Infallibility

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[quote]vistesd: (1) It seems clear to me, both in terms of the Isaiah passage and the Matthean ones that “keys” is defined in terms of binding and loosing. Therefore, the fact that the word “keys” is not repeated in Matt18:18 doesn’t mean anything. It would be as if I said to you, “Here is your 4 = 2 + 2,” and said to Nemesio tomorrow, “And here is yo ...[text shortened]... bility proceeds from the fact that he is the rock on which Christ builds His Church.

(Contd.)

Where Peter is, the Church is.

I know you don’t mean this geographically 😉, but what does it mean? That only those who recognize Peter’s foundational supremacy (and Petrine infallibility?*) are “church?” What happens to “wherever two or three”—which seems to be the verse that the Orthodox rely more heavily on (Protestants as well)?

Matt. 18:18-20

18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.

For example, the following excerpts from an article entitled “The Unity of the Orthodox Church” (http://www.roca.org/oa/126-127/126d.htm):

“For the Orthodox, there can only be one Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, as is affirmed constantly in the Epistles (cf, 1:22, 5:23, or 1:18 Col. and Psalms).

Some may object to this: "You must," they say, "have a visible head; what about bishops?" Of course, a bishop is a visible head (or, in Orthodox language, an icon of Christ), but only of his own diocese, not of the Church as a whole. Local Churches are "headed" by a patriarch, pope (as in Alexandria), metropolitan or archbishop, but these are likewise heads of local churches, not of the entire Church of Christ. Moreover, any bishop is only "head" in an administrative and liturgical sense; he is an "icon" of Christ, no more.

How, then, is the Church governed if it has no visible head? A company would dissolve into chaos without a chairman, the Roman Church would vanish without a pope. How is it that the Orthodox Church can continue without a visible Head and does not break up? Where is the principle of unity and authority?
The answer is given by the Saviour in the Gospels. Knowing that He would ascend to His Father, He promised to send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 14:26). The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth (John 16:13), for, in the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth.

In this way, although the Church has no visible head, and has no need of one, she has an invisible Head, which is Christ our God and King, present through the Holy Spirit, sent by Christ from the Father (John15:26). This inner sense of Christ's presence as Head of the Church has always prevented Orthodoxy from elevating a human being to this position. True, it would be more convenient to have a human Head: decisions could be taken more quickly, the Church would have a more efficient organization, cooperation and coordination would be easier. Jurisdictions, i.e., dioceses of different local Orthodox churches on the same territory, could be organized into branches of the Church, just as the Roman Church in Great Britain absorbed Polish, Italian and other national groups into one Roman Catholic Church. A visible head would be able to centralize a global Church. Local states would think twice before meddling in local church matters. In general, administration, communications and management would be enormously facilitated. And yet, for Orthodox such an arrangement is unacceptable.
The purpose of the Church is not efficiency, it is holiness.

This explains why, to the outsider, Orthodoxy presents a paradoxical, even chaotic face. The human face of the Orthodox Church is indeed chaotic-because it is living in the world. Internally, however, the unity and authority of the Church is maintained by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ. The unity of the Church is apparent to the extent that we are partakers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:4), to the extent that we participate in the Holy Spirit...

The Orthodox Church, then, is a commonwealth of local churches, a community of unity in diversity, which is founded on the Orthodox Christian theology of the Holy Trinity. The unity of the Church is the expression of the common Orthodox Faith, which is itself an expression of the experience of the Holy Spirit common to her members. The principle of unity and authority is the Son of God, the Head of the Church, the Body of Christ, expressed in the Holy Spirit. This can best be seen among her saints, those who, having acquired the Holy Spirit, are partakers of the divine nature, especially when they are gathered together, as, for example, in a council-for, as Christ promised, where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20). (my bold)

The nature of the Church's unity is spiritual, not secular, not organizational, but ascetic. The unity of the Church is manifest when each one of us, individually and collectively, roots out from within us all that is contrary to the free and untrammeled working and movement of the Holy Spirit. If we fail to do this, our unity with the Body of Christ, the Church, is weakened.”

Sorry, for the long quote….

…the rock that Peter signifies….In any case, both Peter's "keys" and his infallibility proceeds from the fact that he is the rock on which Christ builds His Church.

I think we are at impasse here. I’ve laid out the Orthodox position on this; you’ve laid out the RCC position. [A good summary of the Orthodox/Protestant exegesis: http://www.the-highway.com/papacy_Webster.html] Rome is not going to agree with the Orthodox exegesis; the Orthodox are not going to agree to the RCC exegesis.

Again, I think we are just at impasse here—I see no way around this “rock.”

* I will use Petrine infallibility to identify what you hold is his special charism in that regard.

(continued)

My point about the "keys" earlier was not that it can be completely decoupled from "bind/loose"; but that in the Jewish context, "keys" represented a temporal (i.e. earthly) authority (e.g. steward of a household) as well.

I think I see where you’re coming from here—and it’s an interesting point. I think both you and I have cited articles in which at least some Orthodox were looking for a kind of rapprochement that could be based on the Pope being seen as a kind of “steward of the household” (though I don’t recall if anyone used those terms). Let me make some tentative observations, and let’s see where this one goes—

(1) The word “key” only occurs twice in the Hebrew Scriptures: Judges 3:25 and Isaiah 22:22, the verse you have cited. There does not appear to be a strong “Jewish context” with regard it’s symbolic use.

(2) I’m not sure that I see “temporal authority” as a “steward of the household” implying any “supremacy” in matters doctrinal—let alone infallibility.

(3) With regard to Isaiah 22, I am still researching it from a Jewish perspective, but I have found the following:

(a) Commentary from an Orthodox Jewish Tanach:**

22:15-25. Isaiah condemns Shebna, a deputy of King Hezekiah (see II Kings, Chs. 18,19), who led a rebel party that wanted to capitulate to Sennacherib.

22:16. So sure was Shebna that he was irreplaceable, that he hewed out a grave for himself in the royal section (on high) of the burial ground.

22:22. I.e., the affairs of the royal house will be arranged through him.

22:24. Continuing the metaphor of the sturdy peg, Isaiah says that Eliakim will be trusted by all classes of people, who will rely (hang) on him for all their needs.

(b) I also found this reference in a web article (http://www.askelm.com/temple/t040801.htm#_ftn18):

The next mention in the Bible where the context of “house of David” means a place or a location is in the time of Hezekiah when the Assyrians threatened Judah, God says to Isaiah: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with your robe, and strengthen him with your girdle, and I will commit your government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
• Isaiah 22:20–22

The “house of David” was a special place, a physical location, which in the time of King Hezekiah needed to be locked with a key held by a trusted servant of the king. The situation was that Eliakim, an official of King Hezekiah’s court, was commissioned to replace a man named Shebna 18 (who sought to carve “a sepulcher on high” for himself like a king of Judah, Isaiah 22:15–17). Eliakim was given the authority that Shebna formerly had, indicated by mention of the robe and girdle in v. 21, and an additional responsibility to maintain the key that opened the lock to the “house of David.”

Footnote 18 reads: Cf. 2 Chronicles 16:13–14 where King Asa “made” (Hebrew: dug) a sepulcher for himself. It is the same understanding of the rabbis as shown in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 26a: “[Later, when] Shebna went to hew out for himself a sepulcher among the sepulchers of the house of David, the Prophet came and said to him: What hast thou here and whom hast thou here that thou hast hewn here a sepulcher? Behold, the Lord will hurl thee down as a man is hurled” (citing Isaiah 22:16).

From the nature of the NT references in this article, I think it may be by a Messianic Judaism group. Nevertheless, it confirms the Tanach commentary that this was a household dispute--Shebna's rebellion and pretensions--tied in with the Assyrian conflict.

Eliakim clearly represents a trusted royal servant who can be trusted with the household keys (and was also apparently a spokesperson for the king). I will keep searching….

** The Stone Edition Tanach, Mesorah Publications, Ltd.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It would be as if I said to you, “Here is your 4 = 2 + 2,” and said to Nemesio tomorrow, “And here is your 2 + 2.”

Please don't take my name in vain. 😉

Originally posted by Nemesio
Please don't take my name in vain. 😉

Wow! You are paying attention! 😲 I snuck* that in way down in the post, too.

* "Snuck"--that's a PA "Dutch" term....

Originally posted by vistesd
Wow! You are paying attention! 😲 I snuck* that in way down in the post, too.

* "Snuck"--that's a PA "Dutch" term....

This thread should not die.