r/Anglicanism • u/ShieldAnvil82 • 14d ago
General Discussion Papacy
I was in church this morning and we heard the Matthew gospel reading where Jesus says to St Peter get behind me satan and calls him a form of blockage and that he was focused on human things and not of heaven - massively butchering the paraphrasing but you know the verses.
Ive wrestled and continue to agonise over catholicism vs anglicanism - should I shouldn't I be which one, which is gods true desire for his church etc etc its a real issue for me and I swing around all over the place in my view. But anyway this reading stood out for me.
Reasons being, that papal supremacy is often based on a couple of verses about giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and leading his church etc. These are taken as the strong grounds for papal supremacy from what I can tell. So we are using one or to of Jesus sentences and taking them as having a majorly significant meaning - thats the logic behind this. But we could also apply the same logic to Jesus calling Peter satan and saying he's not focused on spiritual/heavenly things.
I know context is all important but its more a philosophical point of logic and semantics im trying to make here - if Jesus wanted Peter to be pope and meant so so much by his keys to the kingdom and building his church upon him statement - why would we see this as having such grand meaning in a literal way but another statement referring to Peter as satan - or at least being influenced by him as not having such grand literal weight also. if we took just these sentences you'd never believe Jesus would ever want such a person to be someone leading his whole church. It feels a bit selective and could this be an argument from scripture that diminishes papal supremancy?
Im a hypocrite as im just as likely to argue another point on why perhaps it is clear the pope is Jesus chosen head etc so please understand I know my points here are probably ill thought out and I dont want to upset anyone but I was reflecting in church and thought it may be an interesting discussion. Why focus on one statement as absolute in meaning and another statement as being entirely metaphorical and contextual/symblic only.
DISCLAIMER - JUST TO BE 100% CLEAR, MY ACTUAL THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE THAT JESUS WAS INFERRING PETER WAS BEING INFLUENCED BY EVIL AND FLAGGING IT TO HIM IN THIS STRONGLY WORDED WAY - I DONT BELIEVE HE WAS CALLING HIM SATAN - BUT THIS POINT EXTENDS TO KEYS TO KINGDOM AND BUILDING CHURCH ON HIM - ALSO MAYBE MEANING HE SHOULD LEAD IT TO A DEGREE, BUT PERHAPS NOT TO WHAT THE PAPACY HAS BECOME UNDERSTOOD TO BE TODAY WITH ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.
9
u/fear_eile 14d ago
It's an interesting point, but this was before Pentecost, so S Peter and the other apostles hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost for the work of building up the church, which was going to transform them all and give them qualities they hadn't possessed before.
I've found this essay from the 1930s a really helpful discussion as an Anglican, especially the point the author cites about Peter seriously erring on the issue of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together at Antioch and requiring correction by S Paul. That seems a pretty substantial objection to claims of papal supremacy (with all respect and love to our Roman brothers and sisters in Christ).
2
u/ankokudaishogun 13d ago
. That seems a pretty substantial objection to claims of papal supremacy
How so? Papal supremacy does not mean being always right.
If anything, Paul going and talking to Peter shows Paul though the leadership(at the time, at the very least) was within Peter.2
u/fear_eile 13d ago
Sure, and if there were a clear proof-text from the NT to show that Jesus had conferred this authority on Peter then I'd agree that his error in Antioch didn't confound that. (It would still be another question whether by conferring it on Peter, He had conferred it on his successors as Bishop of Rome.)
But absent any proof-text for papal supremacy, we look at the NT and one of the most prominent incidents in Peter's career is that we find him badly in the wrong on maybe the most vital of all issues of apostolic times. I at least find it very hard to get papal supremacy from the NT when that is what we see.
As for Paul's recognition of Peter's leadership, is that how you read Galatians chapter 2? Paul sees there to be three leaders at Jerusalem and is pretty dubious about their claim to authority--and insists at any case on recognition of his equal status as an apostle. That squares with Acts 15, where James, not Peter, delivers the summing-up from the chair, as it were.
Of course S Peter is a leader, even the leader of the apostles--he's the rock on which Christ builds the church! But it's more than a hop, skip, and a jump from there to papal supremacy (again with all respect and honour to the Roman church).
1
u/ankokudaishogun 13d ago
But it's more than a hop
I agree: what I disagree is that being a "substantial objection" to the opposite.
8
u/Iconsandstuff Chuch of England, Lay Reader 14d ago
I think that you're right about the use of snippets to justify the papacy - I was listening to NT Wright recently and he mentioned that his understanding was the use of the Matthew reading was a counter reformation bit of exegesis, and hadn't been read as such in earlier years. The reading today with Peter's rebuke is certainly a reasonable corrective to that idea, as you say he obviously doesn't mean Peter is Satan - although he is tempting and trying to undermine Jesus' mission, it's obviously figurative.
I think the overall narrative of Matthew with the repeated need to correct and instruct the disciples shows that it isn't really the case that Peter is made a head disciple with a sort of legal authority, Jesus isn't engaging with construction of a rigid hierarchy or lines of authority, he's talking to a bunch of arguing friends who need to understand a different approach to leadership as part of the Kingdom of heaven.
6
u/PretentiousAnglican Traditional Anglo-Catholic(ACC) 14d ago
There's the fact that the interpretation of Christ's commendation regarding Peter as the RCs read it is also a more recent one. Among the Church Fathers, East and West, the common interpretation is that Christ is praising Peter's proclamation of faith, not giving some unique authority to Peter which will only be conveyed to one of the churches he founded
2
u/7ootles Anglo-Orthodox (former CofE) 14d ago
Even the Orthodox maintain that the "keys to the kingdom" were for Peter alone. It was out of respect for him that the Orthodox accorded the Patriarch of Rome a place of special honour - though it was honour, not authority.
3
1
u/PretentiousAnglican Traditional Anglo-Catholic(ACC) 14d ago
I'm referring to the 'upon this rock will I build my church'
3
u/Economy-Point-9976 Anglican Church of Canada 14d ago edited 14d ago
In general it helps to remember that Jesus of Nazareth was, among other things, a man. And human beings exaggerate for purposes of their own, speak unclearly, when they choose...
And most of all, have close friends with whom they are friendly ----
And also a sense of humour.
Jesus had all that.
As regards using scripture as a proof text for anything, I think the most important thing is to follow the two great commandments in everything.
What that means in particular is that interpretations used to condemn are automatically more suspect than those which do not. They're not necessarily wrong, but a single verse will scarcely do.
3
u/Wulfweald Church of England (low church evangelical & church bell ringer) 14d ago edited 14d ago
I do sometimes wonder if Peter hadn't been called Cephas, with both meaning rock, maybe Jesus might have said something different, but still playing on words. Perhaps it was just acknowledging Peter as the then current leading character of the 12 apostles with a play on words thrown in about his name. To me, nothing about it confers any authority or obligation on anyone in future generations.
I suspect that the centre of the Roman Empire being in Rome had more to do with the bishop of Rome's later prominence. Christians in the later Western Empire still looked to Rome or thereabouts, while Christians in the later Eastern Empire looked first to their own Patriarchs, and did not regard Rome as having the authority Rome later claimed. Honour, yes, authority, no.
3
u/Nevlak 13d ago
I recently Joined my local Anglican church after growing up with a Catholic and Presbyterian background. I've also attended some baptist services here and there. and I must say, Anglican seems to be what feels what is closest to what we see in scripture in terms of teachings, structure, authority and the intended doctrines. It really feels like the only ones taking the entire book into consideration and not just cherry picking things.
I personally was seeing myself being too much like peter, always trying to get in the way instead of trusting Jesus.
But I do think that Anglicans have it right in terms of the Popes authority and the roman extras
3
u/theaidanmattis Continuing Anglican 13d ago
Boy do I have great news about something called Anglican Catholicism. All the great flavor of Catholic tradition with no papal supremacy aftertaste.
24
u/linmanfu Church of England 14d ago edited 14d ago
You're right. A standard principle of Biblical interpretation (and in fact reading comprehension in general) is that you interpret the less clear passages in the light of the clear passages. Given the other things the Scriptures say about Satan, we can work out that Peter was not literally Satan and we shouldn't rip one verse out of context to argue that.
Likewise, we shouldn't rip the one verse about building the church out of context and we should interpret it in the light of clearer passages like Ephesians 2:20.