Contradictory Reactions of Christ to Peter

[Bruce Michael]

Hi All,

In John Barnwell's book The Arcana of the Grail Angel there is pertinent discussion:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked of his disciples, saying; 'Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?' And they said; 'Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.' He saith unto them; 'But whom say ye that I am?' And Simon Peter answered and said; 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said unto him; 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jo'na - for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whomsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.'

Then charged He his disciples that they should tell no man that He was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him saying; 'Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.' But He turned, and said to Peter; 'Get thee behind me, Satan - thou art an offense unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those of men.'

These contradictory reactions of Christ to Peter, show that Peter had not completed his transformation, and so, could not yet consistently act out of his higher judgment (Manas). This represents Peter's 'exile' from 'the things that be of God' to 'those that be of men.' This state that is 'of men' is called 'doubt' in Wolfram's Parzival. When Christ spoke these words, Peter was yet in a state of 'tumpheit' or dullness, which leads to doubt.....

Rudolf Steiner has pointed out that the path of the Grail passes from 'dullness through doubt to ''saelde'' or blessedness'; although one must first pass through the stage of doubt - 'the dark night of the soul.' The future doubt and denial of Christ by Peter is predicted by Christ in 'The Gospel of John' (13:37-38)."

Peter said unto him; ''Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.'' Jesus answered him; ''Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee. The cock shall not crow, till thou has denied me thrice.''

"As a result of his dullness and subsequent doubt, Peter was later to fulfill the prophetic words of Christ, and deny Him three times before the cock crowed at dawn. Christ said; 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...' when Peter was speaking out of his Higher-Self, or Manas, which is a state of consciousness that is permeable to the influence of the higher worlds,
'...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven.' On the other hand, when Peter was speaking out of his impermeable Ordinary-Ego, Christ said; 'Get thee behind me, Satan - thou art an offense unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those of men.'

How does augur for the Church that Peter founded? Of course some doubt that Peter started the Church.



-Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Bruce —

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

How does augur for the Church that Peter founded?

Well if Peter was on his own, not very well, as none of the disciples 'knew' who Christ was, nor the Mission He had come to fulfill, as St John states so without a shadow of a doubt — and how could they pre-empt Revelation unless they could out-think God? Even after the Resurrection John tells us they were uncertain.

Pentecost, however, changes everything — Pentecost is an operation outside the scope of all man's esoterisms — the coming of the Holy Spirit, and Christ's assertion that he will be with His Church until the end of time is a guarantee beyond all human doubt.

From that time on Peter led the Church, and although there were surprises, such as Cornelius, and arguments, such as when Peter and Paul went at it hammer and tongs, nevertheless he was regarded as 'the first among equals' and all looked to him for strength and leadership.

Christ has chosen him to support the others when they faltered.

The reaction of Christ to Peter tells me three things:
1 - He knows us better than we know ourselves;
2 - He has more faith in us than we have in ourselves;
3 - He loves us, despite ourselves.

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Br.Thomas
Thank you for your reply.
>Pentecost, however, changes everything — Pentecost is an operation >outside the scope of all man's esoterisms — the coming of the Holy Spirit, >and Christ's assertion that he will be with His Church until the end of time >is a guarantee beyond all human doubt.


This shows us that revelation in ongoing.

>at it hammer and tongs, nevertheless he was regarded as 'the first among >equals' and all looked to him for strength and leadership.

How is it so that some are closer to God than others?


Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

[Thomas]

Hello Bruce —

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

This shows us that revelation in ongoing.

Well that brings up some interesting concepts on the nature of Revelation as such. In the Catholic Tradition, it is axiomatic that "The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Dei Verbum 4.2) and thus whilst the 'unfolding' of Revelation is ongoing, there is no 'new' revelation as such.

Many people instantly react against this, but usually they have no idea of how Catholicism defines 'revelation' in the first place:

"In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4).

This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having in inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation."
(DV again)

So Jesus Christ is in and of Himself the totality of revelation. What more is revealed? If we do accept 'ongoing revelation' then the Incarnation becomes subject to all manner of extraneous data and interpretation ... Moslem, Baha'i, and dare I even mention TS?

(Personal disclosure is another matter.)

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

How is it so that some are closer to God than others?

I'm not sure of the meaning of this question in context?

My first response would be that some want to be closer to God than others, and do what is asked of them, others want to be close to God, but on their own terms.

But again, I cannot say. As Islam holds, "God is closer to you than your jugular vein", a sentiment with which I agree, and there is no quantitative or qualitative means of measuring any particular individual's proximity to God, that is between the individual and God, and for them alone.

Or put another way:
God is the same distance from everyone, regardless (no distance at all);
Everyone puts themself at some distance from God.

I happen to believe Milton's verse "they also serve who only stand and wait" and so on what grounds do we judge closeness to God?

Certainly, the hierarchy of the Church is no such claim, although it is invariably assumed that a priest is closer than the people, a bishop closer than a priest, a pope closer than anyone, which is fundamentally not the case, and immediately apparent if people care to think about it.

What I do think people confuse is function. Some people, the Apostles first and foremost, are called to a destiny, or have a vocation (same thing), but that should not be assumed to mean that those who do not, or appear not to have a calling, are not close or closer than those who do.

I mean, The Blessed Virgin is the Theotokos ... the highest calling of the lot, but if we look at Scripture, after she bore the Christ Child, she did next to nothing ... (which is, of course, not the case, a point Tradition defends most vigorously, but what we do not do is go outside of Tradition to find evidence to bolster her position — such as linking her to feminine deities — the Mystery of her being within the Christian context surpasses all that — in fact the promoters of feminine deities should be looking to asociate themselvves with her.

As a matter of interest, the Celts did just that with the story that St Brigid, a Celtic deity long before Christ, who was supposedly present as midwife at the Nativity ... anyway ...

I can think of plenty of concrete examples to illustrate that in an RC context.

(That's why I reacted strongly against your notion of two churches, one Petrine, one Johannine ... it institutes duality where there should be unity.)

Thomas

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Br. Thomas
>My first response would be that some want to be closer to God than others, and do what is asked of them, others want to be close to God, but >on their own terms.

It could be said that no man truly deserves a place closer to God than others- but the truth is that some do have that closeness- saints such as Francis etc.

Of course we all "live, move and have our being in God"- we cannot get away from God.

Cheers,
Br.Bruce