The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant), Part II
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
See Part One. "Protestant Scholar"'s words will be in green. My previous words will be in purple.
>The majority of what is written is your blog entry is not a problem for Protestants. That is why you can quote a number of Protestant scholars that agree with most of your statements. For example the following:
1. Jesus gives Peter authority
2. The giving of the keys represent ecclesiastical authority
3. The authority is to declare what is right and wrong.
4. Isaiah 22:22 is in view
5. Peter has a primacy and is considered a leader.
I’m not sure why you think this is necessarily something that Protestants should interact when many would say, “Amen”.
This evidence is perfectly consistent with a primitive papacy which would develop just as every other doctrine developed. It (among much more biblical evidence) proves that Peter was the leader of the apostles and had extraordinary authority. No such person exists in the Protestant world today. Therefore, Catholicism is following the biblical model in this regard far more than any brand of Protestantism. Ironic, isn't it? But then Protestants have ruled out any definitive biblical teaching on ecclesiology and Church government (and have never resolved their own eternal differences in that regard). We think the Bible is much more perspicuous and practically helpful as a guide than that.
>The point you must argue exegetically and quote Protestant scholars agreeing with you is that this establishes a Papacy with a line of succession flowing only through Peter and Peter only is given this authority.
That is a deductive argument, and I wouldn't expect Protestants to agree with it (nor do I assert that they do) because they obviously don't accept those notions (being Protestant). Though deductive, this is also a biblical argument with a fair degree of evidence in its favor. We can establish apostolic succession itself from the Bible. The apostles were to be succeeded by the bishops, and they passed down their office to priests and other bishops, through succession. This is thoroughly established in early tradition:
Now, since there was a strong leader among the first disciples and we have all this biblical indication of how much say and power he had, it follows that Jesus (Who gave Peter the keys) set up this system of government in perpetuity for the Church. It makes no sense for one state of affairs to hold for the earliest Christians, and then another, or many, for later ones. So if Peter was the leader, then his successors would also be. Peter died in Rome; thus the Roman bishops were considered to be his successors. And they received his charism as earthly head of the Church.
I don't trust [William] Webster for the time of day. I've refuted him in depth twice and he is very unreliable in historical matters, especially concerning factuality.
>So are you insinuating that these quotes may not be totally accurate or flat out untrue?
No; what I am suggesting is that one can't trust Webster for a dispassionate presentation of patristic views, because he picks and chooses and is highly selective in what he presents, and he dopesn't know how to properly interpret the overall picture. He doesn't have a clue (sad to say) about development of doctrine, either. He has demonstrated that time and again and has been soundly refuted by many folks (myself, Steve Ray, and others).
You think otherwise? Very well, then, please write to Webster or give him a call and urge him to respond to my two lengthy, devastating refutations of his work that he has completely ignored (what else is new with anti-Catholics? — the same old story. If you can't "beat 'em", flee for the hills and make yourself scarce . . . ).
Or do you think that he couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't waste time with my stuff because it was worthless and had no substance? If so, then why are you here dealing with it (albeit most inadequately)?
>These are quotes from the fathers so on what basis do you not trust them?
It's not the quotes themselves, but the above factors that I have a problem with. Webster has proven himself untrustworthy as an amateur scholar. So one cannot go by what he presents, as if that is the whole picture.
Besides, the argument does not require agreement from absolutely every Father. Nor do we have to have the same biblical arguments being offered by them in order for the papacy to be a legitimate office. We would fully expect there to be differences in the early stages, just as there were, e.g., on the biblical canon. "Unanimous consent" does not mean "absolutely every one" as we often assume today. One has to understand exactly what the Latin term this comes from, meant.
>Yes, but you have prove nothing exegetically that demands a refutation. On the contrary what demands your attention is the present day Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 in comparison to the mind of the fathers.
It's very funny to me that Protestants invariably demand biblical, exegetical arguments for everything. So we give them that for most of our doctrines (some like the Assumption have only scant biblical indication, but not none). But then the biblical argument is ignored or largely ignored, or minimized and dismissed (as you have done), and (irony of ironies) the Protestant then appeals to the Fathers, as if they disprove Catholic doctrine.
Or if Protestant scholars are appealed to in particulars (as I have done), then the Protestant will attempt to put the Fathers against them. It's always highly interesting (and sometimes amusing) to watch Protestants trying to use the Fathers to disprove Catholic distinctives or to prove Protestant distinctives. Talk about an uphill battle! . . . it's like trying to singlehandedly push a grand piano (with no little wheels on its legs) up a steep slope.
The Fathers offer overwhelming support for the papacy, not in every particular, or with absolute unanimity (no doctrine has that — not in every particular), but with enough consensus that one cannot fail to be struck (and I would say, complelled) by it.
But you have dismissed all of my citations as not proving anything with regard to a strong papacy. This is untrue. These scholars show that Peter had an extraordinary authority which is quite suggestive of the pope as head of the church (especially at that very early stage of its development). Here are samples from my post:
1) "So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God'"
2) In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: epitropos (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and oikonomos (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent — from oikos ('house') and nemo ('to dispense' or 'to manage').
[as this is applied to Peter, clearly, he is "over" the Church and is its guardian, superintendent, and manager, since he was given the "keys of the kingdom" and since Jesus said He would build His Church upon Peter as the Rock. What more needs to be proven, as to the papacy? I find this to be very strong biblical data indeed]
But it's best for you to ignore all that and pass the whole thing off as of no significance, huh? Nice technique, but it is inadequate and does not disprove my argument in the slightest. It's merely another evasive technique.
3)
1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt}
[established through cross-referencing to the OT concept. These terms, then, would apply to Peter vis-a-vis the Church at large]
4) In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut.
[Wow; and this was written by a Methodist: Adam Clarke. He doesn't follow through with the obvious implications at all, but what else is new in Protestant exegesis of "Catholic verses" — the topic of my latest book: The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants]
5) Godward he is called 'my servant' (v.20; cf. 'this steward', v.15); manward, he will be 'a father' to his community (v.21) . . . The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override.
[The analogy, of course, is to God being the king, and Peter being His vice-regent or steward of the Church. No one can override his decisions except God Himself. That being the case, clearly God would protect his steward so he didn't make a decision contrary to the divine will — lest man could override His will and corrupt His Church (which He already promised could not happen). And hence we arrive right at the notion of infallibility]
6) Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent.
7) Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.
8) In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . .
9) So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.
10) So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.
