From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:33:27 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Richard" == Richard A Chonak <norris@athena.mit.edu> writes:

Richard> Fr. Roch Kereszty of the University of Dallas published an
Richard> insightful article on this subject in the Summer 1988
Richard> "Communio": "Peter and Paul and the founding of the Church of
Richard> Rome: Forgotten perspectives".

Richard> Here are a few of his theses (edited for brevity):

Richard> (quote) According to the earliest available evidence of the
Richard> late first and second century, the Church of Rome was founded
Richard> by both Peter and Paul.  

Paul's letter to the Romans to indicates clearly that there was a church
there before he ever arrived.  His letter was a means by which
he introduced himself to an existing body of believers.  And
I believe Peter got to Rome after Paul, but I stand ready
to be corrected on that point.

Richard> According to the same evidence, her
Richard> prominence and leadership role in the universal Church
Richard> derives from the fact of having been jointly founded by these
Richard> two martyr apostles. ... The Synod of Arles (314) attributes
Richard> the prominence of Rome to the fact that there "the apostles
Richard> sit in judgment every day and their blood bears witness
Richard> unceasingly to the glory of God."

The notion that "the apostles sit in judgment every day" in Rome
gives me the creeps.  If a Catholic wanted to say that the memory
of Peter and Paul was particularly preserved in Rome, fine.  But
they reign with Christ in heaven, as do all the martyrs, and it seems 
superstitious to localize them to Rome.

Richard> According to the early patristic view, the martyrdom of the
Richard> two chief apostles is *constitutive* of their apostolic
Richard> mission, and their martyrdom in Rome is constitutive of the
Richard> leadership role of Rome.

I don't understand the use of `constitutive' here.  The apostles
were apostles because they were chosen as such by Christ. Their
martydom may have been a result of their apostleship-although
I don't think all of the apostles were martyred.

Richard> Even though the final coming of the Kingdom is still awaited,
Richard> all those who serve him faithfully, especially the martyrs,
Richard> join Christ in his reign after their death.  In particular,
Richard> the apostles begin to sit in judgment over the Church from
Richard> the time of their martyrdom to the end of the ages.  Thus the
Richard> Kingdom is both a future and present reality...

I agree with this.  Apparently you are (or should be) referring
to Rev. 20:4.  But Scripture does not tell us what form this
reign takes for the martyrs.  It may be that they reign by
praying for the Kingdom.  An example is given in Rev. 6:9-11, where
the souls of the martyrs are pictured as crying out from under the
altar, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you 
judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?"

However, Scripture does not indicate that we should, for example,
pray to the martyrs.  And it certainly does not indicate any
means by which their merits may be transferred to us, either
for our salvation or to decrease our time in purgatory.

Richard> "... The apostles are not replaced: they remain
Richard> present and carry out their work *through the college of
Richard> bishops* until the end of the world....  What makes this
Richard> unique "being in one another" possible is the Holy Spirit.

I can't accept this.  I assert that it is manifest that some bishops
and some popes, have been spiritually and doctrinally corrupt.
For example, a bishop that would defend the sale of indulgences
while suppressing Luther's teachings strikes me as more than a
little corrupt, both spiritually and doctrinally.
How could this be a fruit of the Holy Spirit and the reigning of the
martyrs?

Richard> What, then, is special about the relationship between Peter
Richard> and Paul and the Church of Rome? ...According to the
Richard> testimony of the Church's liturgy, the intercessory influence
Richard> of the saints is attested especially in that place and
Richard> community in which their bodies were buried.  

Perhaps the key word here is `attested'.  That means, in effect,
that the saints, and their intercessory influence are remembered.
But mostly we have some knowledge of their work here on earth.
We know almost nothing (sola scriptura) about their intercession 
in heaven.

Richard> This applies in
Richard> a special way to the martyr apostles, Peter and Paul.  ...The
Richard> veneration of Peter and Paul was firmly established in Rome
Richard> in the first half of the third century..

And so were a number of other errors?

Richard> He assures the presence of the apostles in the Church on
Richard> earth throughout the ages.  This "active ministry" does not
Richard> diminish the power of God's grace but gives glory to God from
Richard> whom all the glory and efficacy of his saints derive.  The
Richard> Byzantine liturgy expresses admirably this theological and
Richard> doxological dimension: "Today Christ the rock glorifies with
Richard> supreme honor the rock of faith and leader of the Apostles,
Richard> together with Paul and the company of the Twelve, whose
Richard> memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith, giving glory to
Richard> the One who gave glory to them."

I'd like to discuss the matter of Peter as a rock a little more.
I'm told that `Petros' in Greek means a little rock, a pebble,
whereas `petra' denotes more generic rock, or even a boulder.
This distinction, to me seems to underline the distinction
between Peter the person, and the faith that he confessed.  It 
has been noted already, that the Church Fathers interpreted 
Matt 16:18 as indicating Peter's confession rather than Peter
himself. This distinction between `Petros' and `petra' 
also seems to emphasize the humor in the pun.

The best way that I can interpret the Church as being founded
on Peter, (if I must) is that Peter was the first to make a 
public confession of Jesus as the Christ. Here I think it is
useful to examine Peter's own words in his first letter to the
church.  Nowhere does he refer to himself as the rock of foundation
for the church, except of course that he uses the name `Petros'.
But in 1 Peter 2:4-6 he wrote:

"As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen
by God and precious to him--you also, like living stones, are
being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood,
offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ.  For in Scripture it says: `See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.' "

By these words, I believe that Peter equated all believers with 
himself.  He is merely the first of many rocks in the church,
founded upon Christ, the cornerstone.  It is almost as if he
said, "So what if Christ called me `Petros'?  Does that make
me more special than you?  You are all `rocks' in the church
who confess Christ as your savior.".

David Wagner		"We are God's house of living stones,
a confessional		Builded for his habitation;
Lutheran		He through baptismal grace us owns
			Heirs of His wondrous salvation.
			Were we but two His name to tell,
			Yet He would deign with us to dwell,
			With all His grace and His favor."
	
		--"Built on the Rock the Church doth Stand", v.3 
		--Nicolai F.S. Gruntvig, 1837.

[While it is true that petra and petros have slightly different
connotations, the distinction is not present in the Aramaic.  
Furthermore, I find it hard to make sense of the pun if we
assume the meaning is different.  Kittel claims that there is
no distinction.  All of the sources I have available (including
the NIV) suggest that there is no distinction.  --clh]