Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "... and upon this rock ..." Message-ID: Date: 8 Nov 90 03:20:01 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 53 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , 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]