it ironic that affirms the supremacy of this model for Heaven and the State, but as an Eastern Orthodox rejects this model in its temporal-hierarchical manifestation where the Church Herself is concerned, since he rejects the Papacy), but there are others who cite Aquinas' argument that just law and just government require the consent of the governed to argue that the republic is the ideal model.
For my own part, I consider any model, be it political or economic, to be totally unworkable outside the moral order, and so I treat "the state must adhere to the moral law" as a given before making comparisons. Which of course means "the state, as body, must be animated and informed by the Church, as soul"; i.e. there can be no true separation of Church and state. But by doing this I'm basically saying "only the ideal forms are worth conparing", which is obviously more of an idealist attitude than a realist one. Nevertheless, if adherence to the moral order is given, I'd prefer a monarchy - more efficient, appeals more to our natural sense of things, and its simpler. Give me a moral king over a moral congress aby day.
The corollary of this, of course, is that an immoral king, as tyrant, and an immoral congress, as oligarchy, or an immoral demos, as anarchy, are all terrible and, as I've said, unworkable. If we are taking into consideration the probability of moral failure, or the consequences of moral failure if it happens, then I think we've already missed the mark. We simply cannot pretend that we can make a system, political or economic, function unless it is wedded to the moral order. And so I compare the systems given that they are grounded in Truth, and as such, prefer monarchy.
Consider the story in Herodotus's book three, where the Persians found themselves without a ruler. Perhaps this is where we find ourselves today. Everybody is seeking structure, stability and strength. These few conspirators debated between themselves where power would lie; whether it be with a small group, a king or the "whole of the persian people," which in this case, I would assume all of persia to mean literally just the persians, instead of their conquered constituents.
It seems like most today would suffice to give up their powers, voice, liberties and freedoms, and subject themselves to their idea of a perfect ruler. The conspirators obviously chose the name Darius as king, while the seven themselves, along with their bloodline, being allowed absolute autonomy from the authority of the crown.
Why would they who chose their perfect king demand autonomy from his authority? It is because they knew that there is a chance of tyranny. Those seven, the most poweful men in the world at that moment. who chose their own destiny, and that of their entire people and those ruled by them, did not even trust their own choice when they chose monarchy. Why should we weak and poor men trust what they did not?
If you push me to intellectually defend a system of government, I would probably side with the republic over the monarchy, for human systems (rather than Divine systems, like heaven or the Church). So I would side with Timothy Gordon's Catholic Republic thesis, since I think he effectively demonstrates how what has called the "pre-Fed old model of the United States union" was in fact "crypto-Catholic" to the core, even though the documents were drafted by Protestants, those Protestants were drawing on Catholic intellectuals (even Aquinas, albeit indirectly).
However, my romantic attachment to the Middle Ages is what leads me to prefer a monarchy, especially if we are treating "adheres to the moral order" as a given, which of course, in reality, this is not given.
Republics can be okay, and usually they have a really great first hundred years or so; but they subsequently decline and die, predictably lasting about 250 years. If there was some solid system for a smooth transition of power from one into the next, it’d be great, but it hasn’t ever worked out because any coherent republic can’t plan for its own demise ... that would be admitting weakness, which would result in the ascent of a rival faction, pushing bolstered jingo-sloganeering with a coherent central message.
And anyway, regardless, the scope and span of history leaves me with the impression that there isn’t really a choice whether a republic or an autocrat emerges; it’s rather a function of the relative strengths of the Chiefs of Clans, vs. the One Who Rules Them All, and I suspect God and God Alone makes that call.
The type of government I have often thought could be ideal would be based on the old model of the United States union. However, eliminate the fed. For matters concerning international economics and national security, a pair of governors from each state participates as part of a parliament, without the current powers to tax and administrate over all states collectively which is possessed by the federal government. Here is where I diverge. Each state should have one ecclesiastical hierarchy and one secular hierarchy. Each of the main offices is occupied by two members, one from each hierarchy respectively. Therefore, high level members of the Church in each state are necessarily also a government office. It is up to the secular and ecclesiastic offices to negotiate and arrive at conclusions discursively. Whether or not the Church as a unified body has a papacy is a matter for the Church - I'm speaking only of a kind of isomorphic structure formed by the Church to serve as the mirror image of government in all states, so that a representative of the moral order is involved at each level of political office.
So a pyramidal hierarchy still exists in each state of the union, but you could imagine two heads at each level for each state, one from the Church and one elected as per traditional methods.
Of course, there are problems here as well, such as how to negotiate appointments on the ecclesiastic side as well as loss of office and transition of power. We get into trouble possibly if there aren't 'term limits', right? Additionally, a 'democratic' style of vote wouldn't seem to suffice for appointing members to the Church hierarchy so we'd face the tension arising from voters potentially feeling unrepresented by the 'Church-half' of each political office.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen.
I obviously haven't spent a great deal of time on this because it's unlikely to ever happen
It's still good fun to exercise the mind with hypotheticals. The debate between a dictatorship, democratic and oligarchical system has been one that has raged throughout the history of man. It really is an interesting conundrum, one that may not have a right or wrong answer considering they have all succeeded many times and for many reasons, yet have all failed.
If I understand there were three central banks, two of which were abolished. One by Jackson, which is probably why he is slandered in the mainstream media. His successor has actually the one who committed the infamous "trail of tears" of the cherokee that they tout out constantly. Every time these banks were abolished, the nation entered a golden age. The fed absolutely needs to go.
Interesting system, there would definitely be deadlock and issues between the two paradigms though, to the point that there would likely be civil war and the suppression of one of these branches, as what happened in the war between federalists and anti-federalists in 1861. Unfortunately, I think the theocratic side would lose and the system would be eventually ruled over by the secularists unless money is absolutely uninvolved in the politics. Secularists are always driven by money.
Regardless, term limits are a must in any sort of democratic order.
Yes. I take the threat for corruption seriously in all forms, and therefore I tend to look at things on the basis of 'janitorial efficiency'. As I see it, between a corrupt monarch and a corrupt congress, it's a simpler matter to not only identify the corruption in one man, but also to depose one man, than to 'clean up' corruption in a bureaucracy. I mentioned in my first comment that once corruption ferments in a congress (especially in a multi-party system), it can be obfuscated by partisanship. Hands are always tied by the opposition of the other party.
Of course, the drawback to this is that monarchies can result in more unstable governments over time and problems with nepotism. It may be the case that a republic is superior, so let me say only in the most general way: smaller government is better than larger government. I'd take a union of states with governors initiated by the church in each state who participated within a larger parliamentary system to discuss national concerns, but I'd be strongly in support of the elimination of the fed.
End the fed, absolutely. And there are many who are more familiar with these matters than me who would say that "smallness of size" is a prerequisite to qualify as a republic to begin with.
but as an Eastern Orthodox rejects this model in its temporal-hierarchical manifestation where the Church Herself is concerned, since he rejects the Papacy
Yeah, this is correct; my belief is that the throne occupied by the Pope is only rightly occupied by Christ Himself. Obviously we differ on this particular issue, and I doubt it’s going to get resolved by a couple dudes on POAL. So I’d just as soon point to it and say, “there it is”, and then move on.
For all practical purposes, we’re saying about 99.9% percent the same thing, and I argue there’s more political benefit in this context to form a more unified front. We’ve got the first 999 steps shared before parting ways at the thousandth. I trust that uncompromising adherence to our respective Traditions are what’s called for. No need to lie about or cover it up, just no need to divide over it yet.
We both have much bigger problems in Christendom, than each other.
Christendom is being made a mockery of. I'd argue that the most important debate would be in the arguments to revitalize the "fear of God" and to spread His word to those who are welcoming to hear it. In many cases, people are curious and seek faith, but are bombarded by "feel good" liturgy and loose translations. This Judeo-christianity thing is a deception to pacify Christians and lead them away from the literal word. The "New Translation" is a weapon as well.
Politics is still interesting to debate though and the debate between the three systems is always fun. It's much more interesting than trump vs biden bullshit. It should be clear at this point left foot or right foot, we're walking down the same path regardless.
... but are bombarded by "feel good" liturgy and loose translations.
Tell me about it. When I first became a Trinitarian, I really appreciated “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards. I was new to Christianity, but I knew full well the fire-and-brimstone was a much more important message these days.
I no longer endorse Edwards as such as any authority, being now Orthodox. But the point still stands. People these days prefer having their ears tickled, over sound teaching. It artificially inflates the real numbers.
I have been thinking about Catholicism a great deal lately, and I am currently hung up a great deal on this pivotal point.
I'm not looking to start a "brother war", nor do I mean to apply undue emphasis to our differences. The demonic hold on this world, and its consequences, like widespread child sacrifice a la abortion, the rise of wiccans and other pagan occultisms, are obviously, in their own ways, more serious and pressing matters. But I cannot underemphasize the significance of these differences either; I can't pretend that the filioque or the principle of the papacy itself is dismissable as a kind of Scholastic reductio ad absurdem. As 's reply to your comment here shows, these issues are pivotal, because having a clear position on them is the difference between the very faith one comes to accept, the very understanding one has of the Church, and therefore the ability to comprehend the world and history itself. And I don't presume to settle with finality the dispute between the Eastern orthodox and the Catholics (although I am of the view that an end to this schism will be involved in the final chapters of the end times), but I present my argument for consideration because these issues are nonetheless important.
The Catholic Church does not claim that the Pope is the true head of the Church; if it did, you would be entirely correct to reject such a claim. 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.
We have spent months discussing God and Creation; dualism and non-dualism; being and nothingness; cause and effect; existence and relation; transcendence and immanence; contingency and necessity. Creation, as such, is contingent on God, not necessary. Nevertheless, God willed to create. God alone possesses aseity; He alone is entirely self-sufficient, self-sustaining, self-justifying. He did not need to create; but create He did. It is an indisputable consequence of rational consideration and the teachings of both of our traditions (which, I'll remind you, are united for most of their history, and particularly at the most crucial point of their history, namely, the beginning) that God wills to accomplish His will through His creatures. He could have just Incarnated Himself as an adult man, but He willed to be born through Mary. He could have started with the Incarnation and skipped the whole Old Law, but He willed to prepare man for His coming, because it was His intention not to use His power to directly reveal Himself to each soul throughout time, but rather He wanted man to come to Him through the beauty of nature, and the cohesion of history, and the insights of prophecy, and the charity of our neighbours. Why create at all if these things cannot be accomplished through the creation?
So why, then, should we expect God to work through His creatures in all these ways, but fail to do so with respect to the temporal aspect of His very own Church, specifically its Militant dimension - its section still warring for salvation within time against the spirit of the world. Christ is always and at all times the true and eternal head of the Church, and no Pope replaces Christ in this role. But there are certain, very important responsibilities that only the head can reasonably accomplish - and rather than burden Himself with the responsibility of intervening in history each time such a responsibility needed to be acted on, Christ willed, in His wisdom, to establish His Church on a rock in time, and that rock is Peter. That's what Peter (petros) means!. Simon became Peter because Christ founded His Church on this temporal man and gave the keys to heaven itself to this man in history. And insofar as these keys were given to a man within time, they must be passed on in time, until time comes to an end.
The Bible was canonized in the late fourth century, and this could only be done by the authority of the Church. The ecumenical councils anathematized heresies that would otherwise have led poor souls astray, even to damnation, and clarified the Church's doctrines; this could only be done with the authority of the Church. But these decisions, these councils, all of these important actions were done under the authority or ratification of the reigning Pope, the temporal head of the Church at any given time.
I already spent the time back on Voat trying to convince that the Eastern Church fathers (within our shared tradition) are as unambiguous as the Western Church fathers in their affirmation of the supremacy of Peter. This cannot be dismissed as a "first among equals" situation, however true semantically it might be that they are equal insofar as they are all bishops, the point remains that it is Peter that has final say, it is Peter that declares with ultimate authority and finality what is or isn't doctrine, and without this Papal seal there can be no certainty among the faithful.
St. John Chrysostom:
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). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
Our Lord Jesus Christ then became a man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled the disciples, He asked, 'Whom do men say that the Son of man is?' ...And all being silent (for it was beyond man to learn) Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using the language of his own finding, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says to Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' not simply that, but 'the Son of the living God.' (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)
Citing Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople:
Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)
Emperor Justinian:
Writing to the Pope: Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).
St. Maximus the Confessor:
The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
He suffers him no longer to be called Simon, exercising authority and rule over him already having become His own. By a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word 'petra' (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church. (Cyril, T. iv. Comm. in Joan., p. 131)
The list of examples if far too extensive to fully provide. Just do some research yourself; that the See of Peter (Rome) was recognized universally in the Church, East and West, as supreme, and that all declarations required the consent of that See to "count", is inescapable - it just is the tradition. The Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the Church of the Seven Councils. What differentiates those seven councils from other early councils in the Church? Those seven are the ones the Pope ratified.
The Eastern fathers and saints even have a tendency to refer to Peter endearingly as Coryphaeus - leader, spokesperson. They understood that Peter was merely temporal head; they would never speak a single word against the Highest See in the Church, Rome.
.
Christ founds the Church on the rock of Peter and gives to him the keys to heaven - :
18 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.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Peter denies Christ thrice, as Christ predicted - :
69 But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.
70 But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.
71 And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
72 And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man.
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
74 Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.
Christ has Peter affirm His love for Him thrice, undoing the denial, and then Christ asks Peter, specifically, to feed His sheep - :
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
These Scriptures cannot be read without recognizing a more than superficial supremacy to Peter's Apostleship. As one of the Eastern saints above noted, Paul went to Peter for a reason. The Western fathers recognized this, the Eastern fathers recognized this; it is God's will - to not recognize this, I am sorry to say, is to be in schism with God's Church, and it is because that this is not an insignificant thing that I aim to fraternally correct those lovers of Christ who have ceased to recognize this truth.
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).
Yeah, I’m aware of all of that, but the problem I have with the contemporary Roman understanding of the Papacy is that all of those evidences are being used to justify the Supremacy of a Secular State, which is what the Vatican City-State is.
I believe all of that is recognition that Rome holds a special place, being as it is the Capital City. And I’m still in Communion with Rome for the first thousand years. My argument is that the current Papacy is a distortion and misapplication of what Christ had in mind.
I’m aware of the evidence; it’s a difference of interpretation and applicability.
(post is archived)