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.
In all honesty; only YOU control how YOU react.
(But thanks for not posting things that you KNOW would cause a rational thinker to go ballistic.)
Just that every Protestant follows an adores a heretic expelled from the Catholic Church.
Well, I admired your passion...
Oh NO!
You're channeling MRS_Elsie now!
Now then...
...that wasn't so hard to say; was it!?
Elsie:
That is correct, only I can control how I react.
Congratulations on the longest sentence (so far) in this thread.
I sorry that you do not feel a need to question that what you have been taught is correct.
You'd make a poor Berean.
Details.
Catholics do NOT need to believe this stuff...
Or do they???
Elsie:
I have never stated everything in Protestantism is wrong and that you all don’t hold to a significant amount of orthodox Apostolic Tradition, and among Protestantism, some hold to more than others.
And channeling Mrs. Elsie!!! them is fighting words!!!!
If I where in a court of law, I'd examine the EVIDENCE as well as weighing the words of witnesses.
Elsie:
Well I am not a Berean, a Catholic, not the best one, but one none the less. And thanks for the congrats, I do have the ability to string some long words together don’t I? Sister Mary always told me I talked to much in class so I guess intrinsically I took those skills to paper and pen.
Elsie:
Come on man, I have lots of disagreements with you but what was being posted is Mormonism. Really if that is where this thread is going, or that is where you 2 want to go with it, I am done with it.
Elsie:
Well this is not a court of law, but I have examined the evidence, and it sides with the Catholic Tradition, along with the Eastern Orthodox as well.
I don't want this tidbit to get away, because in speaking of origin, I think the Communion itself is the distilled blessing from the greater Agape feast, and that the feast should be brought forward to bear here. The function is not meant to be a stylized rite, but rather, the dinner table itself... The family of YHWH gathered around the dinner table.
There can hardly be a more fitting place for a family to gather together than around the table, and the evidence of that is shown around the world every single evening. The solemnity of the Communion blessing is as out-of-place without that table as 'saying grace' in the shower. And quite a bit (off the cuff, I would rather say 'all') of the governance concerning Communion reflects the table, not the blessing: Don't be a drunkard, don't be a pig, sit and participate worthily... These same conditions are at my own dinner table in my own house! People are excused and sent away for disrupting the peace of that table, that place of unity, joy, and love. I allow no argument there. No acting out. It is a place for family to remember that they ARE family!
This purpose has been lost - The function of Communion has become very personalized (which indeed, it should be). But much of it's meaning has been buried in rite. While it should be personal, when the blessing is over and one raises one's head and opens one's eyes, one should be able to look at the many, many brothers and sisters up and down the table, and know one has a seat there among the smiling faces of kith and kin. This is done better at the potluck after the service (as it began), rather than in the service itself - Then it's purpose would remain clear.
As in personally thinking of Christ's death, and (for Caths) the nature of the wafer nor how you are showing that toward other members of the body of Christ, which the Lord's supper is supposed to show.
Exactly right (not exactly rite :) )
The blessing said at that first table can be determined, because it is a blessing said by Hebrews from time immemorial (even they don't remember where it came from, though strangely enough, it is attributed to Melchizedek). There are two prayers. One for the bread and one for the wine. These were said, if not at every meal, then at least at meals of importance:
~Blessed are you, oh YHWH, Creator of heaven and earth, who brings forth bread from the Earth.~
"This is my body, broken for you..."
~Blessed are you oh YHWH, Creator of heaven and earth, who brings forth fruit from the vine.~
"This is the covenant in my blood..."
Can you see what He is saying?
That’s interesting, the prayer at the start of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is:
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this bread to offer,
which earth has given and human hands have made.
It will become for us
the bread of life.
People: Blessed be God for ever.
The priest lifts up the chalice, or cup, of wine and prays:
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this wine to offer,
fruit of the vine and work
of human hands.
It will become our spiritual drink.
People: Blessed be God for ever.
Then again, either be consistent and always follow the judgment of the stewards of Scripture and historical magisterium, or be as the noble Bereans and others who judged Truth on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
Indeed, but as a faithful RC you cannot objectively examine Scripture to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and allow that Rome could be wrong, but i can and do. So until you can act according to the basis for determining Truth that the NT church began under, further exchange is a meaningful as dealing with a cultist.
Your views of Baptism and the Catholic view are incorrect. Nothing about infused holiness coming from the person. It is God’s Grace infused into the human person. <
/p> Wrong. Though i should have been clearer in my brevity, I did not say it came from the person. I said Rome imagines souls become formally justified by their own "infused" holiness, meaning an infused "inherent holiness" via baptism, in opposition to imputed holiness. In baptism the soul is said to be "infused" with "sanctifying grace, which makes the subject holy," "which it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God."
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), with an "inherent holiness." Catholic Encyclopedia >Sanctifying Grace; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
This is set in opposition to that "God "justifies the UnGodly" as "his faith is counted for righteousness," "unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Rm. 4:5,7) by declaring the contrite believing soul righteousness on Christ's expense and credit, "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) as Peter taught in the case of Gentiles being born again before baptism, saved by grace, "washed, sanctified and justified." (1Cor. 6:11) Which is all one event, so that the souls is both declared justified, as the penitent publican was in Lk. 18 though not regenerated, as well as Abraham, but is also regenerated after Pentecost.
And you challenge the Church Fathers interpretation of Scriptures and then give your commentary on them. Now, if you were me, who do believe I should take as more credible, the Church Fathers or You?
Either be consistent and always follow the judgment of the stewards of Scripture and historical magisterium, or be as the noble Bereans and others who judged Truth on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
roamer_1:
Well I commend you for at least recognizing the importance of Communion. So there is at least some basic agreement that the text referring to Breaking of the bread, Lord’s supper, etc are in reference to a Eucharistic celebration. Where we disagree I think it that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is, from the Catholic understanding [Orthodox would say as well] is the form of worship that came out of the Jewish Tradition into the Christian one and the one that developed organically from Christ thru the Apostles thru the early Apostolic Fathers of the Church. Early writings in the Apostolic Father period point to a centralized and Liturgical style of Worship with respect to the Eucharist. Any objective reading of the Didache, Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr will indicate that. What you are suggesting is that getting so caught up in the “Rite” and doing it a certain way might cause those participating in that Rite to forget the underlying meaning of it. One should leave the Eucharist closer to God and his fellow members of the Church and should take the Agape aspect of the Eucharist out into the world. I don’t disagree with that notion. the classic ending of the Roman Rite of the Mass is et Missa est, which means the Mass is sent, which when analyzed theologically, Catholics should and are called to take the Love of Christ which was experienced in the Eucharist out into the world and lives. Of course, many of us don’t always do that [me included] but thank God he is patient and his Grace, which I believe he constantly provides via same said sacraments will sustain me on the journey.
And I must add, your post was written not as a polemic, but as personal theological reflection on communion that doesn’t start out with, you darn Catholics are idiots and foolish, etc, etc, etc. Well written post.
daniel1212:
I agree that the Catholic position is infused Grace, the Protestant is not infused but more like a covering of Grace.
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.