Deacon Steven Greydanus on the Denial of Jesus by Peter
March 2, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/03/deacon-steven-greydanus-denial-jesus-peter.html
Quoting Greydanus without giving a link, perhaps from private letter, perhaps from oral context, perhaps givink link later (sorry for the pun).
Here are, however, some words:
C.S. Lewis once pointed out that something similar is true of the Old Testament in its original context and in a post–New Testament context, and noted how older Christian writers often failed to appreciate this point:
“Our ancestors seem to have read the Psalms and the rest of the Old Testament under the impression that the authors wrote with a pretty full understanding of Christian Theology; the main difference being that the Incarnation, which for us is something recorded, was for them something predicted. In particular, they seldom doubted that the old authors were, like ourselves, concerned with a life beyond death, that they feared damnation and hoped for eternal joy.” [Reflections on the Psalms]
As far as we know, no Old Testament writer, nor any Jew in Jesus’ day, had any notion of the invisible and unimaginable God becoming a human being, much less being crucified and raised from the dead. What hopes or expectations of a coming “messiah” existed were far more vague, shadowy and diverse than is widely imagined today; indeed, “the messiah” played a far smaller role in Second Temple era Jewish thought than readers of the Gospels might guess.
False, as far as we know, the tradition of the priests, prophets and kings (and Christ was born in a royal family, related to a priestly one) did very much include knowledge of Trinity and Incarnation, probably also Crucifixion and Resurrection, since that was predicted more than once.
Did the explicitly believed articles increase, those believed by everybody? Yes:
On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xvi in Ezech.) that "the knowledge of the holy fathers increased as time went on . . . and the nearer they were to Our Savior's coming, the more fully did they received the mysteries of salvation."
I answer that, The articles of faith stand in the same relation to the doctrine of faith, as self-evident principles to a teaching based on natural reason. Among these principles there is a certain order, so that some are contained implicitly in others; thus all principles are reduced, as to their first principle, to this one: "The same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," as the Philosopher states (Metaph. iv, text. 9). On like manner all the articles are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God's existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Hebrews 11: "He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him." For the existence of God includes all that we believe to exist in God eternally, and in these our happiness consists; while belief in His providence includes all those things which God dispenses in time, for man's salvation, and which are the way to that happiness: and in this way, again, some of those articles which follow from these are contained in others: thus faith in the Redemption of mankind includes belief in the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion and so forth.
Accordingly we must conclude that, as regards the substance of the articles of faith, they have not received any increase as time went on: since whatever those who lived later have believed, was contained, albeit implicitly, in the faith of those Fathers who preceded them. But there was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly, since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Exodus 6:2-3): "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob [Vulgate: 'I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'] . . . and My name Adonai I did not show them": David also said (Psalm 118:100): "I have had understanding above ancients": and the Apostle says (Ephesians 3:5) that the mystery of Christ, "in other generations was not known, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets."
Second Part of the Second Part : Question 1. Faith; Article 7. These articles: are they of faith for all times?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article7
But next question has two articles which are also relevant, and which are among what CSL referred to as "older Christian writers" (note, Reflections on the Psalms is one book by him I did not buy and liked a lot less than others when reading it borrowed).
Question 2. The act of faith : Article 7. Is explicit faith in Christ always necessary for salvation?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Corr. et Gratia vii; Ep. cxc): "Our faith is sound if we believe that no man, old or young is delivered from the contagion of death and the bonds of sin, except by the one Mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 5; II-II:1:8), the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude; for it is written (Acts 4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Therefore belief of some kind in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation was necessary at all times and for all persons, but this belief differed according to differences of times and persons. The reason of this is that before the state of sin, man believed, explicitly in Christ's Incarnation, in so far as it was intended for the consummation of glory, but not as it was intended to deliver man from sin by the Passion and Resurrection, since man had no foreknowledge of his future sin. He does, however, seem to have had foreknowledge of the Incarnation of Christ, from the fact that he said (Genesis 2:24): "Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife," of which the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:32) that "this is a great sacrament . . . in Christ and the Church," and it is incredible that the first man was ignorant about this sacrament.
But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ's Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ's coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (II-II:1:7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ's mysteries.
After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (II-II:1:8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office.
Article 8. Is it necessary for salvation to believe in the Trinity explicitly?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article8
On the contrary, In the Old Testament the Trinity of Persons is expressed in many ways; thus at the very outset of Genesis it is written in manifestation of the Trinity: "Let us make man to Our image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26). Therefore from the very beginning it was necessary for salvation to believe in the Trinity.
I answer that, It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity, since the mystery of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh; that He renewed the world through the grace of the Holy Ghost; and again, that He was conceived by the Holy Ghost. Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity: and all who are born again in Christ, have this bestowed on them by the invocation of the Trinity, according to Matthew 28:19: "Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
Now, what did CSL get wrong in his Reflections on the Psalms?
He got wrong that he believed someone more learned than he was in theology on that matter, but an Anglican, more learned in a sham and stunted theology, just as traditionally Judaism most of last 1900 and more years is sham and stunted Old Testament theology. This person was then deducing what faithful Hebrews during the Old Testament believed, only from the written text of the Old Testament.
Or worse, from written text plus tradition of those rejecting Christ.
The Hebrew tradition split into two. On the one hand you have a LXX Old Testament, a New Testament, Church Fathers. On the other hand, you have a Masoretic Old Testament, Mishna, Gemara. Those traditions are not the same, even if they both have claims of coming from the Hebrew, Old Testament, root. On the tradition of the Old Testament, we are bound to listen foremost to that of the early Christians. That is, to those whose tradition is preserved to us in the Catholic Church. (Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians or Nestorians have more or less rival claims of being the continued early Church).
This means, the enemies of Christ understood some points of the prophecies about him better than His disciples, especially those who were fishermen from Galilee. Much of what Christ revealed to the twelve during the 40 days, about His death and Resurrection (that would involve an allegoric reading of Genesis 22, where His carrying of the Cross was predicted in Isaac carrying the firewood for his own sacrifice, but also a deal about the woman and her seed being a prophecy about the Blessed Virgin - some things they could not publically preach while She was alive, so She should be protected from persecution). Much of that - sorry for anacolouthon, I woke early this morning - Caiaphas and Hannas understood better than the disciples, until Christ revealed it to them. Or than some of the disciples. And we do know some representative, perhaps more than one, of the temple's tradition, was among the disciples, sooner or later. The beloved disciple was known to the High Priest. Someone present in the temple when the veil was torn from top to bottom must have told the very first Gospeller this. So, we can take it, the tradition of the Old Testament, as represented by Christian tradition, has been validated by people knowing the Old Testament tradition in great detail, in greater detail than the Pharisees.
This means, through Apostolic Tradition including Christ's exegesis and through whatever Cohen or Levite was among the disciples confirming this was (at least in part) already known, we can know better than the Jews what the people like Abraham or King David really believed.
Now, some of the other points are in fact true. Jesus reveled Himself as the Messiah in public five days before He died on a Cross. And that only one day after some of his enemies had already decided to kill both Him and Lazarus, so He knew He had nothing to lose, He was going to be killed anyway, even if He didn't. And since some of the Messianic prophecies of political type - I notably think of Isaiah 11, the verses from "and His sepulchre shall be glorious" to the end - were post-mortem, this did not deprive Him of opportunity of fulfilling them.
I have given the explanation of Isaiah 11 before, but we cannot fail to notice, in a clear fashion the prophecies were fulfilled, even if some had their eyes wide shut to this fact. The first two Churches in the Church are Jerusalem and Samaria - in Judah and in Ephraim. But those related to trampling on the serpent, which both Christ and His Mother did on Calvary, that was fulfilled first. Genesis 3 was the tradition of mankind till it split, and then after Babel, of the Hebrews. It is not a minor prophecy about our domestic relation to snakes (as animals to get rid of, because dangerous), and was not taken so by "the learned" between Adam and St Joseph the Most Chaste Bridegroom either.
Now, let us differentiate between what Greydanus said and what someone else said.
Peter had been there days earlier on the mountain when Jesus was transfigured in glory and spoke with Moses and Elijah. Perhaps now he would be transfigured again, would become like the glorious “son of man” described in Daniel 7, riding clouds of heavenly glory and claiming dominion over all nations and peoples, beginning with those who foolishly thought they could arrest him.
Imagine Peter’s cognitive dissonance when Jesus himself not only told him not to resist, but allowed himself to be taken away. What followed must have been a descent into unthinkable horror: Jesus the wonder-working prophet, Jesus the expeller of demons, Jesus whom Peter himself had dared to pronounce the messiah, was suddenly a helpless victim in the hands of Israel’s great adversary.
All their hopes were turning out like the followers of all the other would-be messiahs who had ended in shame and failure on Roman crosses. Instead of reigning at his side, the Twelve themselves might be crucified with him, and that would be the end of the story.
None of this excuses Peter denying Jesus, but it helps us understand the psychological state in which he did so.
Sounds fairly correct. Cognitive dissonance, anguish, sure, why not (btw, one reason to resist those taking these as symptoms of mental illness, and thereby push psychiatric diagnoses too far : the ones chosen by Christ were healthy, physically and mentally). So far Greydanus.
However, here is Pacelli:
Prior to his elevation to the papacy, for instance, the future Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, shed light on the Blessed Mother’s warning, writing in part:
I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul … A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God.
If he was quoting the Blessed Virgin, so be it. But if he was paraphrasing, saying his own thing, we do at least not have textual evidence that Peter actually doubted. There is a difference between doubting and doubting what something means. There is a difference between doubting and hesitating. There is a difference between doubting whether one will sink or swim and just being irrationally afraid of sinking. I wonder how many went to swim school (not sure that is the word they use in English, I translate the Swedish term) and who know the feeling. And as St Peter himself was a fisherman, he must have known it too one day, and therefore known the difference.
For this quote, see:
akaCatholic : “The Church will doubt as Peter doubted…”
Louie June 17, 2015
https://akacatholic.com/the-church-will-doubt-as-peter-doubted/
Wait ... the words of Pacelli would seem not to involve the denial, of akaCatholic gives the right context:
Peter replied, “Far be it for you, Lord!”
To which Our Blessed Lord responded, “Get behind me, Satan!”
There’s quite a bit to discover in this scene about the nature of Peter’s doubt; for one, his doubt is two-fold, in a sense.
On the one hand, he doubts that Jesus is to suffer and die. This much is obvious, but it’s important to note that in doing so, he is precluding the very possibility of, or we might say doubting, the resurrection.
O ... K ... I thought the words meant sth else, my bad, but O ... K ... can the whole Church, on Earth, docens and docta doubt this way? Even one day? If Pacelli was referring to a secret of Fatima, and if Our Lord has said "every day" in Matthew, it would be a very short doubt, seconds or an hour. And in order for all of the Church to have it in the same time, it would need to be very small indeed, perhaps five persons in a single room or so.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Marinus and Asterius
of Caesarea, Martyrs
Caesareae, in Palaestina, sanctorum Martyrum Marini militis, et Asterii Senatoris, in persecutione Valeriani. Horum prior, cum accusatus esset a commilitonibus ut Christianus, et, interrogatus a Judice, se Christianum esse voce clarissima testaretur, martyrii coronam abscissione capitis accepit; cumque Asterius corpus Martyris, capite truncatum, subjectis humeris et substrata veste, qua induebatur, exciperet, honorem quem Martyri detulit, continuo et ipse Martyr accepit.
No comments:
Post a Comment