Friday, August 22, 2008

Is every Christian his own pope?

Catholics customarily object that Protestant theology makes every Christian his own pope. They also reprove Protestants for allegedly rejecting the traditional interpretation of Mt 16:18, and substituting a novel interpretation which no one in the early church would recognize.

Origen penned the first major commentary on Matthew. It’s interesting to see how he handles the leading prooftext for papal primacy:

[12:10] And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

[12:11] But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;" but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html

4 comments:

  1. Origen is listed as an early church father by the Catholic church.

    But Origen was also declared a heretic too. For universalism, if I'm not mistaken.

    Anyways, what does the RCC have to say regarding Origen's commentary on Matt 16:18?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greetings! Saw your post in Google Blogsearch nand came to read.

    >"Is every Christian his own pope?"

    Yes. As long as each Protestant feels that he/she possesses the keys of authority and has the "right" to read and interpret scripture for themselves, then every Protestant will continue in Satan's trap of self-Papacy.

    Origin erred in proposing "what if" the keys were given to every Christian. Origin erred in not including in his interpretation of Matthew 16:15-19 Jesus' direct quote from Isaiah 22:22. In Isaiah 22:22 the Jewish king's keys of authority were given to one man and one man only, not to multiple men.

    So, the question for Protestants to answer is "Did Jesus, the Jewish King of Kings, give his keys of authority to one man or to all men?"

    God bless...

    +Timothy

    ReplyDelete
  3. Timothy,

    Isaiah 22:22 verse makes reference to the key of David. Now, let me ask you: in Revelation 3:7, who has the key of David - is it Jesus, or is it Peter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Timothy wrote:

    “As long as each Protestant feels that he/she possesses the keys of authority and has the ‘right’ to read and interpret scripture for themselves, then every Protestant will continue in Satan's trap of self-Papacy.”

    Is your reliance on your own interpretation of Roman Catholic documents an example of “self-papacy”? How did you arrive at your conclusions about the truthfulness of Roman Catholicism? Did you interpret passages like Matthew 16 yourself and interpret sources like the church fathers for yourself?

    You write:

    “In Isaiah 22:22 the Jewish king's keys of authority were given to one man and one man only, not to multiple men. So, the question for Protestants to answer is ‘Did Jesus, the Jewish King of Kings, give his keys of authority to one man or to all men?’”

    If the mention of a key in Isaiah 22 makes the passage relevant to Matthew 16, then Isaiah 22 would also have relevance to Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that refer to keys and the function of keys. Do you reach conclusions about the figures in passages like Matthew 23, Luke 11, and Revelation 20 similar to your conclusions about Peter in Matthew 16?

    And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal rather than involving a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without suggesting an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?

    ReplyDelete