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.”

[Iscool]

Thou sayest...

Oh, btw, FYI Matt 27:11 (KJV) "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest."

Mark 15:2 (KJV) "And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]."

Luke 23:3 (KJV)"And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest [it]."

You'll forgive me if I prefer the words of our Lord.

Do you even know what the Lord is saying??? He's saying that this was Pilate's claim, not His...

Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Joh 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

Joh 18:39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

Joh 18:40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Jesus never once said or admitted he was the King...Jesus' Kingdom is NOT, NOW, from HERE...And it won't be til he comes back with His Bride...Not that Kingdom anyway...

If some of you folks would quit reading the hype put out by your church and get into the Bible, you'd pick up on some of this stuff...

[Iscool]

Friend, Jesus IS NOW the King. His Kingdom has been inaugurated. What we await is the full and final consumation of His Kingdom. He is on the throne, in complete control.

Sorry, but you're wrong...Jesus sits on the right hand of the Father...Jesus will not be the King until he sits on the throne in the City of David (Jerusalem) and he certainly hasn't made it there yet...But I'm looking for it to happen any time now...Even so, Come Lord Jesus...

[Claud]

I guess if we all believed that, we'd all be Catholics...So I will say with a clear conscience, Peter is NOT the rock of the church...Jesus is the Rock that the church was built upon...

Your conscience, valuable as it is, cannot dictate that the Greek language be other than it is.

Let's walk through the text.

su ei Petros = you are Rock
epi tauth th petra = and upon this same rock
oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian = I will build my Church.

That "su" in the first line is a second person personal singular pronoun. You are Rock. Not "I", not "my faith" but "you". There can be no referent but Peter. Taute in the second line means "same, identical" (e.g. tautology), "You are Rock and upon this SAME rock I will build my Church." Thus, the typical explanation about Petros/petra being two different things is specious, because that would make the text say: "you are a pebble and upon this same Rock I will build my church".

The whole rest of the passage is filled with the 2nd personal singular pronoun...Christ giving these extraordinary power/privileges: I will give YOU = "soi" the keys of the kingdom, power to bind and loose) not on all of the Apostles but on "SU"...on Peter. Whatever YOU bind will be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose will be loosed in heaven.

There are statements of the Church Fathers that say that the Rock is Peter's confession. And they are right--it is. But it is ALSO Peter's person. His confession came from his person, and the two cannot be separated in this context, particularly in light of the Greek grammar which leaves no room for doubt that Peter's person is the referent.

[Claud]

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "

I'm not at all clear why, because Christ is referred to the Rock so many other places, that is held to definitively *rule out* the possibility that somebody else could be a Rock in a lesser sense in Matt 16. That's not hermeneutics. It would be like saying because "fish" is literal in 414 places in the Bible, it cannot be figurative somewhere else.

See above, Xenia...the Greek allows no such linguistic games. Christ Himself calls Peter the Rock. I would not be so bold to assert it myself if it was not there in plain Greek.

[Kenny Bunkport]

There are different interpretations of Christ's words, as you know. The typical Protestant interpretation of Jesus reference to "upon this rock I will build my church," is to Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not to Peter himself. It is upon that confession that Christ's church would be built, not upon the man Peter. And the history of the early church bears this out. It was Paul, not Peter, who planted the churches throughout Asia Minor. It was Paul's teaching that caused those churches to grow, not Peter's. Anyone who acknowledges and puts their faith in both the person and the work of Jesus ("the Christ, the Son of the Living God" -- similar to Peter's confession) will be saved, are placed in spiritual union with Him, and become part of His church.

From church history, this interpretation makes the most sense.

[Claud]

It was Paul, not Peter, who planted the churches throughout Asia Minor. It was Paul's teaching that caused those churches to grow, not Peter's.

But note something very important. While Paul founded many churches, it was the churches that Peter founded which were the most important and authoritative "patriarchal" churches: Antioch and Rome (and even Alexandria, through Peter's disciple Mark). These Churches exercised a special primacy in their respective regions and went on to become the recognized seats of the three original Patriarchates.

Paul's churches had no such special patriarchal authority.

[Frumanchu]

If some of you folks would quit reading the hype put out by your church and get into the Bible, you'd pick up on some of this stuff...

...

But I'm looking for it to happen any time now...

Sorry...just gotta laugh about these two statements juxtaposed.

Friend, we were not told that the Kingdom was at hand (that the axe was laid at the foot of the tree) just so we could all stand on edge for 2000 years. The Kingdom is here and is among us. It is advancing, and it will one day be fully consumated.

[Antoninus]

Jesus is supreme.

Shouldn't you listen to what he says, then?

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

[Antoninus]

Now that was easy wasn't it...

Self-delusion often is.

[Antoninus]

I would think the Pope would be more concerned with the flood of Catholics becoming Muslims.

What, based on that one miserable MSM article you posted yesterday?

[Antoninus]

I would think the Pope would be more concerned with the flood of Catholics becoming Muslims.

What, based on that one miserable MSM article you posted yesterday?

[Antoninus]

Additionally, they do not comprehend the concept of Apostolic succession (cf Acts 1:15ff, and many other examples of episcopal ordinations, cf 2 Ti 1:6, Acts 20:28, etc.).

Most of what I've seen indicates that Protestants have decided that Apostolic succession isn't important after all--mainly because they don't have it.

[Theoden]

We see what you see...But we want no part of it...

Thats basically the crux of what I said. The denial of the Primacy, the choice to stay that way, and all the examples, facts, arguments, and scriptural/theological support in the world will not change it.

For wanting no part of Catholicism, you seem to do an awful lot of posting in threads with Catholic topics, nothing positive of course. Speaking for myself, I could not care less what non-Catholics are up to, and I usually ignore those threads.

[Theoden]

Y'shua is the "Word of G-d". Is He not?

Absolutely! He is the word made flesh.

All scripture that was quoted by Y'shua was from the Tanach.

Correct

Did Y'shua say ignore the Tanach? I don't think so

Right, he did not come to undo the laws, but to fulfill them.

Y'shua rebuked the Pharisees for ignoring the Tanach and using man-made Tradition instead.

Yes, however, he was in the process of fulfilling scripture, and obviously would not be following the New Testament in addition to that, because he did not yet rise from the dead and tell his apostles to spread the good news to all nations. That's what my question pertained to, and I admit, I should have phrased it much better. I was wondering why you seemingly place a greater emphasis on OT rather than the NT. I believe they are BOTH authoritative, divinely inspired, and are the Word of God, and I place the greater emphasis on NT, while I still honor the OT at the same time.

I believe that Y'shua is the Mashiach as for-told in G-d's Holy Word: the Tanach.

As do I, and I believe that Christ, one in being with God the Father, through the Holy Trinity, established a new covenant, as symbolized in the splitting of the temple shroud, and when Christ said that the only way to the Lord is through him. To me, that diminishes, yet doesn't invalidate, the Old Testament.

Now, I also have to admit here, I have not read up on this in my own catechism, and my Catholic brothers and sisters can set me straight if I am incorrect in this, or if I am deviating from the beliefs of my faith. I submit to the Body of Christ, and I accept all of her teaching.

The last thing I want is an argument, that's not my intention, and of course, nothing is personal. Just an honest question to you. Thanks again.

[Iscool]

Well, I don't read Greek...I don't even write Greek...I did however take 2 years of Latin way back in High School...Shoot, I'm not even that good at English...But I can read English...

And every thing I've read 'about' Greek in English says that Petros is a small rock; about the size of a basketball, or maybe even as large as an automobile...

Petra, on the other hand, according to everything I've read is a Rock...A Rock large enough you could land a 747 on it...

So it looks like that to justify 'upon this rock' I will build my church, and give it to Peter, you have to annihilate the greek meanings of Petros/Petra, which you appear to have done according to everything I've read on it...

Thus, the typical explanation about Petros/petra being two different things is specious, because that would make the text say: "you are a pebble and upon this same Rock I will build my church".

Like I said, everything I've ever read about it, not once did anyone else say it was specious...What they do say is that if Matthew was written in Aramic, they could justify what you suggest...Unfortunately, no one has ever found a Matthew manuscript written in Aramic...

[Kenny Bunkport]

Where in scripture is there a necessity for "patriarchal authority" of one church over another, and where in scripture is such authority conferred?

[Uri’el-2012]

xs>The only conclusion that one can come to unless
you are predisposed to believe in man's tradition
over the Holy Word of G-d is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "

I'm not at all clear why, because Christ is referred to the Rock so many other places, that is held to definitively *rule out* the possibility that somebody else could be a Rock in a lesser sense in Matt 16. That's not hermeneutics. It would be like saying because "fish" is literal in 414 places in the Bible, it cannot be figurative somewhere else.

See above, Xenia...the Greek allows no such linguistic games. Christ Himself calls Peter the Rock. I would not be so bold to assert it myself if it was not there in plain Greek.

44 posted on 06/08/2006 10:52:23 AM MDT by Claud

Y'shua addresses Peter as a pebble , a small rock not unlike any of us.

You need to refer to the Koine Greek for that descernment.

b'shem Y'shua

[Kenny Bunkport]

See my post number 34.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Opps, sorry. Make that post 45.

[Antoninus]

Opps, sorry. Make that post 45.

Saw it. Read it. Dismissed it.

Weak, weak, weak.