Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter—the Office of the Papacy—for Peter’s successors are the popes. The word “pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.
That Peter receives an office and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the Office of the Papacy, we will also deal with them later. But for now let’s look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.
I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“
It should be noted that in asking these questions Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of Him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.
Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods.
1. The Poll - Jesus asks who the crowds say that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.
But as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong no matter what percentage held them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll-taking or democracy seems not to be a model that works.
2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom, not wanting to answer lest they look foolish. The politics on the panel led not to truth but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.
That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel but for another reason altogether.
Hence the blue-ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.
And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to His identity. All we have are opinions or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forward to describe God’s plan in setting forth the truths of faith.
II. The Individual that is Inspired - The text says, Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly not because he was the smartest (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), or because he happened to guess correctly. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
It’s not polls or panels that God uses—it’s Peter.
And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following of Peter and his successors, the popes:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them … The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pp. 880-884, selected).
All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God Himself chooses to operate.
And note, too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.
And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.
III. The Installation that is Initiated - The text says, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to 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.”
Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further and declares that He will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus He calls him Peter (rock). And here, too, He does not merely mean this as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “promotion” for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren (Luke 22:31).
Hence it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter (and his successors), that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united. Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for His Church.
It is true that many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the head and foundation, that He is the rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is He Himself who calls Peter the rock and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE). And in addition that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises His headship and foundational aspect.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among Protestants, that goes,
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
Don’t confuse the Catholics with the writings of the early church fathers. They only use them when it’s convenient for their purpose-which is seldom. :O)
Same as they do with Luther.
Yes, some good info there. I had seen that before and thought to buy the Caragounis book for it’s uniquely intense research, but it was very pricey back then. Your post reminded me and the book is now on its way. Price has come down too. :)
“it’s” should be “its.” For those who care. :]
Actually your post is incorrect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites extensively from the Bible [40 of the 46 Books in the Catholic OT are cited and all 27 NT books and from among the 4 Gospels, a quick survey of the data indicates every Chapter from all 4 Gospels are cited significantly] it cites extensively from every Ecumenical Council, some 15 Regional or local councils [i.e. Rome 382, Carthage 418], numerous Popes from the Patristic period, Damasus [366-384], Innocent I [402-4017], Leo I the Great [440-461], some 40 of the Church Fathers [Augustine some 85-90 times, Ambrose some 25 times, etc].
I am just clarifying the actual record, just so you know.
That the basis for your assurance of Truth is the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus all much be made to conform to her.
again, back to the Apostolic succession notion, nowhere in Scripture does it teach against it, although there is transitional evidence of that development in the Pauline Pastoral epistles, So you can say the NT does not teach Apostolic succession, I can just as easily retort it does not teach against it.
As if the Holy Spirit did not see it as important to record, even after James was slain. Your argument from silence is not a basis for doctrine, while the Spirit clearly instructs elders to be ordained as overseers of the church, the requirements for such, charges them as the overseers of the church, to carry on the work of the foundational apostles. (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:28; Eph. 2:20)
Meanwhile, the basis and credentials for apostolic authenticity (Acts 1:2,22; 1Cor. 9:2; Gal. 1:12-18; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 2Cor. 12:12) excludes Rome's (among others) claimed successors from being apostles. Even distinctively titling NT pastors as "priests" is also not seen in Scripture, but was also a latter addition.
Rather, i answered your false dilemma question, and it is you who continually have avoided answering the most fundamental question out of which premise all your argumentation flows!
The NT does not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church. It only provides scant details.
It need not clearly state what each presbyter and deacon did at every Church, which absurd requirement is a desperate attempt to justify a critical aspect of a most cardinal doctrine but which the Scripture does not evidence, and which attempt reduces your already low view of Scripture.
With the Eucharist being the "source and summit" of the Christian faith, around which sacrament all else revolves, do you really think the Holy Spirit, who is faithful to record multitudes of notable details including the ordination and duties of OT priests, and even a whole chapter on the use of tongues in a church meeting, would not at least show or describe in Acts onward, NT pastors primary duty as being consecrating bread and wine and giving it to the multitudes, conveying spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the gospels? When instead He shows and teaches that their main duty is to give themselves "continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word"? (Acts 6:4)
And never says a word to them about feeding the flock with anything but by preaching, setting that forth as their primary function, thus charging Timothy to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2) And not saying a word to him or others about their duty to consecrate transformed bread and wine?
And by which word they themselves are "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." (1Tim. 4:6) Meanwhile, in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper in the life of the NT church, (1Cor. 11:20-34 ) the Lord's Supper shows the Lord's death by the unselfish considerate manner in which the members partake of the communal meal, manifesting the love for each other Christ showed in giving Himself for the church, which thus shows their unity with the Lord and thus with each other. With failure to do so constituting a failure to recognize the church as the body of Christ, made of up many members.
Moreover, rather than the Spirit only providing scant details, if you read more of Scripture you should see there is quite a bit, from the qualifications of pastors to ordaining others, to exercising discipline, to prayer, teaching and preaching, etc. what they did, which i can show if needed. It is your distinctively titled "priests" and their primary Cath. function that is missing.
learly the Presbyters in James Letter were charged with doing more than what the presbyters were in Paul’s pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. We have already had this discussion. Which one is normative, or does it reflect an uneven development that occurred at various apostolic Churches.
Contrary to your postulated contradiction on which one is normative , Scripture complements Scripture, and in the totality of NT church record prayer and preaching is what is normative, as all need that, which only a relative few would need intercessory prayer by pastors, which is also enjoined upon all that they may be healed by effectual fervent prayer of the righteous.
And in another contrast with Rome, what was manifestly normative was that NT pastors and apostles were married.
No I take Christ word that the Gates of hell would not prevail and the Holy Spirit would guide the Church
And God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it, provide Truth and preserve faith, and thus the church as the body of Christ has been preserved, though the visible manifestation has never been perfect, as the church itself began in dissent from a magisterium which presumed of itself above that which was written. Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes, but this deformation was progressive, and as now, some souls could see thru the trappings of her institutionalized nature and find Christ by faith out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, coming to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, and trust Him to save by His sinless shed blood, and so live 4 Him. Thanks be to God.
I am happy you are happy. Now run along. I have said what I said before, I reject the heresy of sola scriptura and I will not analyze Catholic Doctrine from your protestant paradigm. End of the discussion
As for 1 Timothy 3:1-7 a commentary by Chrystostem views it as an Episcopal Office. And yes, it was to continue the ministry of the Apostles who were commanded to celebrate the Eucharist, baptize in the Trinity, hear confessions and forgive sins in Christ name, etc, etc. Do you think that because the NT epistles don’t clearly give that authority to the Presbyters means that as the Apostles died all those functions stopped????????????????
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
As for Galatians, Chrystostem’s interpretation of the “disagreement between Peter and Paul” is consistent with Saint Jerome’s [point of another thread] and again, nothing in it are a quick summary of the other cites from the Church Fathers says Rome has no apostolic authority. Again, why is that?
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
Saint Chrysostem’s commentary on Titus 1:5-7 indicates that Titus was a Bishop who had jurisdiction over many others in his region, which is consistent with Catholic Ecclesiology.
Again, Chrysostem’s Homily on Acts 20, the central reason for Paul coming together was too break bread [Eucharist] so I don’t know what you are getting at
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
He also has a homily on Ephesians 2:20. As for your cites of 1 Cor 9:2, 2 Cor 6, 12, here is a link to the citations from the Church fathers who quoted those passages and I don’t think any of those commentaries in the Church Fathers draw the conclusions you are making regarding Rome. Why is that
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
So all these passages cited by the infallible authority of Daniel1212 and interpreted by your infallible opinion don’t seem to match anything I can find in the Patristic commentaries on these same scriptural passages. Again, why is that?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
where was it personal? and while I directly asked you not to delete and earlier post where BS was used at me [again, did not offend me] and was spelled out, it seems my more subtle use of it was deleted. Why is that?
Your biases are clearly evident
Now if you have removed it, then I retract my view that you are acting in a biased manner. As of an hour ago, it was still there, and I have not gone back and seen if it was deleted. I know my post 200 was deleted several hours back.
And some do. The grammar police regularly patrol FR looking for crimes against grammar.
Post 200 wasn’t yours and wasn’t deleted.
Don’t be such a martyr. A persecution complex doesn’t wear well.
198. I now see where CULTS get THEIR rules from!
This is IT?
I get ACCUSED of of something and it is shown to be FALSE and this is ALL I get?
Golly; THAT request fell on deaf ears!
Golly; THAT request fell on deaf ears!
For the record, Catholic Interpretation of Scripture is comfortable with the 4-sense of Scripture that was used by the Fathers, so yes, a passage can have interpretations using 1, 2, 3 or all 4 of the senses of Scripture.
But, what it CAN'T 'have' is any 'interpretation' by those DAMNED Prots!
Well, Rome has never said Mary parted the red sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Help_of_Christians
Don't worry; like Mother Nature, who, evidently, abhors a vacuum; Mother Church will; with out FAIL; fill in any blanks needed to propagate an undocumented theological theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.