Examining Roman Catholicism

What follows are two emails I sent off in their entirety. I've realized that we've just given them far too much leeway with their interpretations of things, and the only way to examine their claims is challenge them to support it.

Email 1 - following up on Tuesday's discussion on what tradition is and what it means.

Hey all -

Thanks for the conversation. As usual, I'm glad to know that we're able to have an open and honest conversation, even though the spiritual distance between us (among us?) is huge.

If I understand Charlie correctly, he pointed out that the Protestant faith was viciously circular whereas the Catholic one was circular, but better grounded.

Protestant circle (from my view): God inspired Scriptures testify that they're God inspired and sufficient.

Yes, I need to sustain that, and Lord willing, that email (essentially responding to George's earlier email on 2 Timothy 3) will come soon. Personally, I see nothing wrong with such a circle.

Catholic circle: 1. Historically reliable documents testify to Christ. 2. Christ testifies to the Pope and the Church 3.Church testifies to the infallibility of Scriptures and itself.

(of course, I think I can be clearer on what you mean by "Church" but permit me that loose summary)

I can concede 1, but 2 entails a claim that you can prove the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope/Church as well as apostolic succession from Scripture. Matthew 16 is a step in that direction, and I need to respond to that email as well, but even if we concede that Jesus is making Peter infallible, why apostolic succession? And why an infallible teaching office? You need to establish that from Scripture (as you claim).

Along with that, your view needs to be consistent with the view of the "general consent of the Church Fathers" (I believe you used that term). As ambiguous as that sounds, I think it is reasonable for you to demonstrate explicitly that the early Church held the same exact view you hold now (or at least, a simpler version of it).

To satisfy that, I think you need to establish two things that are reasonable if such a claim is to be considered:

Primarily, we must find them appealing to an infallible teaching authority in addition to appealing to Scripture to settle doctrinal disputes in the Early Church. The quotations previously provided do seem relevant, but you need to establish that they speak of tradition in the same way that you do, which I'm not entirely convinced. Surely with all the early heresies being fought, this must have happened all the time. "No, you Arians are wrong because we have the infallible testimony of (insert Pope here)"

Secondly, this idea of an infallible Apostolic tradition is continually appealed to. If this tradition exists and is closed like you say, then in order for the Church to be a servant of Tradition and Scripture as they say, they must back up their doctrines with references to Tradition and Scripture. Namely, "The Assumption of Mary is true because of this verse in the Bible, and these words from the Apostle Peter which were not recorded but handed on orally" Can Rome produce the oral tradition to support its arguments? Or do we fall into the same sized circle that you claim Protestants fall into of "It's tradition, because the Church said so, and the Church says it because it's tradition"

Now, I have no problems embracing the circle, as ultimately all arguments are circular, and to base my faith in the inspired Word of God on something less than the inspired Word of God is to weaken the Word of God.

So, in summary I would like -

Exegesis of relevant passages establishing

1) Primacy of the Peter over all Christendom.
2) Establishment of the office of the Pope, complete with the chaism (is that spelled right?) of infalliblity along with apostolic succession

As the claim is also that this is the general consensus of the Early Church, you need:

A number of testimonies appealing to the authority of the church as infallible to establish doctrine. I've looked at the quotations and I find them wanting, or at least they need to be set in context more for me to accept them.

Statements along the lines of, "This was what Peter said to us... and that proves..." from ECF where the statement from Peter is not something in Scripture.

~~~~

Quotations from ECF implying they believe in Sola Scriptura to come. Thanks much. Next Tuesday again? Maybe we can talk on something more explicit... Faith Alone?

Email 2 - responding to a response to my request for information regarding the RC interpretation of Matthew 16

On 4/19/07, Charles F. Capps <ccapps@stanford.edu > wrote:

Hey Mickey,

You asked me to supply scholarly evidence for my claims about the office of the prime minister / chief steward in Jewish political culture and how it relates to the keys of the kingdom mentioned in Mt 16:19, Is 22:22 and Rev 3:7. I checked out a handful of books from Green, mostly studies on Isaiah, that contain information about the historical setting of these verses, and I've transposed relevant quotes and bibliographical information below.

Oh wow, thanks much. And sorry for the late reply.

To refresh your memory, we are arguing that in giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, Jesus was making an unmistakable reference to the keys of the kingdom of David in Jewish politics, the same famous set of keys that appears in Is 22:22. These keys are held by the prime minister of the kingdom as a symbol of the power to lock/unlock (cf. bind/loose). Just as the command of the prime minister of the kingdom of David carried the authority of the king of the kingdom of David, the decree of the prime minister of the kingdom of heaven carries the authority of the King of Heaven.

We are _not_ arguing that everything the pope says is therefore infallible. We touched upon this over dinner. It is only when the pope speaks _as the holder of the keys_; i.e. only when he speaks _as the occupier of the office of prime minister of the kingdom of heaven_ that he speaks with Christ's authority. Catholics' technical term for this is the pope speaking _ex cathedra_ (from the Chair of Peter).

ok. Alright, but this certainly is quite the restriction upon the "keys" is it not? Say a prime minister makes a decree. Does he have to preface his decree with a "I am prime minister right now, so I say this"? Or do his decrees have authority because he's prime minister, whether he states it or not?

In my readings, I've also come across this statement by Pope John Paul II, who saw the powers much broader (and, I would argue, more consistently) as applying even when the charism of infallibility is not invoked.

In Pope John Paul II's statement to the staff of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (English translation from "Inside the Vatican" (January 1996), p.13), referenced in The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White (footnote 27) italics added by myself

It is not possible, however, to overlook one of the decisive aspects that lies at the base of the malaise and uneasiness in certain parts of the ecclesiastical world: it is a question of the way authority is conceived. In the case of the Magisterium, authority is not exercised only when the charism of infallibility is invoked; its exercise has a wider field, which is required by the appropriate defense of the revealed deposit.

For a community based on shared adherence to the Word of God and on the resulting certainty of living in the truth, authority for determining the content to be believed and professed is something that cannot be renounced ... However, this does not entitle one to hold that the pronouncements and doctrinal decisions of the Magisterium call for irrevocable assent only when it states them in a solemn judgment or definitive act, and that, consequently, in all other cases one need only consider the arguments or reasons employed.

Of course, I guess he wasn't stating that from an infallible position, so maybe the point is completely irrelevant. But if that's the case, then someone with the keys doesn't understand the keys themselves, which makes you really wonder.

There's one thing I should note before moving on to the quotes: one of the things I remember reading from Catholic apologists is that the prime minister of Judah would serve as a representative of the king with the king's full authority especially during the king's absence. For instance, Mark Bonocore states (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num18.htm):

"So, Peter's primal authority (symbolized by the Keys) is manifested from the time of Jesus' Ascension onward. Just like the OT prime minister of the Kingdom, Peter can only act with the King's authority in the King's physical absence."

I did not find anything to this effect in the brief bit of researching I did today. It is possible our apologists have been sort of exaggerated the historical force "the office of prime minister is particularly relevant during the king's absence" facet of the argument, although I doubt it because I have not extensively investigated their sources. I still thought I should mention the fact that I have not found anything to corroborate such a claim, however, seeing that I did appeal to it as fact on Tuesday.

Cool. Thanks for your honesty on this point, it is much appreciated.

*quotations which all seem to be fine, with which I pretty much all agree with are at the bottom for Ryan and George. *

So I agree that the passage teaches that Peter acts as a representative, with authority, similar to that of the prime minister, supreme rabbi, a chief steward... but I would also say the same for the other apostles, who are given the "binding and loosing" ability in Matthew 18.

I also note that in one of the quotations (Davies and Allison), the authority is explained as "binding and loosing" which is given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:15-20 (which sets this "binding and loosing" specifically within the church context, "two or three are gathered") and John 20:19-23 (where the language is similar, and it's explicitly with regards to forgiveness).

Now, I think the idea of a prime minister is certainly there. But, to take it back to the text, how does that determine papal infallibility? Certainly prime ministers make (and made) errors, sometimes they didn't act exactly as the king would have wanted to act, right? The text doesn't seem to lend itself to a distinction between the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

So, the follow up questions are:

where's the connection between Peter = prime minister and charism of infallibility?
How does this demonstrate a succession of Popes all with the same power as Peter?
Did the early church fathers believe (universal consent again) the same interpretation on this passage as the Roman Catholic Church now asserts?

Is 22:20-22:

20: In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,
21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Mt 16:18-19:

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Rev 3:7:

7: "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

-

And here is the scholarly support for our claims about the office of prime minister in the kingdom of David:

1. Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison, Jr. _A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Volume II_. Ed. J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

"…the major opinion of modern exegetes…has it that Peter, as a sort of supreme rabbi or prime minister of the kingdom, is in [Mt] 16:19 given teaching authority…This is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding." (p. 638)

Davies and Allison also quote the Epistle of Clement to James, 5 (which in turn is quoting St. Peter): "Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay my hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from beginning to end…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the rule of the Church."

2. Herbert, A. S. _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 1-39_. Ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, J. W. Packer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

"[with regard to Is 22:22] the key of the house of David: a symbol of full authority delegated by the king (cp. Matt 16:19; Rev. 3:7)."

3. Sweeney, Marvin A. _Isaiah 1-39_. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

"Shebna is identified as the chief steward of the Davidic house, a position that gives him authority to act on behalf of the king as well as supervision of the royal palace complex…" (p. 301).

4. Watts, John D. W. _Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 24: Isaiah 1-33_. Colombia: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2005.

"He [i.e. the prime minister] will make decisions that carry royal authority and can not be appealed." (p. 349)

"[The position of prime minister] must have been very much like that of a vizier in Egypt. 'All affairs of the land passed through his hands, all important documents received his seal, all the officials were under his orders. He really governed in Pharaoh's name…'" (p. 347)

5. Wildberger, Hans. _Isaiah 13-27_. Trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

"The power of the keys, which is given to Eliakim at this point, apparently goes far beyond the literal meaning; it means the overall responsibility and authority for the dynasty of the Davidic family, their possessions, and all their affairs." (p. 399)

Wildberger also notes that the Hebrew word for authority (I don't have a Hebrew font so I can't reproduce it here) that is used in Is 22:21 is the same word that "is used elsewhere when the full authority of the king is being discussed" (p. 398).

"Throughout the history of the church, Isa. 22:22 has played an even more important role elsewhere; this verse, significantly altered in Matt. 16:19, is used to paraphrase the full authority accorded to Peter: 'I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' This passage is quoted 'correctly' insofar as it is…directed towards Peter, who, one might say, is elevated to serve as the one in charge of the palace, the vizier of Christ, and as such is to carry on the affairs of his ascended Lord on earth…one must not overlook that the charge to Peter occurs within a tradition according to which the vizier of the king, in a most unique way, was granted expansive powers." (p. 402)

6. Wolf, Herbert M. _Interpreting Isaiah: The Suffering and Glory of the Messiah_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

"Eliakim's close relationship with the king is indicated by his holding the key to the house of David (v. 22). In many matters of government, Eliakim would have the final word because the king would delegate authority to him. The imagery of the key of David is applied to Christ in Revelation 3:7. On His shoulders will rest all the powers of government…" (p. 132)

7. See also http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg01345.html.

-

The books I found that seemed to deal most explicitly with the subject of the office of prime minister / chief steward in Jewish politics were unfortunately not in Stanford's library (all I found there, as you can tell, were books about Isaiah or Matthew). If you are not satisfied with the above sources, however, you might want to consider looking the following up: _The Royal Steward_ by H. J. Katzenstein and _Ancient Israel_ by R. de Vaux.

Hope this helps.

keep throwin',

Charlie