| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Peter answered him, "You are the Messiah."; "tu es Petrus".... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 13. September 2009, 19:51 (1,698 Views) | |
| Gerard | Monday, 14. September 2009, 08:18 Post #16 |
|
Its a good question and I haven't the foggiest what the answer is. I know its a good question because a couple of people have asked me this question this week. Ordinary, faithful, catholics - just wondering why. My guess - and I emphasise its no more than a guess - is that Mark either didnt know about it or left it out because it wasnt central to the picture he was painting (or the theological theme he was developing). One might speculate that Mark got his information from Peter and Peter couldnt bring himself to blow his own trumpet. The current view is that Mark wrote his gospel first and Matthew used Mark as a sourse and adds to it. But Matthew (or the school of Matthew) was there, knew about it, and had no such difficulty passing on the information. Indeed the picture Matthew was painting (or the theology he was developing) emphasised the point. I was hoping - someone else might come up with a good commentary. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Monday, 14. September 2009, 08:26.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
 |
|
| Powerofone | Monday, 14. September 2009, 19:41 Post #17 |
|
So was I.  In my view, the idea that Mark, at Peter's request, would have suppressed the Petrine verses out of modesty seems unlikely. Modesty was not the issue here, but theology to counter the growing threat from heretics who were, even at that early date, putting out their own "spin". I agree with O'Ratty when he says, "There are loads of such anomalies in the synoptic Gospels.". And his explanation of the synoptic gospels is fine too. However, I'd like to know more about the "anachronism". Is this an O'R speculation or a fact? Edited by Powerofone, Monday, 14. September 2009, 19:44.
|
|
|
|
| O'Ratty | Monday, 14. September 2009, 20:37 Post #18 |
|
Power, I was very interested in your citation of the inscription around the central dome of (new, counter-Reformation) St Peter's at the beginnning of the thread. I've often thought about this myself - the crowning manifestation, as it were, of what I called the "appropriation" of this text by the Bishops of Rome. We, who were brought up identifying Peter with the Pope cannot imagine reading the verse in any other way. Speaking for myself, I had only to read Tu es petrus... for the image of that dome, that baldochino, to present itself instantly to my imagination. At the time of the writing of the Acts of the Apostles, however, the "Mother Church" "presiding in love" is clearly the Church of Jerusalem. One hundred and fifty years later (post-Titus) St Irenaeus of Lyons (Greek bishop, Latin see) records his account of the Roman Primacy, in which he makes no mention at all of the Bishop of Rome succeeding exclusively to any kind of "Petrine office"; the Church of Rome enjoys a primacy of honour on account of being at the administrative centre of the oikoumene, in consideration of its record hitherto of doctrinal conservatism, and the lustre conferred upon it by the martyrdoms of Peter AND Paul. He names St Linus as "the first Bishop of Rome" - quite correctly, since the Apostles were not "bishops OF" anywhere. Theirs was a unique, unrepeatable ministry, exercised universally to the whole Church. They appointed bishops wherever they went, but none was considered to have received anything other than the one episcopate of Christ, exercised in solidum (St Cyprian), equally and without distinction, by all. Most of the Fathers understand the super hanc petram to refer to Peter's confession - not his person, far less any suggestion of a distinct, transmissible, "personal" charism. It's another several centuries before that gets going in good earnest. Edited by O'Ratty, Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 18:37.
|
|
Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything. - St. Gregory of Nyssa | |
|
|
|
| KatyA | Monday, 14. September 2009, 23:41 Post #19 |
|
Administrator
|
The first 12 chapters of Acts describe the Church in Jerusalem and show Peter in a leadership position, James appears only briefly and not in a leadership role. Peter led the meeting to elect the successor to Judas, he preached the first sermon at Pentecost and received the first converts. He performed the first miracle after Pentecost, inflicted the first punishment(Ananias& Saphira) and excommunicated the first heretic (Simon the magician) He first admitted Gentile converts and commanded tem to be baptised. At the Council of Jerusalem, called by Paul, Peter made the decisive pronouncement which quelled the debate. Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. In 80 AD, at which time the last of the apostles, John, was still alive in Ephesus, the fourth bishop of Rome,Clement I, was called upon to settle the dispute at Corinth. Pope Clement I
All of which would suggest that the early Church accepted that Peter was the head and that his successors continued to hold the keys KatyA |
  | |
|
|
|
| O'Ratty | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 06:32 Post #20 |
|
Nobody has ever doubted Peter's leadership role among the Apostles. It's simply not, and never has been, in question. The issue is how (and from when) this was taken to mean that the Bishop of Rome enjoys full and immediate jurisdiction over "every human creature" (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), and the exercise of personal infallibility (Vatican I). There is nothing in the letter of St Clement to suggest anything of the kind to someone not reading it anachronistically (i.e., under "that dome, that baldochino"). Again, nobody doubts Roman primacy/presidency in the first few centuries - but this was manifestly a ministry of witness, not jursidiction - and the reasons for it, as understood by the Church, are stated quite clearly by St Irenaeus. He makes no mention at all of the Bishop of Rome succeeding to a unique, personal charism. See also Matthew 18:18
Acts 15:6-21. It is clearly James, head of the Church of Jerusalem, who presides at the Council of Jerusalem, and it is James who "judges" the deliberations (v.19). Edited by O'Ratty, Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 07:07.
|
|
Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything. - St. Gregory of Nyssa | |
|
|
|
| Richard Hannay. | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 07:21 Post #21 |
|
James the less may have chaired the Council of Jerusalem but that does not detract from the authority of Peter. It is not uncommon for a senior person to allow a meeting to be chaired by a subordinate because it gives the senior person greater freedom to speak to a particular issue whereas the chairman should remain balanced and "Chair" the discussion. In the House of Commons for example the Prime Minister out ranks the speaker in the government of the country but not within the chamber. At least that is my understanding. I do think that the confusions between Temporal and Spiritual power have caused the role of Peter to be expanded and embellished beyond the role that Peter would have exorcised and the legitimacy of some of the roles assumed is open to interpretation. What I think is that the Spiritual and therefore theological and doctrinal role of Peter is absolute, "tu es Petrus" but how he exercises that authority is also a matter of debate, should he be the commander who dictates orders or the manager (for want of a better phrase) who leads by consensus. The thing about a manager though is that things can become static and inflexible, sometimes one needs decisive and bold steps that do not fit the current plan and a committee would take to long to deliberate but what of the command model. It is more flexible but if the commander acts rashly and does not inspire people he can come to a very sticky end. There are merits in both and a wise leader should make use of the strengths of both and to do that requires ultimate authority. "tu es Petrus" In the early church Peter’s position was secure but in later years his successors have not always felt so confident and so may have been less willing to delegate or trust subordinate councils and advisors. Such insecurities may have encouraged others to manipulate things to their own advantage and over the years inevitably some corruption and confusion of rolls has occurred. Does this wipe away the original commission of Peter or does it mean that the current Pope needs to reclaim and exercise the true purpose of that commission. To Lead the church in a hostile world, and to use a style of leadership that is most effective in this age, which I suspect would be more consensual than dictatorial. Edited by Richard Hannay., Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 07:23.
|
|
|
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 08:31 Post #22 |
|
I think the lack of a commentary upon why Matthew included it and Mark not may have something to do with a desire not to find oneself atop a bonfire. But, one of the benefits of a good question and a discussion like this is to make one think. It occurred to look more into what kind of story (theology) Mark and Matthew each set out to write. Mark presents the Jesus as action man, fast paced, signs and wonders thriller story. So a slow bit of dialogue with some clever word play just didnt suit the thrust. He was content to have Peter as spokesman and obvious leader and move on to the next scene. Matthew is the theologan trying to convince the savvy and highly religious Jewish population that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Church is the New Israel - hence some slow dialogue with clever word play and deeply significant meaning - is definitely going to be included. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
|
|
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 08:35 Post #23 |
|
O'Ratty, Richard, KatyA, It is not an accident that immediately after Jesus gives Peter the office of leader - Peter gets it spectacularly wrong. (And I bet there were very few sermons on that aspect on Sunday !!) Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 09:42 Post #24 |
|
I have enjoyed these posts. It is fascinating to consider the theories about this and to make a speculative stab at what really happened. And I can see that it might have been vital to show continuity in the early fight to convince sceptics and others. In present day terms does it matter? The Church's body of teaching and faith is there for everyone to see and to make their own judgement. I think this is good enough and I don't think it depends on historical links. John |
|
|
|
| KatyA | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 11:54 Post #25 |
|
Administrator
|
Actually, our PP gave a (quite short) sermon on just that aspect. If Peter could fail so spectacularly- there's hope for all of us. Katy |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Anne-Marie | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 12:33 Post #26 |
|
Oi... That's my line!!!  I've often said that in my worst moments, I have only to think of Peter and Mary of Magdala to realise that if there's hope for the likes of them... There simply has to be hope for the rest of us! 
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
|
|
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 16:43 Post #27 |
|
KataA I didnt say "fail" I said "wrong". Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
|
|
|
| pete | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 16:47 Post #28 |
|
Should we not regard the Disciples of Christ as the embryo of our faith? The Sacred genes of Christ in the form of His impeccable examples and words were even beyond Peter’s ability to duplicate. As this embryo grew in strength and numbers, Peter undoubtedly was considered by all to be Christ’s appointed candidate for the newly established “Church”. So it is today, Peter’s successors some saintly, some not so, several contaminated by greed and the evil politics of the day. Even so, they sat in Peter’s Chair and God did not intervene, God has time on His side, mortals’ do not. The Church too has time, that’s a promise from its founder, “I am with you to the end of time” |
|
|
| O'Ratty | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 17:21 Post #29 |
|
The "Petrine" text which some scholars believe to be a later addition (though not much later) is the 21st chapter of John's Gospel. In the 20th Chapter, following the Lord's appearance to Thomas ("Blessed are those who have not seen, and have yet believed") the 30th verse is clearly intended to be a kind of coda, or winding up. The "extra chapter", concerned with Peter's rehabilitation as leader of the 12, is believed to have been appended to dispel doubts on the point among some early converts.
Here the Orthodox would definitely part company with you. We certainly do not believe that the scripture or the patristic witness would in any way support such a claim of "absolute" authority for Peter himself, far less for the Pope. It's very interesting debating this fundamental point of difference between Catholics and Orthodox. For the former, one has only to establish "X" in relation to the Apostle Peter, in order to establish "X" equally in respect of the Bishop of Rome. That "Peter" and "The Pope" are "ontologically" identical is something you simply take for granted (that dome, that baldachino...). So when, for example, doubt is expressed from whatever quarter on Papal authority, the immediate response is to demonstrate Peter's undoubted leadership among the Apostles; or references are offered demonstrating the primacy of the Roman Church in the early centuries, as though this was something identical in kind to what began to be asserted subsequently about the Pope, reaching its culmination in the definitions of Vatican I. Orthodoxy recognises Peter's unique role among the apostles. Orthodoxy recognises the primacy/presidency of the Roman Church in the early centuries - but demonstrating those two things has nothing whatever to do with what was asserted at Vatican I! We simply don't believe that this identification of the Bishop of Rome with St Peter, as his unique "successor", is any part of the authentic Tradition - the Tradition which was once also yours! And the Roman Primacy, far from being the concrete expression of Tu es Petrus..., was simply a human institution, useful to the Church as long as Rome remained Orthodox, but in no way part of her divine constitution as received from the Lord. In short, the Eastern, Orthodox Tradition knows nothing of the Roman Bishop succeeding to particular gifts denied to every other bishop, guaranteeing his personal freedom from errors in faith or morals. It has never understood him to be "Peter's successor" in any sense other than that according to which every Christian who answers the Lord's question "Who do you say that I am?" with Peter's confession "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" is also a successor of Peter, standing upon the the same Rock. Edited by O'Ratty, Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 18:50.
|
|
Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything. - St. Gregory of Nyssa | |
|
|
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 15. September 2009, 18:22 Post #30 |
|
O'Ratty But surely Peter was given the keys (Ch 16), whereas the other apostles were not (Ch 18). Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » | |
7:35 PM Nov 25