"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.
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.
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.
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.
Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.
As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.
So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.
It’s that the rejection of Papism is enshrined within the Lives of the Orthodox Saints.
Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?
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.
I think this kind of claim bespeaks ignorance of the Catholic saints.
It’s like, I’d say virtually the same thing to an Orthodox Christian if they start feeling the pull of Papism.
What one would say is irrelevant; what the Tradition teaches is what counts. There is an hermeneutic continuity from the days of our shared Tradition to the Catholic modern day, and there is an hermeneutic rupture from that same starting point to the Orthodox modern day. The early saints spoke of Peter's primacy with reference to his living successor. Modern Orthodox speak of his living successor without recognizing this primacy. That is a rupture - a schism.
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.
I am merely pointing out the reality of this agreement, and the consequences of affirming what in this case is agreed upon. My reference to the diverse heresies was meant to apply only to the Protestants. The fact is that this agreement is factual; whether modern Protestants spend time thinking about the Pope or nor is not relevant; the point is that their heresy could not have gained momentum without men like Luther or Calvin first denying Rome - and my argument is that, while the East is only guilty of schism, not heresy, this schism is enabled by the same rejection that enabled the Protestant heresies, and so on those grounds I feel it is relevant to point this out.
And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.
(post is archived)