The Deposit of Faith Is For All Time

The basic arguments for and against Petrine Primacy and thus the Papacy are not what I want to consider here first of all. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, there are so many books on this that it would do the subject an injustice to try and treat them here. Secondly, there are other criticisms of this doctrine which demand much more attention than the age-old debates over a handful of scriptural passages and patristic texts. What I do want to cover, is a little bit about how this office helps to secure the passing on of the deposit of faith without corruption.

Very briefly, however, for the purposes of clarity, I shall put forth the Catholic position for such a doctrine. The treatment will be deliberately short in order to provide a background for further considerations.

The main text in this debate is Matthew 16:18-19. Here's a quick explanation:

• Some have suggested that Jesus does not refer to Peter as the 'rock' here, since there is a difference between petra and petros. One meaning a little pebble (Peter) the other, a massive rock (Jesus).
• This is untenable, since Jesus did not speak Greek. Therefore, His words would have been "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." (transliterations of the Aramaic vary). Thus there is no distinction to be made between the two. In the Greek text, however, the difference in words is only the result of an application of a feminine noun (rock) to a masculine person (Peter). 'Rock' being used as a name is unknown to history before this instance, so it makes sense to adapt the noun ending to make it suitable as a name. This point is lost on us, since the anglicised 'Peter' is so common a name for us now. Very few biblical scholars these days reject the view that Jesus is referring to Peter and not himself, or Peter's confession.
• Some suggest that the authority given to Peter was just that - to Peter, not to his successors.
• As the previous blog pointed out, there were aspects of the Apostolic Office that needed to be continued. By virtue of the very nature of the authority given to Peter, successors are the only viable conclusion. As the sign of unity in the faith, Peter's position and the charism of the office held (particularly infallibility in matters of faith and morals) was necessary to be passed on above all for the purposes of maintaining the unity of the ecclesial community and being the definitive visible sign of an error-free, faithful proclamation of the Gospel. Not only this, but the passage here in Matthew alludes to Isaiah 22:22 et seq. This shows the institution of a prime ministerial office, complete with dynastic succession. The office, therefore, was designed to last as long as the kingdom. This meant successors, and the earliest Christians knew it. Peter (and his successors) hold the fullness of the Keys, and with Christ's assurance that the "Gates of Hades would not prevail", the Church is secure in knowledge that she can teach only that which is true.

There are many other matters I could consider about this, but I leave it at that for now for the aforementioned reasons.

I wish to consider further the matter of Jesus entrusting the sacred deposit of faith to His Apostles. Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (Jn. 14:26). In this verse is a promise given in the plural, to the eleven and ordained leaders (i.e. Church Hierarchy), not a promise that individuals will be given the gift of interpreting the fullness of scripture - see 2 Pet. 1:20-21. Jesus also taught that the Spirit would teach them things:

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them
now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into
all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He
hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." (Jn. 16:12-13)

Bearing this notion in mind, we must also remember that the sacred deposit of faith was:

"once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 1:3)

Some dispute the translation of this passage, suggesting that there is no sense of finality in the phrase 'once for all'. The issue here is that some translations render the Greek word hapax as 'once' (opening the potential for being lost), and others 'once for all' (meaning it can never be lost). Hapax does in fact denote finality, and is best rendered in Jude 1:3 as 'once for all'. Various lexicons speak of this word as meaning 'always valid' and some have suggested that there is a 'drawn-out' sense to it - that is, it does not mean 'once, fullstop, with a possible need for repetition', but rather 'once, without end, in perpetuum'. You can't repeat something that does not end.
1 Peter 3:18 also says "Christ died once [hapax] for our sins". Since we cannot question the finality of Christ's death, we must see this word as meaning "once for all" not "once, fullstop, with a possible need for repetition". Theologically speaking, we must view Christ's death as "once, without end, in perpetuum" - since it is His eternal gift to the Father, and He is the Lamb, standing slain (cf. Rev. 5:6). As Scott Hahn has said before - slain Lamb's don't stand. So there is a sense of "one-ness" (or "once-ness" if you prefer) to Christ's sacrifice, but there is also a perpetual sense to it. I must reiterated again - you cannot repeat something that does not end.
So it is with the deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles and their successors. This is not to suggest (in the same way that it does not suggest it of Christ's sacrifice) that revelation is not finished - it is (Heb. 1:1-2), but we're considering here where Jude speaks of its "handing down". This has a perpetual and "never-ending" sense to it. So we may put it as given to us once for all of time, through the faithful handing on of it from generation to generation.

So here we see that in no way is there any need for individuals or groups to try to "uncover" the real deposit of faith, since it has been entrusted to us in its fullness forever. For this reason also, it could never be corrupted by those it was entrusted to (the successors of the apostles). Later I shall consider more concrete examples of Christ's promise to protect the Church from error and doctrinal corruption (such as His promise that the Gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church).