Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy

AsiaNews ^ | 7 June, 2006

[Petrosius]

Benedict XVI talked about the primacy intended by Jesus and recognized by the apostles. He said a spontaneous prayer so that ?entrusted to poor human beings, the primacy may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, that it may be recognized by our brothers not yet in full communion with us.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – The foundation of the primacy of Peter in the desire manifested by Jesus and recognition by the Twelve, and spontaneous prayers so that “poor human beings” entrusted with the primacy will know how exercise it according to the will of Jesus, and so it may be recognized also by Christians who are not in full communion with Rome. This was the thrust of the words of Benedict XVI in today’s general audience.

Thus, Christian unity, indicated by Benedict XVI himself as being one of the fundamental objectives of his pontificate, accompanied his reflection on the “primacy”, described as a “constitutive element” of the Church, which has always posed one of the main – if not the main – obstacles to Christian unity unity. In this regard, John Paul II, in his encyclical “Ut Unum Sint” (1995), affirmed the openness of the Catholic Church to discussing not the primacy but concrete ways of exercising it. Today, Benedict XVI underlined that the task entrusted to Peter, is “to strengthen his brothers”. Off the cuff, he said: “This is the primacy given for all times: Peter must be the guardian of communion with Christ, lead to communion with Christ… with the charity of Christ, even to lead to the realization of this charity in everyday life.”

In his reflection, Benedict XVI today highlighted different aspects of the “primacy”: its institution by Christ, the awareness of Peter and recognition by the Twelve.

On this spring day, Benedict XVI addressed at least 40,000 people who packed into the square and brightened it up with colourful flags, hats, handkerchiefs, and even a few umbrellas to offer protection from the sun, already rather warm at times. The pope drew attention to the narrative of John about the first meeting of Jesus with Simon, brother of Andrew, saying “it records a singular fact: Jesus ‘looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)’ (Jn1:42). Jesus did not usually change the names of his disciples”, in fact, “He never gave a new name to any of his disciples. However he did so with Simon, and that name, translated in Greek as Petros, would crop up several times in the Gospels and would end up by replacing his original name. This fact takes on particular significance when one recalls that in the Old Testament, changing a name was usually a prelude to entrusting one with a mission (cfr Jn 17:5; 32:28ff). In fact, the intention of Christ to attribute special importance to Peter within the Apostolic College emerges in many instances: in Capernaum, the Teacher went to lodge in Peter’s house (Mk 1:29); when the crowd flocked to the banks of the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus chose Peter’s boat from the two moored there (Lk 5:3); when in particular circumstances, Jesus took three disciples to accompany him, only Peter is always recalled as the first of the group: the same happened in the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (cfr Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51); in the Transfiguration (cfr Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1; Lk 9:28), during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (cfr Mk 14:33; Mt 16:37). And again: it was Peter who was approached by the tax collectors at the Temple and the Teacher paid for himself and for Peter alone (cfr Mt 17: 24-27); it was Peter whose feet He washed first at the Last Supper (cfr Jn 13:6) and it was only for him that He prayed so that his faith would not fail and that he may in turn strengthen his brothers (cfr Lk 22: 30-31)”.

“Peter himself is, after all, aware of his unique position: it is he who often, in the name also of the rest, speaks out, asking for an explanation for some difficult parable (Mt 15:15) or the exact meaning of a precept (Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of reward (Mt 19:27).”

Benedict XVI dwelt upon the “profession of faith which, again in the name of the Twelve, he made near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus who asked: ‘Who do you say I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16: 15-16). Jesus replies by making a solemn statement that defines, once and for all, the role of Peter in the Church: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19). The three metaphors Jesus refers to are in themselves very clear: Peter will be the rock, the foundation on which the Church will stand; He will have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven to open or close as he sees fit; and finally, he will be able to bind or dissolve in the sense that he will be able to establish or prohibit as he holds necessary for the life of the Church, which is, and remains, of Christ”.

“This position of pre-eminence that Jesus meant to confer upon Peter is apparent also after the resurrection: Jesus charged the women to take the news to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cfr Mk 16:7); it is to him and to John that Mary Magdalen rushes to inform them about the overturned stone at the entrance to the sepulchre (cfr Jn 20:2) and John allows Peter to go ahead when the two reach the empty tomb (cfr Jn 20:4-6); Peter would be the first among the Apostles to testify to an apparition of the Risen Lord (cfr Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cfr Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between his pre-eminence among the apostolic group and the pre-eminence he would continue to enjoy in the community born from the paschal events, as attested in the Book of the Acts (cfr 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11.29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.). His behaviour is considered so decisive that it is the focus of observations and even of criticism (cfr At 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14). Peter occupies a leadership role in the Council of Jerusalem (cfr At 15 and Gal 2:1-10) and it is precisely because of his being a witness to the authentic faith that Paul himself recognized in him a certain quality of “first” (cfr 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff; etc.). Further, the fact that all the key texts referring to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, when Christ confers upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brothers (cfr Lk 22:31ff), reveals how the Church born from the paschal memory celebrated in the Eucharist, finds one of its constitutive elements in the ministry entrusted to Peter.”

At the end of his reflection, Benedict XVI prayed, off the cuff, that the “primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, so that it may be recognized still more in its true meaning by our brothers as yet not in full communion with us.”

[Petrosius]

If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20

Ephesians 2:19-20 reads:

Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

As for the first part in which we are called "fellow citizens", this in no way prevents a hierarchy of offices within the Church. The President of the United States often addresses the people as "my fellow citizens." Paul himself quite consciously claims the title of apostle.

As for the second part, notice that it mentions the "foundation of the apostles and prophets." Foundations, you will recall, are made of stone. No one denies our Lord's position as the "chief corner stone." But if the apostles can be called a "foundation" then our Lord can designate Peter to be the first of these foundation stones. The Lord is free to do as he chooses without harming his sovereignty.

One thing should be clear in all of this discussion is that the Holy Scriptures are not easy to interpret and require an expert knowledge. Thus we have the falsehood of Sola Scriptura. We are not arguing about the authority of Scripture but its meaning.

BTW, could you show me one passage from Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura and our freedom to ignore the authority of the bishops, presbyters and deacons that have been established to govern the Church?

[Petrosius]

It is the Catholic church an the adhearents to it's false doctrine that have abandoned the Holy Spirit and His teachings.

A conclusion assumed and not proved.

[tenn2005]

A conclusion assumed and not proved.

Nope. Just matching the doctrine of the Catholic church against the teaching of the Bible.

[tenn2005]

But if the apostles can be called a "foundation" then our Lord can designate Peter to be the first of these foundation stones. The Lord is free to do as he chooses without harming his sovereignty.

It is your claim that the church is built on Peter (singular> while the Bible teaches that the church is built on all the Apostles (plural). The clear teaching of scripture denies your contention.

BTW, could you show me one passage from Scripture that supports Sola Scriptura and our freedom to ignore the authority of the bishops, presbyters and deacons that have been established to govern the Church?

Try II Tim 3:16 and II tim 2:15. Sola scriptura is able to make us complete (no need for any teaching other than the Bible). That is why Paul instructed Timothy to study (for himself) and learn to rightly divide the truth. We each have to work out our own salvation with "fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12). If you look to others you place your salvation in their hands. That is contrary to what the Bible teaches.

[tenn2005]

Priest=presbyter=elder. These terms mean one and the same thing but if you wish we can use the term 'presbyter' which applies to the Catholic priest and is the term used in Latin.

Not according to Theyer they don't.

BTW, the word is 'corrupting'. Why do you insist on corrupting the English language with 'currupting'? : )

I plead guily to to a typo.

[tenn2005]

You did not answer my question. How would this differ from the office of bishop?

I answered your question in post 173.

In the early Church there was some flexibility on the usage of the names of offices which would latter be standardized in the three offices of bishop, priest and deacon.

Did you come to this understanding through personal revelation or by being told it by some priest. In any event, there is no flexability on the usage of names and offices in the first century church. Some offices such as Apostles, Evangelist and Profit were limited to the first centure. The others continue to this day, but priest was never one of these offices. If you think that it is then produce your scripture. In Koine Greek, not the Latin translation put forth by the Catholic church.

[Kolokotronis]

"That would be incorrect. The NT was written in Koine Greek. The word presbuterios is nowhere in Greek literature translated as Priest. It is always tranlated as Elder. Check it out for yourself in Thayers Greek Lexicon. I agree that the word Priest is a corruption of the Greek, but it is the Catholic church that has currupted it."

You and Thayer are absolutely wrong. Presbeuterios could indeed mean "elder" but it also meant priest in koine. It is still used somewhat in modern Greek. Another modern usage of the word is presbeuthV which means ambassador. The reason the word was used was because the chief "elder" of a parish and the ambassador of the bishop, whose role within The Church is to represent Christ, is in fact the priest. To this day the wife of a priest is called the presbeutera.

T, Greek is my mother tongue and I must say that it never ceases to irritate me when Protestants insist on spinning my language to further their innovative "theology".

[Kolokotronis]

"Again, if we were having this discussion in Latin or Greek we would not be having this silly argument."

Yeah, you would. Trust me on this one, P.

[bert]

Hocus Pokus.....Dominokus!!

[colorcountry]

I've been out of town. but thank your for your informative response.

[Claud]

Present any historical writing, other than the Catholic Church Fathers, that says Peter died in Rome.

Apologies for the late reply. I was FR-absent this weekend.

Considering the bulk of the historical evidence lies in the Church Fathers (which for some reason you, alone among historians, don't find to qualify as history in the proper sense), you have imposed an almost impossible stricture on me. It would be like me proving Moses's existence outside of the Old Testament, Josephus, and the Talmud.

But very well, let me respond first by asking one simple question. To what does "Bablyon" refer in Revelation 17:5 and Revelation 18:10?

[tenn2005]

But very well, let me respond first by asking one simple question. To what does "Bablyon" refer in Revelation 17:5 and Revelation 18:10?

More than likely, in my opinion, it refers to the Roman Emperial System which ended near the end of the first century when the Roman Senate had Dominition (Sp) assinated and took back the control that they had lost in BC43. The city itself is very likely not the reference because it continued to exist and exert significant world power for over another 1,000 years.

[Claud]

Yes, I think you are right about the "Roman Imperial System", although I think John is representing the city of Rome as the center of that system: for example, Rev 17:9 says that the 7 heads represent 7 mountains, which is an unmistakable reference to the 7 hills of Rome.

Just as a historical aside, the Senate never regained control over Rome again after Augustus came to power before the time of Christ. (Perhaps you are thinking of Domitian in "Gladiator", which was a great movie despite not being historically accurate about Domitian's death). The Emperors governed Rome until Romulus Augustulus was deposed in A.D. 476.

In any case, given that "Babylon" is an apparent reference to Rome, what do you make of this line from Peter's First epistle (1 Peter 5:13):

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

[Claud]

If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20

The quote in question is as follows:

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Eph 2:19-20)

So your question is, how can we say that Peter is the rock when Christ is the cornerstone?

This very passage itself already contains the germ of the answer. In describing the household of faith, note what it says right before Christ as the cornerstone:

built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone

Note that there is sort of a three-tiered structure here. The 1) saints and household members rest on the 2) foundation of the Apostles whose 3) cornerstone is Christ. The building needs all three to stand. Take away the cornerstone, there is no foundation and no rest of the building. But leave only the cornerstone, and there's no building either. The three exist together, complement each other, and all go toward making the entire structure, even though the most important part and the part upon which everything else rests remains the cornerstone.

In this passage, does the Apostles' being the foundation in any way contradict the cornerstone of Christ? Certainly not. Are they somehow "coming between" the saints and Christ? Of course not. Their role is to support Christ as the cornerstone, to serve as extensions of his foundational role.

Similarly, we do not say Peter is the Rock *instead* of Christ. Rather, we say he shares in the (true) Rock that is Christ in a special way. This is why we don't see any contradition when we hear all the times that Christ is referred to as the "Rock". Of course Christ is the Rock! But so is Peter! They both are in a way, the former more important, but the latter important in its own way as well.

And in very much the same way that Ephesians envisions a foundation passing from Christ through the Apostles to the saints, we see Christ's Rock passed through Peter to the church.

[tenn2005]

You have done a good job of dodging the question. The question is, How can the Catholic church maintain that Jesus built his church on Peter when Eph. 2:19-20 clearly states that the church is built on the apostles (plural).
The Catholic church claims that the church is built on Peter while the Bible teaches that the church was built on the teaching of all the apostles. Peter was equal to the rest of the apostles and never claimed a primacy for himself. That primacy is the sole invention of the Catholic church.

[Quix]

THE ROCK CHRIST JESUS vs

the pebble petros?

I'll take Christ and Him Crucified over dogma; over tradition; over playing church; over ritual; over doctrines of man; over doctrines of demons; over habit; over works of the flesh; over RELIGION; over churchianity; over phariseeism; over legalism; . . . over a host of other -ism's . . .

any day, any night, any time, all the time.

[tenn2005]

You are wrong in your history. Domitian was the last of the absolute monarchs of Rome. He was assinated by order of the Senate. From that time on the emperors were not absolute monarchs. There were 12 absolute monarchs of Rome beginning with Augustus and ending with Domitian. It was the empirical system that rested on the seven hills of Rome and it was that system that persecuted the Christians until Christ intervened to end it.

I know that you want to make Rome to be the Babylon from which Peter wrote his letters, but it won't fly. Stick with the teachings of the Bible and you will see the fallacy of the teachings of the Catholic church.

[Quix]

Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations
- - - -

WRONG.

We COMPREHEND quite well.

We DISAGREE that your interpretation is the correct one.

The FAITH of Peter the pebble IN CHRIST THE ROCK fits the text MUCH BETTER AS THE FOUNDATIONAL TRUTH Christ was referring to than does your explanation.

[Quix]

Great summary. Thanks.

[markomalley]

WRONG.

We COMPREHEND quite well.

---

OK, OK. So instead of being ignorant, you are puffing your chest out and are declaring that you have a complete understanding and have intentionally, with your eyes wide open, separated yourself from that teaching. Works for me!

Speaking of that, just for fun, you should do a little word study on the scriptural usages of αφιστημι, αποστασιον and αποστασια. You might find it interesting.

Or you might not...