root@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (System Manager) (10/29/90)
As far as the meaning of the words: "... and upon this rock I shall build my church!", we must first pause to consider the fact that the Mission of Jesus was of a *spiritual* nature, and that His words therefore can best be grasped in their spiritual meaning. For example, "Unless a man be born again ...", "My kingdom is not of this world", "This generation shall not pass ...", "I am the resurrection ...", "Take up the cross (of truth) ...", as well as the meaning of many of His parables are all best understood in the spiritual sense. Thus, when Jesus spoke of the "rock", He was making simple reference to the *spiritual* form of the *conviction* which Peter expressed with his words: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" It was the conviction that was and is the rock, and not Peter himself in a personal sense, a was *interpreted* by Matthew, for instance. Peter was simply the first one to declare his conviction, and the response of Jesus was to indicate that the foundation for His Church *in the spiritual sense* was just this strong conviction about Jesus and His Message. Obviously, someone attaining to such a conviction would naturally then try to understand and live solely in accordance with the Word of Jesus, and thus receive the *key* to the Kingdom of Heaven. And those to whom Peter could later on mediate his conviction, would also therewith receive the same key. This process is a simple and natural spiritual happening, which is neither bound up with Peter, nor dependent upon him! He was simply the first one to state his conviction, and thereby elicit the explanation from Jesus. Thus, it is not correct to claim that a particular earthly church had been therewith founded by Jesus. Take His words in the spiritual sense, and you will find the right meaning, and not otherwise! The source of my knowledge is the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin, which is available to all serious seekers, and which is the sole authority for all questions of a spiritual nature! Best regards, Mark Sandrock
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (11/05/90)
In article <Oct.29.02.00.14.1990.14106@athos.rutgers.edu> root@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >As far as the meaning of the words: "... and upon this rock I shall build >my church!", we must first pause to consider the fact that the Mission of >Jesus was of a *spiritual* nature, and that His words therefore can best >be grasped in their spiritual meaning. >For example, "Unless a man be born again ...", "My kingdom is not of this >world", "This generation shall not pass ...", "I am the resurrection ...", >"Take up the cross (of truth) ...", as well as the meaning of many of His >parables are all best understood in the spiritual sense. I suspect that "spiritual" as you use the term here is equivalent to "figurative" in the literary sense. "Take up the cross" appears to be a figure of speech in which "cross" represents the burden of following Jesus and obeying his commandments. Many but not all of Jesus' sayings are of this nature. He often used the power of imagery to convey his message. I would however not put "My kingdom is not of this world" in the same category, I think he was saying that his Kingdom literally exists but in another world. This may appear to be nit-picking, but I think we can better understand Jesus' message if we are clear as to which sayings are literal, which are figurative, and which are both. Of course this is not always obvious to modern man so we are likely to disagree on some passages. Since I think spirits literally exist, I tend not to talk about "spiritual meanings." Spirit is literal and I think much of Jesus' reference to them is also literal. >Thus, when Jesus spoke of the "rock", He was making simple reference to the >*spiritual* form of the *conviction* which Peter expressed with his words: >"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!" From the footnotes in my Bible this is an interesting wordplay in the Greek (I don't know if anything similar held in the Aramaic which Jesus presumably spoke). Peter (Petros) is a small rock. The word translated "rock" upon which the church would be built is petra, bedrock. I offer the following loose translation based on that wordplay (and my totally non-existent knowledge of Greek): Peter: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus: That's right, and this was revealed to you by my Father in Heaven... You are a small rock, upon this bedrock I will build my church. Further, I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven so that whatever you bind (seal, covenant) on earth shall be bound and whatever you loose (break the seal or covenant) on earth will be loosed in heaven. >It was the conviction that was and is the rock, and not Peter himself in a >personal sense, a was *interpreted* by Matthew, for instance. Peter was >simply the first one to declare his conviction, and the response of Jesus >was to indicate that the foundation for His Church *in the spiritual sense* >was just this strong conviction about Jesus and His Message. Well, I think that the bedrock is the fact that, as Peter had just said, Jesus is the Son of God. His church would be built on his divine sonship. Peter, a small rock, would be part of the building. In fact he would be an important enough part that he would have the "keys of the kingdom" and be able to bind and loose on earth with those actions recognized in heaven. >Obviously, someone attaining to such a conviction would naturally then try >to understand and live solely in accordance with the Word of Jesus, and thus >receive the *key* to the Kingdom of Heaven. And those to whom Peter could >later on mediate his conviction, would also therewith receive the same key. Well, I think you are mislead by the difference in the use of keys today compared with in Jesus time. I think we need to consider the context of this passage, both textual and historical: Textually, Peter is given the keys in the context of being told he will be able to seal on earth and have it recognized in heaven. This sounds to me like he is to act as an agent for God, be in a position to represent God. It is similar to a lot of what goes on today, I can sign certain documents and it is just as though my employer had signed them. In some matters I can act as an agent for him. Later (Mat 18:18) the rest of the 12 were also told they would have this power but I find no evidence that it was to be extended to the church membership at large. Historically, 2000 years ago there were a lot of people with access to the master's house who did not have keys. Keys were large and bulky and locks were rare (probably not even used on the house but only on the treasury). The guy who carried the keys was probably the steward. He had charge of most of his master's affairs, probably including hiring, firing, and acting as paymaster. Giving somebody the keys implied giving him a *lot* of authority. >This process is a simple and natural spiritual happening, which is neither >bound up with Peter, nor dependent upon him! He was simply the first one to >state his conviction, and thereby elicit the explanation from Jesus. Of course it is not bound up with Peter any more than the function of a wealthy household 2000 years ago was dependent upon a particular steward. However such a household would have a steward and I think Jesus was here appointing someone to that position. >Thus, it is not correct to claim that a particular earthly church had been >therewith founded by Jesus. Take His words in the spiritual sense, and you >will find the right meaning, and not otherwise! I disagree. I think he did found a particular earthly church. (However, I do not think the Roman Catholic Church is that church.) >The source of my knowledge is the Grail Message, "In the Light of Truth", >by Abd-ru-shin, which is available to all serious seekers, and which is >the sole authority for all questions of a spiritual nature! Somehow I doubt you will find many who agree with this last paragraph. Most religious people prefer to regard either the cannon or the Holy Spirit as the final authority for spiritual questions. [This passage has been discussed before. Let me point out a couple of things: (1) footnotes about "rock" are sometimes attempts by Protestants to avoid the Catholic interpretation of this passage. Some Protestants have found themselves creating distinctions between different kinds of rock that probably have little real justification in the Greek. However admitting the plain meaning of the Greek does not immediately commit one to papal infallibility. There's a good deal of interpretation between this passage and Roman theories of papal authority. (2) The power of the keys has some background in Jewish discussions. It probably did have a specific ecclesiastical meaning. --clh]
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.5.05.06.54.1990.16060@athos.rutgers.edu>, hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: > [This passage has been discussed before. Let me point out a couple of > things: (1) footnotes about "rock" are sometimes attempts by > Protestants to avoid the Catholic interpretation of this passage. > Some Protestants have found themselves creating distinctions between > different kinds of rock that probably have little real justification > in the Greek. However admitting the plain meaning of the Greek does > not immediately commit one to papal infallibility. There's a good > deal of interpretation between this passage and Roman theories of > papal authority. In particular, it's worth noting that papal infallibility is a very recent doctrine. Formerly, the idea was that an ecumenical council could (by the grace of the Holy Spirit) discover what the truth was about a particular matter (such as the Trinity). {"Petra", by the way, can mean a large _detached_ rock, as the moderator says, it's hard to wring much out of the Greek here.} Wasn't it the 19th century when papal infallibility came in? As a Protestant, I don't actually have any difficulty believing that Peter was in effect the first bishop of Rome. He _was_ qualified for the job! There's a book "The Bones of St Peter"; they reckon they've found his actual grave. Could be. And let's face it, the truth of Christianity _was_ transmitted to Protestants through the church that was in communion with Rome. (If you've seen the Creed in a form that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father _and_ the Son, think about it. {The compromise formula worked out between Rome and the East is _through_ the Son.}) -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre. [While papal infallibility in its final form is recent, it is based on ideas that have a fairly long tradition. Some of the documents during the Reformation from the Catholic side come very close. The concept that the Church as a whole is infallible goes back to the early Fathers, based on the concept that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church. (Mat 16:18) Papal infallibility is really a development of that idea. It's not that the Pope in independently infallible, but that he embodies the infallibility that is inherent in the Church. (Though in it most recent definition, the Pope isn't required to consult anyone, and can make infallible definitions independently of anyone else's authority, it seems clear that he does this as a representative of the Church as a whole, and not as a matter of personal privilege.) While there's no question that the Pope's powers have tended to grow over time, you can find quite early statements (2nd Cent at least) that suggest a very special place for Rome and its bishop in the Church. That's not to say that I endorse the specific way this role has developed within the Roman Catholic tradition, nor do I agree with infallibility. But Protestants need to know that this isn't something that was came out of nowhere in the 19th Cent. --clh]
daved@westford.ccur.com (508-392-2990) (11/10/90)
Hi Chuck! :-) You noted, >(2) The power of the keys has some background in >Jewish discussions. It probably did have a specific ecclesiastical >meaning. --clh] I've never heard this before; do you have a citation handy? Thanks, Dave Davis [The New Jerusalem Bible footnote for Mt. 16:19 claims that "'bind' and 'loose' are technical rabbinic terms; primarily they have a disciplinary reference; one is 'bound' (condemned to) or 'loosed' (absolved from) excommunication. Their secondary usage is connected with doctrinal or juridical decisions. An opinion is 'bound' (forbidden) or 'loosed' (allowed)." The Anchor Bible commentary on Mt. does not mention this, but instead connects binding and loosing with symbols of secular authority. "Isa. 22:15ff [particularly 22:22 --clh] undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as "over the household" (II Kings xv 5). Significantly, the first Chaldean governor after the deportation of 586 B.C., Gedaliah, is given the same title on his official seal. It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed (cf. xviii 18; John xx 23) the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle. In John xx 23 the words are used of pardon, and in that context the Greek words luein and kratein derive from a secondary interpretation of Isaiah's Hebrew."
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (11/10/90)
Re: Richard A. O'Keefe In article <Nov.7.22.19.59.1990.16709@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In particular, it's worth noting that papal infallibility is a very >recent doctrine. Formerly, the idea was that an ecumenical council >could (by the grace of the Holy Spirit) discover what the truth was >about a particular matter (such as the Trinity). {"Petra", by the way, >can mean a large _detached_ rock, as the moderator says, it's hard to >wring much out of the Greek here.} Wasn't it the 19th century when >papal infallibility came in? Hi, Richard! Well... yes, and no. Yes, in the fact that "Papal Infallibility" was formally established (not quite "defined") as a *doctrine*... that which is taught. No, in the sense that Catholics believe that Papal Infallibility was ALWAYS the case, and that it was in 1870 (I *think* that was when Vatican I was held... can someone confirm or deny that? I misplaced my documentation... :( ) that this "truth" was *recognized* as being in need of formal, explicit declaration. Just as a note: "Papal Infallibility" is somewhat incomplete (No slam on you whatsoever, Richard... PLENTY of Catholics talk about it in the same way! :) ). The Church teaches (as clarified in Vatican II documents) that the ENTIRE body of Bishops is blessed with the ability to teach infallibly in matters of faith and morals; hence, the need for a consensus of Bishops for any assertion to be proclaimed infallible. In application, the Pope would not really be able to make such infallible proclamations with autonomy, though I suppose there is enough "legal wiggle-room" in the Vatican II documents to allow for it. It would be extremely awkward for the Pope to proclaim some statement, only to be discredited by the Bishops of the world (as would be the case of an obvious NON-infallible statement, such as a statement that went contrary to an explicit Law of God). (This might strike some as weird, that one would need a consensus to arrive at a Spirit-Given truth; one *possible* rationale is that the assembly of Bishops is not merely a democratic voting body, but a collection of believers who compare insights to make certain that personal thoughts are not intertwined in any given Bishop's assertions. As I say, I'm not fresh on the Vatican II justification of Bishop consensus... maybe someone (or I) can look into that...) The moderator adds: >[... While there's no question that the Pope's >powers have tended to grow over time, you can find quite early >statements (2nd Cent at least) that suggest a very special place for >Rome and its bishop in the Church. That's certainly true, though that may have been just fortunate happenstance (as far as Rome went; had Rome not been such a center of world affairs, a sort of Papacy might well have started in Jerusalem). Rome was influential in political and economic matters as well as religious matters (not so much Roman religion vs. Judeo-Christian religion, but influential in more indirect ways), and was therefore a likely candidate for religious focus. I merely wished to make the point that the Papacy's validity may not be solidly supported by any idea that Rome was endeared to the early Church. As an alternate possibility: it could have been that, in a world of more-or-less homogeneous political-economic influence, NO explicit center (other than God (including Jesus Christ, in the Christian case) might have formed. It's hard to tell. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu [Papal infallibility goes slightly beyond saying that the Pope presents the concensus of the bishops. ... "such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church". I agree that papal infallibility is based on the general concept of infallibility of the Church, but it presents this infallibility as being present through the Pope in a very special way. --clh]