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.
Paul condemned himself too.
Peter was still the head of the apostles.
The keys signify authority.
Christ knew he wouldn’t be around (and alive) so he passed that authority to Peter and the line of Popes.
Your tag line is beautiful.
The Stone that the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone. The LORD has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes!
John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
So there has never been a real problem with those who belong to God identifying the true words of God. Is it really all that significant that some centuries-late johnny-come-lately clerics finally caught up with the consensus of the church at large?
As for the assertion we should not call earthy leaders "father," that is an assertion of Jesus. Your correspondent is merely repeating it. If you say you follow Christ, we assume that means you follow His teachings. If this is what He teaches, the burden is on you to explain why you do not either believe this is what He's really teaching, or else why it somehow no longer applies.
So, no earthly "papa" means ... wait for it .. no earthy "papa." Can you say why that isn't so?
Peace,
SR
Paul makes the case for his apostleship vis a vis Peter’s by highlighting the impartiality of God (never mind Rome!). “Those men”—including Peter—”added nothing” to Paul. In fact they gave him the right hand of fellowship. The other apostles—including Peter—were those “who seemed to be pillars”. God is no respecter of persons!
You people strain out a gnat and swallow a camel...
Nonsense.
Unity is by being in Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 5:23-24 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Ephesians 1:15-23 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
Colossians 1:9-20 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Christ is the head of the church and nobody needs a *visible* person to follow because Christ dwells in our hearts through faith.
We walk by faith, not by sight.
Interesting how the very words of Jesus, which some claim they so highly esteem, are brushed off and explained away, when it doesn't fit those same people's religiosity.
Matthew 23:1-12 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
It's the job of the Holy Spirit in us to strengthen us.
No man can get inside of me and strengthen me, but the Holy Spirit who lives in me can and does.
**respecter**??
For your information, God respects each and every person, even the babies killed in the womb.
Are you trying to put all Catholics in one strainer? Won’t work.
Take it in context.
Jesus is clearly talking about calling religious leaders by the title *Father*.
Additionally, the argument doesn't hold water because even if everyone around the world disobeys the command and calls their father *Father* of Dad, or Abba, or whatever, how does that justify the church and Catholics disobeying the clear command of Jesus?
Everyone else is wrong and sins, so we can too? No big deal?
Did Jesus tell us not to call religious leaders *Father * or not? Then how does one excuse, or justify, disobedience?
And just for kicks and giggles, just what would you propose a child call his male parent?
Hey you? Sir? Husband of my mother? Male Parental Unit?
God does not respect one above another.
Get with the program.
It was not that hard to understand and did not need twisting to make it seem like aveni said something he didn't.r
**God does not respect one above another. **
That’s what I am saying. God respect everyone. He created everyone.
The premise is not simply a that a visible head is essential, but one that uniquely possesses assured infallibility, to whom all the church looks to as its supreme exalted leader and magistrate as the first in a line of such.
Which as said, simply not seen in the NT, whose leadership was that of manifestly God-ordained apostles, plural, in distinct obvious contrast to that of Rome.
But in addition to what has been said already, while looking to a visible head as supreme, versus Scripture is conducive to unity, the problem is that it more easily leads to unity in error, taking the problem of errant personal interpretation to a corporate level.
Presuming what an SS adherent cannot, the pope can decree Truth by fiat, even that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is not seen in Scripture, and even lacks early testimony in tradition, and was already crowned and has the uniquely Divine ability to hear incessant multitudinous prayers addressed to her, which is contrary to what Scripture shows and teaches, besides other sanctioned excessive attributions to Mary, thinking of mortals "above that which is written." (1Cor. 4:6)
In addition, as RC teaching if often open to varying degrees of interpretation, the flock looks to the pope and lesser prelates for interpretation, which can be contrary to each other.
In one century obedience to the pope can require torture the physical extermination of theological dissidents, while in another torture is stated to be intrinsically evil.
And in one century remaining in the bosom of the RC church is necessary for salvation, with submission to the pope being infallibly and unequivocally decreed as a requirement, while in another century properly baptized Prots are affirmed to be born again brethren. More .
And as such statements are manifestly interpretive, and as faith is known by what it does, (Ja. 2:18) thus RCs understand what their church teaches by looking to how the current teachers apply it (unless they are to rely upon their fallible human reasoning, contrary to what RC leaders effectually teach) .
And l which thus leads to the current pope and his manifest interpretation of past teaching. But which results in division among RCs, as using their fallible human reasoning which they reject Prots for using, conservative camps of RCs assert the very popes RCs tell us to look to as being contrary to what is really RC teaching.
In the light of which RCs will resort to the "only when infallible" clause, but again, just what is assuredly infallible (which is not even the arguments behind an infallible teaching) and its meaning is open to some degree of interpretation. Thus even here we have RCs affirming conservative baptized Prots as brethren, while others deny they have the Spirit and are part of the body of Christ, as they see this as contrary to past RC teaching.
The RC polemic you respond to here relies on miscontruance of both the RC and SS position. The RC simply argues "a visible pope in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture," thus anyone else who claims to be able to properly interpret Scripture is a pope.
However, this means no one can properly interpret Scripture except the pope, which even for Rome is an untenable position. Instead what the RC is asserting is the assured veracity based upon conferred personal anointing, therefore no one's interpretation can contradict such a one, which is not what an SS adherent is claiming.
For what Rome has presumed to infallibly declare is that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
In contrast, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Unity under this means is much harder than under the cultic means of sola ecclesia, but superior in quality, as it requires establishing Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and continually manifesting that the church is that of the living God, being grounded in and supporting the Truth, which Scripture uniquely assuredly is.
Sometimes I lash out. “Zeal for your house will consume me.” But is it true zeal or zeal “not according to knowledge”? I pray it is the former.
I am no angry former Catholic with an axe to grind, it’s just that I want to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,” Rome and her labyrinthine additions to the Glad Tidings angers me in this! Her ersatz anathemas have no effect on true believers who are justified apart from works, just as our father Abraham “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness”.
So your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.?
daniel212:
I would say schismatic in most cases and in many cases hold to objective heretical opinions, but given that Heretic is defined very precisely as a post baptismal rejection of a Doctrine of the Catholic Faith, a 500 year removed Protestant from his or her Catholic ancestors can’t be charged with the sin of schism or heresy of their ancestors. That is also a heretical to make such a claim.
Msg. Pope’s homily solidly lays out the Catholic position, of which I, as many others here hold to, you don’t hold to it. So be it.
SUCH a boring and well-worn counter argument - one which never has held water.
Our dads are the original image YHWH gave us to teach us what HE is - Without having a father, without seeing a father, the term would mean nothing.
That others would usurp this most powerful image should be expected, as it is the height of patriarchal authority (real authority) - 'The Strong Man of the House' (what 'father' means, a man in his prime), or the ultimate wisdom of the human father (the grandfather, how ever many removed, only makes them all the wiser) - That some would abscond with these very honorable things to increase their gaudy plumage is predictable, but such as these should never be listened to, as one who requires such plumage, it turns out, can be no 'father' at all. For if he must pluck the title from someone else, it inherently shows he did not possess it naturally.
And the Holy Spirit even listed Peter after James, and as one of 3 "who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:)," “who seemed to be pillars,” meaning they apparently were true apostles, refuting authenticity assured by ordination, and regardless of the esteem of men and the external, God accepts no man's person, "that God is not influenced in His judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of anyone. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation." (Gill)
Paul elsewhere warns against "thinking of men "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6) that being Scripture, and that,
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
Under which the NT church saw its degree of unity, and which attestation is much in contrast to the false apostles of Rome and many others.
You people strain out a gnat and swallow a camel...
They strain out Scripture which teaches faith in the gospel of grace being how hearts are purified by faith, and spiritual and eternal life given, and instead swallow a wafer and wine as giving this.
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.