 |
 |
[1] Cardinal Ratzinger, "Crisis in Catechetics," Canadian Catholic Review, June 1983, p 8/178. Cardinal Ratzinger, like Yves Congar, is a proponent of the material sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible is the written testimony of the Apostles; it is an icon of Jesus Christ the Eternal Word of God.
[2] We should all expect similarities. After all, both Peter and Jude, for example, are Apostles of Jesus or members of "the Twelve." The question is whether or not this particular member of the Twelve is ever set apart or distinguished with a unique role as well as the one they have in common.
[3] This count should include all uses of "Peter" and "Cephas," and many uses of "Simon."
[4] Counts of Paul's name should include his other name, "Saul." Paul would take second place in this kind of count.
[5] Protos, the same word used in Matthew 20:27.
[6] Vladimir Soloviev called this Peter's first dogmatic decree. Russia and the Universal Church (London: Geoffrey Bles; 1948), 97.
[7] Many Church Fathers refer to more than one thing as the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 (e.g. Peter, Peter's faith or confession, Christ), because the Church Fathers rightly believed that Scripture may have more than one level of meaning or more than one sense (the Catechism of the Catholic Church does the same). Thus, when Luther argued that the Church Fathers also called Peter's confession the "rock," Eck, his Catholic debating opponent, said Catholics never denied that Peter's confession is rightly called "rock"! What Catholics oppose are interpretations which exclude the understanding that Peter is the rock, especially on the primary, literal level of the text. C.f. "James White vs. Jesus, Peter, & the Keys" by David Palm.
[8] This is a Jewish religious term, literally meaning "prohibiting and permitting," for the authority to interpret (and thereby subject people to or free people from) laws and traditions (halakhah).
[9] E.g. Frank Schaeffer, Dancing Alone (Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press; 1994), 151-152.
[10] This idea is not entirely foreign to the modern mind. England used to be governed in a similar fashion, and even the American president has a "cabinet."
[11] It is worthy to note here that "Pope" means "father."
[12] The verb usually translated "tend" in John 21 is the same word translated as "rule" in Revelation 19:15.
[13] "God allowed [Peter] to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world, that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future." St. John Chrysostom, quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys (Santa Barbara, California: Queenship; 1996), 282-283.
[14] Some have argued that this passage merely "reinstates" Peter to the same position all the Apostles shared before his threefold denial. This argument does not hold water. Most of the Apostles made themselves scarce during Jesus' passion, and one doubted after His resurrection (John 20:25-29), but none of the others are taken aside and "reinstated" with an explicit personal charge to govern Jesus' sheep.
[15] There is a big difference between saying "you're a good man, Charlie Brown" and "govern my sheep."
[16] At this point John Henry Cardinal Newman's An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, with particular emphasis on chapter 4 section 3 "The Papal Supremacy," is recommended reading. Newman explains clearly how the papacy, promised by Jesus Christ in Scripture, developed (without essential change) over time, because "No doctrine is defined until it is violated." Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (Notre Dame, Illinois: University of Notre Dame Press; 1990). Legitimate development cannot be likened to "changes" that are actually "breaks."
[17] Arians of old sought to prove their christology from the Bible, and modern Arians (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) do the same.
[18] Quoted in Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (San Diego: Basilica Press; 1966), 383.
[19] Quoted in Jesus, Peter, & the Keys, 224.
[20] Ibid., 227-230.
[21] Ibid., 311.
[22] Ibid., 234-235.
[23] Ibid., 235-236.
[24] Ibid., 236.
[25] Ibid., 241.
[26] Ibid., 245.
[27] Ibid., 294.
[28] Ibid., 316.
[29] Ibid., 273.
[30] Ibid., 275.
[31] E.g. phrases like "Ruler of the world," "rudder of all the Church," and "teacher of laws for preserving the purity of the faith" are more "functional" than "decorative."
[32] With regards to the idea of a "primacy of honor," Fr. Alexey Young, Catholic opponent, wrote: "What did it mean, practically speaking, for the Bishop of Rome to hold a 'primacy of honor'? It was largely of symbolic value. It meant simply that at ecumenical gatherings of the Church the Bishop of Rome could, if he wished, preside over the meetings, holding the center place. But he was never at any time accorded any rights or powers over the entire Church [prior to the East/West Schism]," (The Rush to Embrace [Richfield Springs, New York: Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society; 1997], 17; emphasis added). On the same page, Fr. Young asserts that the "primacy of honor" is itself based only on the fact that Rome was once an imperial capital. How are Fr. Young's assertions reconciled with the testimony of St. Maximos, "from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church [of Rome] alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of 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"? It is the figurehead at the prow, not the rudder of a ship, which is merely symbolic. Fr. Young's assertions do not take into account the actual words of the witnesses.
| ||||