Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: MeOnTheBeach

St. Peter and the Papacy

JESUS ESTABLISHED HIS CHURCH ON PETER:

| The Church Fathers Speak | Protestants Speak? | The Scriptures | The Objections |

THE PAPACY

Christ instituted His Church as a means of salvation to continue His mission and apply his work of redemption to souls throughout the ages until the consummation of the world (Matt 28:20). This Church is a visible organization: “A city built on a hill cannot be hid” (St. Matt. 5, 14). Being visible, Christ’s Church possesses a hierarchical authority to govern it (St. Luke 6, 13), which is invested with His own mission (St. John 20, 21) to teach (St. Matt. 28, 20) to rule (St. Matt. 18, 17-18) and to sanctify the faithful (St. John 15, 16).

This same Church, Christ founded upon Peter, the prince of the apostles in order that he (and his successors) may be the visible representative of Christ saying:

“And I say to 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 you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever You shall bind on earth, it shall bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be Bound also in heaven: and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth, It shall be bound in heaven.” - MATHEW 16:18 -19

Although the objections to these clear words of Christ are numerous because of the implications it bestows upon Christians to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The claim that Christ is referring to himself as the Rock does violence to text since it is clear that Christ is praising Peter for having confessed his divinity and not praising Himself as otherwise it would be but an insult to Peter. Yet nevertheless the words which directly follow would also have not only not make any sense but would have nothing to do with the very context of Christ’s words as He goes on to say to St. Peter “ And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou (in the singular) shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”. Thus from the whole context it seems clear that Christ is talking to Peter and declaring him to be the Rock upon which He is to build his Church” - MATT 16:19

We also note that Christ had at this point changed Peters name to “Cephas” which means a large, massive stone in Aramaic (since not only was Aramaic the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke, but Matthew’s Gospel was written by him in Aramaic, we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself) in order to affirm that Peter is the rock upon which He will build His Church. If Peter was not in some way to be a Rock, why the need to change his name, especially since when God changes ones name it often has to do with a divine mission (i.e. Abram’s name is Changed to Abraham - Gen 17:5).

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who gave Simon Bar-Jonah, the fisherman, this unique place among His twelve Apostles. The most obvious place to begin is Simon’s name, which Jesus changed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, “And I say to you [Simon], you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” The unfailing Church of Jesus Christ, in other words, is built upon Simon the Rock - Peter. Like the Patriarchs Abram/Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:28), Simon/Peter received a new identity from the Lord.

Although the reception of a new name is significant in itself, as we know from the stories of Abraham and Israel, Matthew 16:18 also promises that it is on Simon Peter that Jesus’ Church will be built. Even though the Apostles in general have been called a “foundation” (Eph. 2:20), Jesus singled Simon Peter out as the “Rock.” A similar thing occurs in 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” “Binding and loosing” is a charism given to all the Apostles (Matt. 18:18), but Peter is singled out for “the keys.”

Apologists who strictly equate Matthew 16:19 with 18:18[9] miss a rare but crucial biblical motif: “keys” equal authority. Consider the words of Jesus in Apoc 1:18: “Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and hell.” What does Jesus mean when He says He holds “the keys”? In Peter’s words, Jesus has authority or rights over death: “it was impossible for [Jesus] to be held by [death]” (Acts 2:24). Jesus holds “the keys” of death, death does not hold Jesus.

If “keys” represent authority, what kind of authority is Jesus conferring on Peter in Matthew 16:19? Jesus gives Peter “keys” to a Kingdom. What kind of King is Jesus? Jesus is a King in the line of David (Luke 1:32). So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus mentions is nevertheless a truly Davidic Kingdom. Jesus possesses “the key” of David (Rev. 3:7), and it is within His authority as Davidic King to authorize Peter, which He does in Matthew 16:19.

Jesus gives “the keys” of His Kingdom to Peter alone among the Apostles; “the keys” are not mentioned in passages like Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. The Apostles, familiar with Isaiah and with Israel’s history, would have understood the imagery Jesus evoked. It need not have been any more explicit. This is precisely however one of the major problems with both a number of (so called) modern scholars and Protestants in general who pick up the bible some 2000 years later and read it without having any historical or biblical education other than their own prejudicial views and then hope to have an infallible understanding of the scriptures!

Can Christ and Peter both be foundation stones at the same time? This indeed is the case as St. Peter is simply to be the ministerial head but Christ is the ultimate head upon which all things depend for their existence. The Headship of St. Peter is dependant upon that of Christ as they are not univocally one and the same since one is subordinate to the other. Christ further illustrates this point when he calls us to be to be the light and Truth (Matt 5:16; John 14:6) even though He is the Light and Truth (John 8:12). Hence there is no contradiction but rather an affirmation. There is no contradiction, as both Peter and Christ are the “foundation” or “rock” of the Church in different senses. Jesus was the cornerstone, author, and foundation of both salvation and Christianity, so Peter who was the head of the apostles is in a lesser way - was the cornerstone of the Church. St. Paul saw no contradiction in this and openly declares that the Apostles and prophets are cornerstones with Christ: “You are fellow citizens with the saints and domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” - Eph 2:20 He also confirms the same thing explicitly of St. Peter, John and James saying “ When they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas (Peter the Rock) and John, who seemed to be PILLARS, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”. The Papacy would thus become for the Church what a foundation stone is for a building as outside of this building all are not part of it. This stone offers stability and unity as we get from the supreme authority in any society.

Our Lord singles Peter out on other occasions as well. At the Last Supper, in the midst of foretelling Peter’s betrayal, a very negative thing, Jesus gives Peter a particular positive mission. “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32). As James informs his readers, the prayers of a righteous man like Jesus avail much (Jas. 5:16), and though Peter unfortunately denied knowing the Lord three times, he did turn and strengthen his brothers. One might say he did this in a number of ways. For example, Peter decided that, according to Scripture, a successor to Judas’ office must be appointed (Acts 1:15-22) so that the original number of Apostles would not be diminished (weakened). Peter was also the first to command the baptism of Gentiles (Acts 10:46-48), an action which increased the number of Christians by leaps and bounds. As mentioned above, he was considered the first witness to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5) and was the first to explain the outpouring of the Spirit and preach the Gospel publicly (Acts 2:14-40).

Peter is again singled out by Our Lord in John 21:15-19. Our Lord, knowing that He would not remain long on this earth after his resurrection, appeared to peter in order to confer upon him that which he had promised saying: JOHN 21:15 “Peter do you love me . . . .

“. . . . Feed my Lambs” (Peter Head of the Bishops)

” . . . . Feed my Lambs” (Peter, Head of Priests)

” . . . . Feed my sheep” (Peter, Head of Laity)

By this Christ placed Peter as head to look after his Church that was to continue in perpetuity according to the divine mission, which was entrusted to Him and all of his legitimate successors. A great number of texts in scripture convey that Peter was preeminent among the apostle in both honor and jurisdiction as the Head of the Church. In order signify the superiority of St. Peter his name occurs first (and more often) in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (Mt 10:2). This is also illustrated by the fact that Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:32) and is uniquely associates with him in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27). The Jews and common people regarded him as the leader and spokesman of Christianity (Acts 4:1-13; 2:37-41; 5:15). Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22) and to receiving the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Those who purport to ignore Christ’s Church through their own disobedience no longer belong to its unity: “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (St. Matt. 18, 17). To ignore the Church, one effectively ignores Christ.

The language of Peter’s primacy, in Scripture, is no mere “primacy of honor.” Peter is given crucial duties and responsibilities and authorized to carry them out. Jesus clearly makes Peter a servant, leader, and unifier to all His Apostles and disciples.

After the Ascension of Our Lord, it is Peter whom we see calling, presiding over and directing the assembly at which St. Matthias is elected; it is he that first preaches the Gospel to the Jews; it is he that receives the order to baptize Cornelius and open the Church to the Gentiles; it is he that punishes Ananias and Saphira for the falsehood they uttered, and confounds Simon the Magician; it is he that affirms before the tribunal his right and his mission to preach, and who performs the first miracle in confirmation of the Gospel; first also, he speaks to the Council at Jerusalem; and all the assembly “having heard these things, held their peace” (Acts 11:18); cast into prison, he absorbs the attention of all the Church, and “prayer was made without ceasing by the Church to God for him” (Acts12:5), until his miraculous delivery; it is he who founds the See of Antioch, which for that reason became a patriarchal See; finally it is he who founds the See of Rome, and it is because he died Bishop of that city that his legitimate successors have always had and always will have the primacy in the universal Church.

The words of our lord “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (St. Luke 10, 16) teach us that it is no small matter to reject those who he has lawfully placed in command over the Church.

The gift of infallibility, which what is understood by the Power of loosing and binding, is one that is often misunderstood by people as meaning that, even if the pope isn’t infallible in all he does, he is infallible in all he says. This again is untrue. The object of the pope’s infallibility is matters of faith and morals. He cannot speak infallibly on anything else unless it is something that has a bearing on the teachings of faith and morals. This is what theologians call the secondary object of infallibility. But the pope is not infallible when it comes to matters of science or history or math etc. Nor does it mean that the Pope is impeccable! The Pope is a sinner like the rest of us. Our Lord made use of sinners to write the scriptures which Protestants have no problem as accepting to be infallible and so in like manner he continues to use’s a sinner to guard and defend the deposit of the faith, which is the primary duty of the Pope.


36 posted on 02/28/2013 3:58:09 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: johngrace

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/Universal.htm


37 posted on 02/28/2013 3:58:55 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: johngrace
Thank you for posting the Catholic churches position on Peter. It was very insightful.

I have no doubt that Peter was head of the Church after Christ's ascension. However, I disagree that the Church was built upon Peter. The Church was built upon Jesus Christ not a man.

Regardless of Peter's position in the Church, this does in no way prove that Linus had the same standing in the eyes of God. As I've stated before, God didn't speak to Linus, but He did speak to John.

So your burden isn't with Peter, it's with Linus. Linus was mentioned one time in a list of people in the writings of the apostles... He could not have been the new head of the Church because Paul and John both were still alive when Peter died.

The earliest lists of popes begin, not with Peter, but with a man named Linus. The reason Peter’s name was not listed was because he was an apostle, which was a super-category, much superior to pope or bishop…

The Christian community at Rome well into the second century operated as a collection of separate communites without any central structure…Rome was a constellation of house churches, independent of one another, each of which was loosely governed by an elder. The communities thus basically followed the pattern of the Jewish synagogues out of which they developed. (O’Malley JW. A History of the Popes. Sheed & Ward, 2009, p. 11)


There was no real "Pope" at that time, Linus was part of a small community of Christians. He was not recognized as the leader of the whole church like Peter was.

But the church that formed after 325AD had to find legitimacy so they created a dubious connection back to Peter. Even though there was no real Church after the apostles were martyred as O'Malley indicates.

If the Catholic Church was the real Church of Christ, it would have furthered the teaching of Christ. But it didn't, history shows that overwhelmingly.

From Adam to John, in every age, for thousands of years, God spoke face to face with head of His people. With out fail. But God has never spoken face to face with a Pope. Not Linus, not Clement, none of them.
47 posted on 03/01/2013 8:55:09 AM PST by MeOnTheBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson