A young Catholic lay Apologist who has an addiction to all things Papist, Romanist, and shiny.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

My response to Perplexity's Opening Statement

Alright, for my counter-essay, I shall begin by taking each of my opponent’s points and going over them , one by one.

(1) If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [Premise]

I find this premise acceptable.

(2) If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]

(3) Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]


These premises, though interesting, I cannot concede because the writer of St. Luke’s Gospel (who I will just call Luke for clarification) is known for writing two documents. One is the Gospel of Luke. The second is known as the Acts of the Apostles. I would like to suggest a counter-premise in this regard: Luke did not have need to write the text of Matthew 16:18 in his Gospel, because he would later document and expand upon this doctrine through looking at his next text, the Acts of the Apostles. This would be a more suitable document to chart out the authority of St. Peter and the other Apostles within. Furthermore, if we are to assume that if a title or a concept is not equally found in the Synoptic Gospels (such as comparing Matthew and Luke) in the same wording, then that particular instance of the terminology must not have been important to the early Christian communities, then we would have to exclude such titles as “Lamb of God” which is only found in the Gospel of John (and Revelation) and not in the rest of the Gospels, for example. And we know how important that title is amongst Christians today. Nevertheless, we do not look towards the Gospel of Luke to find such a title in order to consider it important amongst Christians. We would also have to exclude the large amount of evidence which shows an overwhelming support of the Petrine office by those of the early Church (Church Fathers come to mind, here).

(4) Therefore, these words were not understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [(2), (3), M.T.]
To accept this premise, as I have stated before, we would have to find a source for the large amount of support for the Petrine office which we find historically. And where would we find this source? To bring up an example my opponent mentioned to me before, if we start out with two premises, 1) John did not murder Jack, and 2) John did murder Jack, and if we find John’s fingerprints all over the gun which killed Jack, then it would be much more plausible to accept Premise 2 than Premise 1. And I believe that there is a very large amount of evidence which supports my premise rather than my opponent’s.
However, I point out that if this premise were true, then we would find that this would be the predominant view amongst Christians later in history. However, we can tell that this is not the case:

The Diatesseron

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies


"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Jerome


"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


These are all examples of early Christians who had held to the concept of Peter as being the Rock, and that he was the Leader, the First of the Apostles.The reason why I bring these quotes up is to express that we would have to thus find justification for their reasoning, which would be heterodox or at least uncommon if we accepted the above premise. However, if we accept the Catholic premise, that the words of Matthew 16:18 would be the bedrock for the Papacy, then the evidence coincides with the premise.

(5) Therefore, Jesus did not institute the papacy through his words in Mat. 16:18. [(1), (4), M.T.]

This premise I obviously disagree with due to the previous responses to your other premises. However, I would like to note that the relation between the Gospel of Matthew to the Gospel of Luke avoids explaining why Matthew wrote this verse. I cannot find any other justification for writing these words if they have no actual importance, as the appeal to Luke’s Gospel is suggesting. We should look at what Matthew 16:18 says, and we should look at why Matthew uses these words and what they mean for us today.     

Perplexity's Response to my Opening Statement

The papacy is that ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is Jesus’ delegate (representative), possessing the powers of universal jurisdiction and infallibility in virtue of said occupation.

It is this office which ASR claims Jesus instituted in Matthew 16. ASR's claim constitutes hypothesis 1, or H1, my denial of H1 constitutes H2. I will examine each piece of evidence he advances for H1 by answering a series of questions about them. This will give an easy to follow format.

Format:

(1) Why does ASR think this confirms H1?

(2) Does this confirm H1 over H2?

(3) Does this afford any reason to doubt any of the premises in my Main Argument?

Question 3 is really the most important. If ASR hasn’t provided any reason to reject my Main Argument, then, it’s sound and we know Jesus didn’t institute the papacy here. I know this isn’t his rebuttal so I’m not expecting him to have addressed the argument directly.

So, what is the evidence ASR advances for his case?

(i) Peter’s name is changed in Matt. 16:18-19.

(ii) Peter receives new authority in Matt. 16:18-19.

(iii) Peter is Jesus’ temporal representative.

I’ll evaluate each in turn.

(i) Peter’s name is changed in Matt. 16:18-19:

Why does ASR think (i) confirms H1?

As far as I understand, ASR argues that Peter’s name change is significant because it indicates a change in character, and since H1 claims Peter underwent a character change here, then this confirms H1.

Does (i) confirm H1 over H2?

I don’t think Peter’s name was changed, so I don’t think (i) can confirm either hypothesis. The Aramaic Cephas was translated into the Greek Petros. This strongly implies that Petros isn’t a proper name because proper names aren’t translated. As Oscar Cullmann argues, “if we must translate them, then in order to preserve the original impact of the word Cephas we should instead of ‘Simon Peter’ have ‘Simon Rock.’” [1]

I think Petros was most likely a title.

Does (i) afford us any reason to doubt any of my premises?

Since I don’t accept (i) as an explanadum, I can’t accept it as an objection to any premise of my main argument.

(ii) Peter receives new authority in Matt. 16:18-19.
(iii) Peter is Jesus’ temporal representative.


I’ve grouped (ii) and (iii) together because it seems ASR believes the former to be included in the latter.

Why does ASR think (ii)-(iii) confirm H1?

If I’ve understood correctly, ASR accepts (ii)-(iii) as an explanandum on the basis of Jesus' re-instating the ancient office of the al habayith in Matt. 16:18-19, and takes this to practically spell papacy. [2] What is the al habayith? Simply put, the Davidic Kings had a representative who ruled over the kingdom in their name. These representatives bore the title ‘al habayith’, meaning ‘over the house’. They had the key over the house of Jerusalem (i.e., they had authority over the kingdom’s inhabitants). This office had successors who received these perks by occupation of said office. ASR finds an analogy between Jesus' giving the keys to Peter in Matt. 16 and God’s giving Eliakim the key over the house of Jerusalem in Is. 22, and takes this to strongly probablify the reinstating of the office of the al habayith in Matt. 16:18-19.

Do (ii)-(iii) confirm H1 over H2?

I will say this is one of the strongest arguments in the Catholic’s arsenal. If it succeeds it’d show that Jesus instituted an ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is Jesus’ delegate (representative), possessing the power of universal jurisdiction in virtue of said occupation. It’s arguable the Catholic can derive infallibility from this as well [3]. As per our definition of the papacy, this argument would pack a heck of a punch, satisfying the definition.

Assuming (ii)-(iii) to constitute an explanandum, they certainly do confirm H1 over H2. However, (ii) in isolation from (iii) at least equally confirms H2, and we shouldn’t accept (iii) as evidence to be explained in the first place.

That (ii) doesn’t confirm H1 over H2 can be illustrated in many different ways. Take Tertullian’s interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19 for instance, he’s the earliest exegete of these texts we know of. Tertullian thinks the powers given to Peter were personally Peter’s, and weren’t to be passed on to any successors. [4] Call this hypothesis H3. H3 contradicts H1, and the whole idea that Peter was Jesus’ al habayith. That Peter was given authority seems to be probable on both H1 and H3. They both entail that *Peter* received new authority. Since H3 is a negation of H1, and H2 is the negation of H1, if H3 is confirmed, then so is H2. So, (ii) doesn’t confirm H1 over H2. (There are many other hypotheses which (ii) confirms as well!)

None of this matters though as I’ll now demonstrate.

Do (ii)-(iii) afford us any reason to doubt any of my premises?

Neither (ii) nor (iii) object to any of my premises. Allow me illustrate. I’ll post each premise, then (ii) and (iii) and you can see that neither are relevant to any of the premises:

Premise 1: If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel.

Does (ii) object to (1)? Well, suppose that Peter was given new authority in Matthew 16. How would this possibly negate (1)? I can’t imagine.

Does (iii) object to premise (1)? Well, suppose that Peter was Jesus’ temporal representative. I haven’t the foggiest of how this would negate (1).

Premise 2: If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18.

Does (ii) object to (2)? Well, suppose that Peter was given new authority in Matthew 16. How would this possibly negate (2)? I have no idea.

Does (iii) object to (2)? Well, suppose that Peter was Jesus’ temporal representative. I can’t conceive of how this would negate (2).

Premise 3: Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18.

To me, it doesn’t matter if (ii) or (iii) negated (3), (3) is utterly beyond dispute. So, if they do conflict with (3), so much the worse for (ii)-(iii)! But, again suppose either is true and ask whether they’re relevant to (3).

In fact, these would seem to bolster my premises!

Conclusion:

We’ve seen that of the evidence proffered by ASR for H1, only (ii) counted, and it *at least* equally confirmed H2. (i) and (iii) aren’t evidences that H1 and H2 need compete over to try and explain. Further, nothing said in ASR’s opening post leads us to doubt any of the premises in my Main Argument. So, at this point in the debate, we have a sound argument against H1 and therefore should believe H2.





[1] Cullmann, Oscar. Peter. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953. p. 19

[2] Eliakim’s position is also mentions in 2 Kg. 18:18, 37; 19:2; Is. 36:22; 37:2.

In 1 Kg. 4:6, Ahishar receives the same title under King Solomon. Arza is Elah’s al habayith in 1 Kg. 16:9. Under King Ahab, Obadiah is ‘over the house’ in 1 Kg. 18:3. Other instances include 1 Kg. 10:5 and 2 Kg. 15:5.

[3] According to Matt. 16:19 if Peter binds or looses anything, heaven will too: Heaven receives Peter’s binding and loosing and confirms them. So, we can construct an argument for infallibility from this:

(1) Given any (x), if God confirms (x), then (x) is true. [Premise/ Ti. 1:2; Heb. 6:18]

(2) God confirms Peter’s bindings and loosings. [Premise]

(3) Peter’s bindings and loosings are true. [(1), (2), U.I., M.P.]

Infallibility is the prevention by God of the pope from teaching falsehoods on certain matters. Since Peter would possess the power to bind and loose only in so far as he was the al habayith, this power would pass on to successors. This practically spells out papacy.

[4] “If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance into the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…” – Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99.     

My Opening Statement

Well, I'd first like to thank my (and I use this word not in a pejorative sense) opponent, Perplexity, for inviting me to this debate. This will be my first "official" one, so I'm bound to look like a dork at one point or another. At this point, I will address Perplexity as "opponent", not in a pejorative way, but in a friendly one. I hope that experience is a good way for us to learn as Christian brothers.

In this essay, I will lay out my argument for why Jesus instituted the Papacy in Matthew 16. To start, I will quote this verse. Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” These are what we could call the “key” verses which are used to establish three things:

1) Peter was given a new authority.
2) Peter’s authority would be what the Church is built upon.
3) Peter would be the temporal representative of Jesus as leader of the Church.

Now, by looking at the text, we see there are three things to note:

1) Simon is given a new name, Peter.
2) Simon (now Peter) is given the “keys of the kingdom.”
3) Simon is given the power to “bind and loose”, which was a term signifying authority [1].

Now, in order to establish that Peter was, as it is said, “prince of the Apostles”, then we must note a few interesting facts:

1) From the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation, Peter is mentioned 155 times, and the rest of the Apostles are mentioned a total of 130 times.
2) Numerous times in the Gospels, Peter speaks for the Apostles ( Matt. 18:21; 19:27; Mark 10:28, 11:21, Luke 8:45; 12:41, for example) and is the only one of the Apostles who receives divine revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:17)
3) Peter is almost always (with two exceptions) listed first when the Apostles are listed.
4) Peter is addressed by Jesus in personal moments before all of the other Apostles (Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31-32, John 21)

In Matthew 16, we see the first New Testament example of an Old Testament action: the giving of a new name. We know of two very, very good men who were given new names: Abraham (who was formerly Abram) and Israel (who was formerly Jacob). Though this is not the only time that someone is given a new name, I have looked (and if I have missed it, I am open to polite rebuke) and I have not found any other time where Jesus directly gave someone a new name, other than Peter. When a person has their name changed in the Scriptures, this was always a sign of a new characteristic of that person, of what they would be. For example, Abram became Abraham, which is “Father of Many Nations” (Genesis 17:5), and Jacob becomes Israel (Genesis 32:28; 35:10) which means “One who has wrestled with God”. And we see that what occurs is true, Abraham does become the Father of many nations, and all believers of Jesus Christ and also, that Jacob actually does wrestle with an Angel (God’s representative). What they are named is because of something that has happened or because of something which will happen. This is the same with Peter, who is also called Cephas (a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha, which simply means rock: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5 (which is an interesting verse, considering it makes a significant note of mentioning Cephas distinctly after he mentions the Lord); 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 1:18, 2:9,11,14).

To demonstrate that premises 1) Peter was given a new authority, 2) Peter and his authority would be what the Church would be built on and 3) Peter would be the representative of Jesus on earth, we must look at what Jesus is said to have given to Peter. We have shown that Simon was given the new name Peter (or Cephas) after Peter reveals that he has been given divine revelation, that God chose Peter to express that Jesus is the Son of God. We have shown the examples of others receiving names because of what happened/would happen, and at this point I would like to now point towards the “keys of the kingdom”. Where does this come from? I point now to Isaiah 22:

“Come, go to this steward,
To (X)Shebna, who is in charge of the royal household,
16 ‘What right do you have here,
And whom do you have here,
That you have (Y)hewn a tomb for yourself here,
You who hew a tomb on the height,
You who carve a resting place for [r]yourself in the rock?
17 ‘Behold, the LORD is about to hurl you headlong, O man.
And He is about to grasp you firmly
18 And roll you tightly like a ball,
To be (Z)cast into a vast country;
There you will die
And there your splendid chariots will be,
You shame of your master’s house.’
19 “I will (AA)depose you from your office,
And [s]I will pull you down from your station.
20 “Then it will come about in that day,
That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21 And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 “Then I will set the key of the)house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
23 “I will drive him like a)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a )throne of glory to his father’s house.

We know that Jesus is the rightful heir of the Davidic Kingdom, and this is why in the Scriptures he is called the Son of David (Matthew 22:42, for one example). And in the Davidic Kingdom, there was the steward, who was the King’s Representative. Though the key belonged to the King, it was to show that the steward had authority over the Kingdom. This has actually occurred earlier with the Scriptures, with Joseph, son of Israel, who is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. The Pharaoh makes him overseer over his kingdom (Genesis 41:41-44). This notion of the keys is directly given to Peter, as we can see by the way Matthew 16:18-19 is written: Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Unless we’re willing to convince ourselves that all of the Apostles were named Peter, we can see that this is speaking to Peter directly. Furthermore, we also know that later, in Matthew 18, Jesus speaks to the Apostles, giving them the ability to bind and loose. I do not believe that Jesus, or the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures, would have made a repetitive statement for no reason, as if the reader has forgotten the giving of the power to bind and loose two chapters later. Thus, I see this as showing that it was Peter alone who was given the power to bind and loose first, as well as the keys of the kingdom. This would explain why Peter was mentioned so many times in the Scriptures, as well as why he was given the name change.

To summarize, I believe that Matthew 16:18 clearly shows that Peter was the Kepha or Rock from which Jesus would build his Church, it’s the only sensible meaning if we simply read scripture. Peter is mentioned many times, often as a representative of the Apostles, or in an individual context. Matthew 16 demonstrates that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which was given to the stewards of the Davidic Kingdom. Jesus would, as the new King from the line of David, give Peter the keys in order to shepherd his Church, which are his lambs and sheep (John 21). We know that it is only for Peter does Jesus pray for, that his faith would not fail, for him to strengthen his brothers (the Apostles) in Luke 22:32. The prominence of Peter is striking throughout the Scriptures, and in this way is rather clear, that Matthew 16 (particularly verses 18-19) express the new authority of Peter, which we see expressed by Pope Benedict XVI today.     

Perplexity's Opening Statement

 I’d like to thank AlertStatusRed [from now on ASR] for participating in this debate and I hope this can be a learning experience for us both.

I’m going to try and convince you that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is improbable. I’ll understand the Catholic interpretation of these words to be that through them Jesus founded the papal office [1], naming Peter as its first occupant.

Now, if this was the correct interpretation and Jesus instituted the papacy through these words, then this institution would’ve been recorded by Jesus’ other biographers who in fact record parallel accounts of this same event at which Matthew attributes these words to Jesus. More to the point, since Luke’s Gospel is ancient historiography, the contents of which are recorded to verify the truth of beliefs about Jesus’ sayings and deeds [2], Luke would’ve done all but failed to record such a teaching in his parallel account of Matthew 16:18, if he was aware of it. But, we observe nothing of the like. Therefore, if the Catholic interpretation is correct, then the Lukan silence resonates into a deafening shock. How could the author who toiled to interview witnesses, scrutinize the available accounts of Jesus, discerning their reliability, striving to form the best of the accounts yet produced, all to record an historical biography of Jesus of Nazareth, fail to note such a vital teaching of Jesus!? Since Luke’s Gospel contains a parallel account to Matthew 16:18 [Lk. 9:20], we’d expect Luke to describe this teaching as the meaning of those words of Jesus here. So, let’s try and formalize this objection:

Main Argument:

(1) If Jesus instituted the papacy through his words in Matt. 16:18, then these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [Premise]

(2) If these words were understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel, then Luke recorded this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]

(3) Luke didn’t record this understanding of these words in his parallel to Matt. 16:18. [Premise]

(4) Therefore, these words were not understood to bear significant ecclesiological weight by the Christian community before the composition of Luke’s Gospel. [(2), (3), M.T.]

(5) Therefore, Jesus did not institute the papacy through his words in Mat. 16:18. [(1), (4), M.T.]

The argument is logically valid, meaning if its premises are true then its conclusion(s) must also be true. So, all that matters is whether the premises are true. We can reasonably believe a premise is true if it’s more plausibly true than its contradictory. Let’s check the premises to see whether the argument is sound.

Premises:

Premise (1): The Catholic will argue that the papal dogmas taught in Matt. 16 were present in seed-like form and would develop over the course of many centuries culminating in Vatican I’s teachings [although, perhaps the growth isn’t finished…?]. So, all premise (1) is asking you to believe is that if Jesus had instituted the papacy here, the seed of the papal dogmas would've existed within the Christian community. (1) isn't saying the Christian community knew of ex cathedra statements or universal jurisdiction etc. I can't imagine what the papal dogmas would've looked like in seed form if they weren't at the very least understood to be something concerning ecclesiology! Note Vatican I claims its interpretation of Matt. 16:18 “has always been understood by the catholic church.” [Cf. Vatican I, Sess. 4, chapter 2, n. 4.]

Premise (2): "Clearly already in the third decade of the Christian movement, many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7-9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1-5; 9:2-4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14-16) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21-22; Col 4:7-9). Urban Christians traveled (1 Cor 16:10, 12, 17; Phil 2:30; 4:18), carrying letters (Rom 16:1-2; Phil 2:25). They also relocated to other places (Rom 16:3, 5; perhaps 16:6-15 passim) and sent greetings to other churches (Rom 16:21-23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phil 4:22; Col 4:10-15)." [3]

Given such interconnection between the Christian communities and Luke’s extensive travels and labors in compiling material for composing his Luke-Acts work; he would’ve encountered an understanding of Jesus’ words held by Christians for half a century on a weighty ecclesiological doctrine. Further, given Luke's purpose in composing his works (i.e., Lk. 1:4, "so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught"), an ecclesiological doctrine like this would've been exactly what Luke wanted in his Gospel.

Premise (3): Cf. Lk. 9:20

So, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that we have a sound argument against the claim that Jesus instituted the papacy in Matt. 16:18.

I'll do the bayesian calculations in my closing statement, that way we can be sure to weigh the evidence carefully.






[1]

The papacy is that ecclesiastical office the occupant of which is the delegate of Jesus Christ, receiving the powers of universal jurisdiction, and infallibility by virtue of said occupation.

[2]

“Just as most scholars today recognize the Gospels as biographies, the dominant view concerning Acts today, earlier argued by Lukan scholars such as Marian Debelius and Henry Cadbury, is that it is a work of ancient historiography. Luke Timothy Johnson in the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that most scholars today accept this assignment of genre for Luke-Acts as a whole. Indeed, Hengel and Schwemer contend that those who deny Luke-Acts as acceptable first-century historiography need to read more ancient historiography “and less hypercritical and scholastic secondary literature.”” – Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 86.

“The preface to his gospel (1:1-4) most demonstrably makes the case for Luke’s ability to use the conventions of Greek historiography, both the linguistic (as it is a single, periodic sentence with a balanced, hypotactic structure) and the topical (as it references preceding writers on its subject and the author’s own investigation, claims to be a narrative, purports a didactic purpose, etc.)” – Loney, Alexander C. “Narrative Structure and Verbal Aspect Choice in Luke.” Filologia eotestamentaria 28 (2005): 10. As cited by Culy, Martin M., Mikeal Carl Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: a Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor Univ., 2010., p. 1.

“Although Greek historians usually referred to only one or two predecessors and quoted them uncritically…their primary research was often superior to that of modern historians: they relied to a large degree on ‘autopsy’ and their own experiences, collected and examined the oral transmission, questioned eyewitnesses and sources, and visited the scenes of the events in order to gather their information on the spot.” – Meister, Klaus. “Historiography: Greece.” 421, in Brill’s New Pauly. As cited by Keener, ibid., p. 89

“Luke’s affinity with Hellenistic literature is historiographical as well as biographical. Luke self-consciously sets his work in a tradition of research which supplies the meaning of the facts recorded (1.1–4).” Knight, Jonathan. Luke's Gospel. London: Routledge, 1998. p. 7

[3]

Keener, Craig. S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2009, p. 92-93     

Perplexity's Exposition of Baye's Theorem.

This post will contain Perplexity's explanation of Baye's Theorem.

Bayes' Theorem:

The human mind assesses evidence for a belief or hypothesis in a certain manner and on the basis of certain assumptions. We naturally assume, for instance, that if a belief or hypothesis is probably true then it will yield fewer surprises, given our evidence. We’re inclined to think that a good way to discover reality is to collect evidence and adopt the belief which is least surprised by it. Therefore, we also assume that if, given our evidence, a belief is very surprising (not leading us to expect the evidence), then it’s not worthy of our belief…at least initially.

For example, take the following competing hypotheses: (1) Jones is not the murderer. (2) Jones is the murderer.

Suppose we have some evidence at the scene of the crime, namely the murder weapon, a gun which was licensed to and bought by Jones, and Jones’ fingerprints on the murder weapon. Call all of this evidence, E.

Which of the competing hypotheses leads us to expect E, if we suppose it were true? Well, if (1) is true, it’d be surprising that Jones’ gun was the murder weapon! Of all the people in the world who own guns, why would Jones’ be the one? And even more shocking is that his fingerprints were on it! How couldn’t he be the murderer? Therefore, (2) makes much more sense of E, consequently we naturally take E to confirm or support (2) rather than (1).

What I propose to do in this post is to outline a principled way in which we can discern when some evidence should lead us to think a belief or hypothesis is surprising, or to be expected. We would then have a principled way of discerning truth.

Let H = Hypothesis, E = Evidence, and K = Background Knowledge. We already know what a hypothesis is and have an intuitive grasp of what evidence is.[1] But, what is background knowledge? It’s all the things we can assume about the world which aren’t already included in E. Thus, in the homicide example above, K could include knowledge that Jones had motive for killing the victim, that Jones had stated on many occasions that he wished to kill this person, etc.

What we’re looking for is how probably true some hypothesis (a.k.a., H) is, given the evidence we have [E] and our background knowledge, K. That is, how probable does E and K make H? We can formalize this notion as follows: P(H|E & K), which stands for “the probability of H given E and K.”

P(H|E & K) is also known as posterior probability. It is this probability that we’re interested in when we’re trying to figure out how well evidenced a given hypothesis is. It’s this probability we should pay careful attention to in the debate to follow, where the position Alert argues for will be his hypothesis, and the position I argue for will be mine.

How do we figure this probability out? We figure it out by using something called Bayes’ Theorem. This may look intimidating at first but it’s not near as complicated as it may initially appear, and can be quite fun once you get the hang of it. Also, at the end of this post I’ve linked to a “Bayesian calculator” which is an easy short cut to getting H’s posterior:

P(H|E & K) = P(H|K) * P(E|H & K) / P(E|K)

So, there are two notions that we need to have a fair understanding of, nothing complicated though.

P(E|H & K) is simply how probable the evidence is given our hypothesis and background knowledge, or assuming our hypothesis and K to be the case, how likely is the evidence we have? This is the kind of reasoning we used in the homicide example above: we assumed each hypothesis was true and then discerned how probable the evidence was. This is also known as a hypothesis’ explanatory power.

P(H|K) is simply the probability of the hypothesis given our background knowledge, before we even take into account the evidence E for that hypothesis. This is known as prior probability, or prior for short.

Finally, P(E|K) is simply the prior of the evidence. That is, given our background knowledge, how probable is E?

So, Bayes’ Theorem can be translated as follows:

The posterior of H is equal to the prior of H times the explanatory power of H divided by the prior of E.

That’s almost all that’s needed to be known at this point. There remains only one more thing, perhaps the most important. Where do you get the numbers from?

Well, when you go to the doctor’s office and you’re asked to rate your pain on a scale of 1-10, do you have any trouble representing your degree of pain numerically? I doubt it. It’s the same concept, except, instead of degrees of pain we’re trying to numerically represent, it’s degrees of confidence. This is a pretty subjective thing, just like pain, which is why this is actually a great way for *you* to discern how a given piece of evidence effects the probability of a hypothesis, given your own relative knowledge etc.

So, basically, 1 = the highest degree of confidence, 0 = the least, and .5 = neither confident nor unconfident.

When you roll 3 die, how confident are you they’re all going to land on 6? How about when rolling 20 die? Etc. thought experiments like these can be good ways to gauge your degrees of confidence. (I've seen lotteries used, or cards in a deck)

So, let’s return to the homicide example to see how this all fits together (if it does):

Let H1 = The hypothesis that Jones is the murderer.

Let H2 = The hypothesis that Jones is not the murderer.

Let E = The murder weapon is a gun bought by and licensed to Jones, and Jones’ finger prints were on the murder weapon.

Let K = Finger prints on murder weapons generally indicate who the murderer was; Jones had murderous intent towards the victim, and motives for killing her and so forth.

What is H’s posterior? In other words, how probable is H1 given our evidence and background knowledge? Well, remember H’s posterior is equal to H’s prior times H’s explanatory power divided by E’s prior.

So, first, what are H’s prior and explanatory power?

Personally, I’d say K makes H1 more probable than not, so I’m will to say .6.

What is P(E|H1 & K)? Well, does H1 and K lead us to expect E? For me at least, yes! So, if the “doctor” asked me to rate my confidence that H1 and K make E expected on a scale of 0 to 1, 0 being the least and 1 being the most, I’d have to say far greater than .5! For simplicity, I’ll just say .75.

I’m not really sure about the prior of E, though. I don’t know *how* serious Jones was with his intent, but let’s suppose it was worrisome. I’d place it around .5. So how does this all add up?

Well, just take the numbers I’ve given and plug them into the theorem above and calculate

.6 * .75 / .5 = .9

This is basically it.

Now, there are online Bayesian calculators for short cuts although you’ll still need to figure some numbers out. So, for instance, this link is to a calculator for posteriors (when discerning between competing hypotheses), but you’ll still need to figure out priors and explanatory power.

Remember, it’s a pretty subjective thing.

Finally, I’m only claiming that when Bayes’ theorem calculates a probability, it’s right. I’m not claiming the numerical representations we use are 100% accurate [those are subjective and open to variance], but all we *really* need to know is whether something is more probable than not, and Bayes’ theorem is great for that.



[1]

Bayesianism usually says something counts as evidence for some hypothesis if it makes that hypothesis more probable than it otherwise would be. This is generally formalized as follows:

E = evidence if, P(H|E & K) > P(H|K)     

Did Jesus institute the Papacy in Matthew 16? A Debate.

This is the debate I've been having with a good friend of mine from a forum I frequent. He's given me permission to post our essays on my blog, so here it goes. I'll have to post each essay as a different post, but I'll present the first set of essays for now (this includes our opening statements and our reponses to them). On this forum, I am known as "AlertStatusRed". My opponent is known as Perplexity.


AlertStatusRed and I have agreed to debate on whether Jesus instituted the papacy in Matthew 16. He'll affirm, I'll deny.

We'll follow this general format:

Opening statements posted on Sept. 21st, 1,500 word limit.

Rebuttals posted no later than Sept. 28th, 2,000 word limit.

Cross examinations posted no later than Oct. 5th, 4 question limit.

Closing statements posted no later than Oct. 12th, 2,000 word limit.

Since my arguments will be utilizing Bayes' theorem I will be posting a general explanation of the relevant notions after this announcement. This explanatory post isn't my opening statement.

We just ask that no comments be made on this debate until the closing statements are posted.     

Saturday, September 24, 2011

The beauty of Confession

Confession (or Reconciliation) is one of my favorite Sacraments. It truly is one of the most powerful sacraments we Catholics have. To truly repent of one's sins and to be absolved, does three things:

  1. Brings you back to spiritual life.
  2. Enables you to participate in the rest of the blessed Sacraments
  3. Sends you out to battle.
How do I mean the last point? Remember, when we commit mortal sin, our prayers are made useless. We cannot recieve any graces from them, and we are more prone to sin. Mortal sin kills the sanctifying grace, the Holy Spirit, in our lives and renders us useless in combat against those forces of evil. However, this is from what a friend of mine has expressed to me. We're to still pray, to still go to Mass. Even if we can't recieve graces or participate in recieving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, we can learn greatly from going to Mass, and we still participate in worshipping God. Most importantly, keeping an active prayer life is like going to target practice, or sharpening your sword. Our prayers are the weapons us Christians have. And when you recieve absolution, you are now back in battle. I can assure you another three things, once you go back into the battlefield.
  1.  Temptation will be even more prevalent, you will be bombarded.
  2. You will not be alone, for you have many Saints and Angels on your side.
  3. You will be given the strength to carry on. 
I would like to recommend "Lord, Have Mercy" by Scott Hahn, it's a beautiful book which explains Confession in a great, relatable way. I would also suggest one more thing. Pray the Rosary, especially the Sorrowful mysteries. Focusing on what our Lord suffered for in order to bring you back to life will keep you mindful on what you need to do.

Dominus Vobiscum,
-Sanctimonia

    Tuesday, September 20, 2011

    A Great Video


    I found this on one of the blogs I like to read, Acts of the Apostasy, it's a great video which proclaims the truth. That we are unafraid, we are unrelenting, we are Catholic. In the words of our Lord, and of Blessed Pope John Paul II, be not afraid!

    Sunday, September 18, 2011

    So many things to talk about.

    Obviously, so far I don't have that many readers, I probably have none. Nevertheless, I'll write and eventually some poor soul will be bored, and wander onto my wretched blog and see barely anything, rather pointless things. Oh well. To the topic, we shall go!

    I will be posting, from now until I feel like I need a change, which will probably be within the next 6-8 months, these topics:

    -Good articles on Catholic Apologetics (I'm a major fan of having good resources, I appreciate them and this blog would be a good place to find and place resources so that other members of the Body of Christ will enjoy and be enlightened by them.

    -Protestant heresy and things of the like (Though I appreciate my separated brethren, there are several heretical doctrines which need to be sorted out, and thus here I'll post about them. )

    -Funny videos (both of a religious and secular nature).

    -Any debates I have within the next few months.

    -And my thoughts on anything/everything.

    I know that this is probably a useless post, but the more I make crap blog posts, the better I'll get at making crap blog posts.

    Dominus Vobiscum,
    -Sanctimonia.

    First post.

    'Ello everyone. I go by many names on the interwebz, on here I'll be known as Sanctimonia. I'm a dedicated lay Catholic who wishes to exceed in learning Apologetics, Catholic knowledge, sometimes History, and any odd other bit of knowledge I can get my hands on. I'll need to brainstorm some topics, I wish to follow up in the line of Lay Apologists who have educated me through reading their blogs. I pray that this blog serves for edification and education for all Catholics and for Non-Catholics, that they see the beauty of the Catholic faith. I humbly dedicate this blog to the Blessed Trinity and to every member of the Church Triumphant, the Church Militant, and the Church Suffering.



    Dominus Vobiscum,

    -Sanctimonia