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.
Basically our positions are mirrors of each others. Interesting; whose mirror is correct? That is the basic question to be hashed out, actually.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lecture 23. The complete version from Newadvent.org
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm
A version with excerpts from a personal lay Catholic Blog.
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/05/st-cyril-of-jerusalem-gives-example-of.html
Notice the sacraments are all there, the presbyters gather around God’s Altar [sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist] and of course his stressing Tradition here as well as Scripture.
Sadly, you seem to be the only one that understood what I said.
Reading Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lecture, it is quite obvious that any of us Catholics on this thread, if we could go back in time and celebrate the Holy Mass with Saint Cyril as the presider/celebrant of the Liturgy, would be totally at home because everything in the Liturgy he is teaching his parishoners in the Liturgy I attended last Sunday.
I mean, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, all the Prayers he is saying we [Catholics said last Sunday, and of course, every Sunday of our lives], I mean asking the saints and angels to intercede for us.
No, this guy can’t be Catholic, no not with the theology he is describing in this writing. Yea right.
...quite removed from the yearly meal of remembrance the Jews were ordered to observe.
I don't know that it was meant to be yearly... The blessing on the bread and the wine was said at important gatherings - Certainly all the Holy Days, and perhaps more... 'This do, in remembrance of me' was speaking of those two blessings - whenever they are said... those blessings are a remembrance of Him, as He revealed... But the important part isn't the blessing. The important part is the gathering - What He is saying in fact, is that all of those days that the bread is broken and passed around, and where the wine is poured and passed around, all of those gatherings are a remembrance of Him. The blessings are said over the gathering.
Jewish Messianics have a leg up on the rest of us in that - They retain their Jewish Traditions, and having been saved, can see where Yeshua applies to those things they have kept for so long. They all point to Him.
That’s not an answer. I’m not talking about the Catholic church here. I’m talking about you and me. In this very specific case we disagree on whether the word ‘you’ is singular or plural. We have each given reasons to support our interpretations, and there is still no clear answer. Why should I believe that you are correct in this specific instance? Are you simply dismissing my interpretation because it is in agreement with the Catholic church? How can you prove that Jesus is speaking to the group and not just to Peter when that information is not included in the scripture?
O2
The similarity is there, isn't it?
Except the one credits YHWH alone for bringing forth bread from the earth (Yeshua), and fruit (salvation in the blood) from the vine (Yeshua)...
The other credits YHWH and the hands of men...
Something to ponder, eh?
Yeah I noticed that too but I take it to mean that the (Catholic) prayer is merely saying that through God, and what He provides, man is able to make the bread etc.
Yeah, this just proves Cyril was a heretic. < /sarc >
Well sort of - the blessings are said over the gathering - the table - it's the gathering that is the point. Not the blessing. That isn't entirely true - as the meaning of the blessings were revealed by Yeshua - But even so, the blessings were *upon* the feasts.
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.
Again, sort of - The breaking of bread, and passing of the cup were a part of the greater feast - the feast, the dinner table, is the subject, not the blessing...
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.
I can understand your point of view, but that is what I am trying to correct - The blessings were a dedication *for* the feast - the feast is the point. Focusing upon the blessing removes the meaning of the feasts. And those feasts, which the blessings dedicated (to Yeshua as much as to YHWH) all point to Yeshua with capital letters.
Even the wedding feast - another corporate gathering where the blessings were offered - Even the whole of the wedding is an image of Yeshua and His bride. What Yeshua revealed is that the blessings are about HIM, and therefore, the feasts that they dedicate are about HIM.
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.
Sorry, but I put no stock in your church fathers. Those works, as a body, are so fraught with inclusions and forgeries as to make the origin and accuracy as a body of work suspicious to say the least. Forgive me for that, but you will have to assemble your proofs from elsewhere.
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.
While that would be a good point (and I agree), the fact of the matter is that the feasts which the rite dedicated are the point, and those meanings have already been lost - Far in antiquity. The purpose *for* the rite was to dedicate the feast - the feast is the subject. This was indeed carried forward into Christianity in the Agape feast, which has in itself a new meaning - But the Communion was the dedication of that feast... AGAIN the feast was the point. Without the feast, the blessing is for what?
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.
Rather, one should put the literal Agape feast back into the ceremony, because that is what it is about. THEN take the Agape aspect out into the world. Know FIRST that you are part of the family gathered around that Agape dinner table:
Without the pomp and circumstance of your folks, without the shot glasses and wonder bread of my folks. BOTH have stylized themselves away from the very point: Say the blessing, break the bread and pass it around. Say the blessing, fill the cup and pass it around (do not assume that I discard solemnity in that). Eat the potluck meal. listen to the scheduled teachers and impromptu speakers. Converse with your greater family. That is where it came from. That is what it is for. Congenial. Relaxed. The dinner table. An informal form of worship and togetherness AFTER the formal sanctuary setting... That is what the Agape meal WAS. That IS it's beginning, reflecting the Last Supper, and predicting the Wedding Feast on the Sea of Glass. THAT is the Communion of the saints.
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.
I don't disagree with that sentiment.
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.
Well, don't tell anyone, as I have a reputation to uphold ; )
Thanks for a well written reply.
[roamer_1:] I can understand your point of view, but that is what I am trying to correct [...]
For what it is worth, I think that was said poorly - I do not mean to school you, or impose. Sorry if that is how it is taken.
It is amazing, and especially how he weaves diverse Scripture into the explanation. I wish we could ask him to explain more so we could trace the chain back to its traditional origin. The washing of hands is done today by observant Jews.
Ahh, but the washing of the hands is Talmud, not Torah, and directly disputed by Yeshua:
Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
(e-Sword:KJV)
HOW they transgressed the commandment of YHWH is that 'washing the hands' was not a commandment of YHWH... Do not add to, nor take away from...
It’s interesting, is it not, that in 1 Peter, Peter himself says that Jesus is the rock on which the church is built and makes absolutely NO mention of himself.
Nor does he give instructions on how to pick his successor anywhere.
All this stuff that Catholics consider vitally important, is completely missing from the Bible that they claim they wrote.
One of the criticisms Catholics use against sS is that different interpretations would mean the Holy Spirit contradicted Himself.
Well, if the magisterium is led by the Holy Spirit, why isn't it required to be unanimous?
Why majority vote?
Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?
Or maybe some of the men aren't really hearing the Holy Spirit after all.
So how do they know which ones are and which ones aren't?
Maybe the minority are the ones who are hearing correctly.
Petra vs petros = two different words, whose distinction is lost in English.
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurances of *petra* in the Greek.
But is your theology right?
stonehouse01-No amazement necessary!! Corinthians Chapter 4 verse 14! Look it up for yourself.
1Co 4:14 I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.
My amazement for people ignoring the straight and clear commands of God is just slightly ahead of people using references to supposed quotes that makes absolutely no sense with the discussion at hand.
1Co 4:15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Are you claiming Paul was the Pope?
” Are you claiming that Paul was Pope...”
Of course not. Paul became a father to his Corinthians. This is clear. The apostles (elders/ presbyters/ priests)were fathers to the early Church.
Scripture!
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.