From: wagner@spinoza.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Papacy (was Re: The Lord's Table (Part 1 of 2))
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:57:14 GMT
Organization: UH Dept of Math

"Joseph" == Joseph H. Buehler <jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us> writes:

Joseph> #3 is a powerful one.  You have to look at the Greek to see
Joseph> why.  There is a difference in Greek that does not come out in
Joseph> English.  It has to do with the word "you".  Let me do a
Joseph> little expanding:

Joseph>     3. Simon, simon, Satan has desired to sift you [plural]
Joseph> like wheat.  But I have prayed for you [singular], that your
Joseph> faith fail not, and you, once being converted, convert your
Joseph> brethren.

Joseph> See what Christ is saying: Satan desires to sift the Apostles
Joseph> like wheat.  But our Lord has prayed for PETER.  This comes
Joseph> out in the differnce in number in the word "you."  And once
Joseph> Peter is straightened out, he is to straighten the rest of
Joseph> them out.  Note what Christ prays for, in particular: Peter's
Joseph> faith.  That is exactly what the gift of the Papacy is: an
Joseph> unshakeable faith.

Christ's use of the singular, that he prayed for Peter personally,
was particularly appropriate, since he knew that Peter would 
deny him three times (Luke 22:34, John 13:38).  I can't see more in 
the passage than that.  Incidentally, the NIV translation of 
Luke 22:31,32 is:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.  But I have
prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail.  And when you
have turned back, strengthen your brethren."

Which is very similar to Joe's quote, but with significant differences
for the interpretation he want to use.

Thanks for the quotes from the Fathers.  I'll have to study them some
more.  Incidentally, in Matthew 16 Christ only promised to give the
keys[to the church, as I see it] with the words `I will give', so 
Hilary's statement `he had just handed the keys' is clearly 
incorrect--although the error did not affect his main point, which
was that Peter still needed upbraiding.

If in fact the Fathers all regarded Peter and his successors as
the earthly head of the church, then why did the Council of Nicea
[Canon 6] make a decision that the bishop of Alexandria should 
administer the churches in the East, and the bishop of Rome should 
administer the `suburban' churches, namely those in the ten provinces
of Italy?  Shouldn't all of the Eastern bishops have been ordained by
the Roman bishop, if he were the spiritual head of the church on
earth?

On the same theme, did Paul ever acknowledge the superiority of 
Peter?  Was he ordained by him?  In Galatians 2 Paul wrote that those
who `seemed to be important' added nothing to his message.  In
Galatians 1 he wrote that he went to Jerusalem `to get acquainted
with Peter'--not to be publicly ordained.  And in Galatians 2:11-21
Paul wrote how he gave Peter correction in public.  Could today's 
Pope accept such correction?

Regards,		"God's Word is our great hereitage
			And shall be ours forever;
David H. Wagner		To spread its light from age to age
a confessional		Shall be our chief endeavor.
Lutheran		Through life it guides our way,
			In death it is our stay.
			Lord grant while worlds endure,
			We keep its teachings pure
			Throughout all generations."
			--Nikolai F.S. Grundtvig, 1817