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.
Whoa! Bogus premise. Begs the question. The rest of the article goes downhill from there.
In addition, there is this that was posted some time about about sola Scriptura and what it is and isn't. Several of us threw our lot in with this explanation.
Opponents of SS love to misrepresent it to try to discredit it.
So to clear the air, once again, hoping something might stick among someone who has an open mind and is willing to look at something from a different point of view, I am reposting it.
Here is a good definition of what is meant by Sola Scriptura.
“First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
ALL believers have the ministry of reconciliation.
We are ALL to go out preaching the gospel and doing our best to lead people to Christ that they might be saved.
It’s not a job to be foisted off onto paid clergy.
Long and short of it is that calling religious leaders by the title of *Father* is breaking a clear, concise, simple command of Jesus, no matter how you slice it, excuse it, justify it, or rationalize it and it doesn't matter if the whole rest of the world is really wrong for calling their biological fathers *father*.
Just because everyone else sins, does not make it OK for any individual to sin.
Sin is sin. Disobedience is disobedience.
God calls us to be better than that and blame-shifting will not fly when God asks us why we followed the crowd in sin instead of taking a stand for the truth.
metmom:
No it doesn’t, see my earlier post on the subject.
That definition pretty much is where I also stand.
However I do think ‘How’ one sees the scripture in their daily life, if it's a part of their life, makes all the difference in how they ‘approach’ what sola scripture is or not.
I think of the many stories heard of people in desperation, and also those simply seeking, and they reached for the Scriptures which ultimately moved their heart and mind from the place in at the moment.
An example was a young mother, a new Christian, who's two children were kidnapped. No amount of reassurance from family nor friends could ease her pain and her great fear. Alone she “reached” for God's Word and asked Him to give her the assurance that HE knew what had happened and that this too was in His hands....she read:
“Refrain thyself from weeping, and the tears from thine eyes, for thy deeds will be rewarded and ‘thy children will be returned to they border’......
I was called to her room then to see that not only had the tears subsided....but she smiled with Joy knowing that God Himself had ‘spoken’ to her directly through the pages of His Word....and for her the promise that she would see her children again........they were returned before the end of the day.
It would be learned the police had intercepted truckers following the vehicle the children were in, who knew ‘every moment’ where they were as the car traveled, and it's final stop.
What a testimony to the reliability of God's Words to us on a personal level!
memom:
Don’t agree totally, we all are called to forgive yes, but all of us are not apostles.
Also, fundamental in this is that Jesus was without any sin, the Holy One of Israel amongst us. Some Jews tried to ascribe sin to him for not following all the traditions as if they were commandments, while they themselves violated the very Spirit of the commandments, something all should watch for.
You cannot have missed my premise by that much, can you? That's not what I said. I clearly delineated between "papa" as an ecclesiastical title versus fatherhood as a function of various really personal relationships. Jesus sets up the context for this by also denying us the use of rabbi and master, in addition to father. These were in wide usage among the Jews as "religious honorifics," and Jesus did not want His Ecclesia engaged in the same nonsense.
Metmom has expressed it well. You cite to tradition as the source for these disobedient titles of ecclesiastical honor, and that is true, because God didn't set that as our practice. At most we have shepherds and elders. But see how you use your tradition to nullify the command of God. Your "exceptions" swallow the rule. There is no one we couldn't call father if they can show the least bit of spiritual authority. Then who is left to be prohibited from the title? The rule becomes meaningless, even though Christ gave it as a specific prohibition to ecclesiastical titles. More to say, but will have to wait till later.
No, your Reformed theological novelty does not fit what both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaches, so you try to make the Bible say what you want it to say, relying on folks like Calvin and Zwingli and Knox 1500 year after the fact. No Church Father took those passages to mean what you are trying to make them.
If this strawman is intended to nullify the verse that says to call NO man Father; then it doesn't.
Who said we wuz?
Hmm. That’s pretty much a conversation closer. I’m at work at can’t research the patristics on this, though as you surely know I hold that God will still be true though every man is shown to be a liar, so while patristic views would be good to know, the God-breathed Scriptures stand on their own, and always accomplish the purpose to which God sends them.
I further note, just for the record, your response appears to be a naked appeal to authority. That’s a recognized fallacy where the authority is the very thing being contested. Put another way, you are not addressing the textual issue, but passing the buck to your institutional resources. That’s fine. That’s your choice. But it amounts to a concession that my point, as I framed it, has no analytical, textual response from your side. That’s fine too. I’ll take a concession by default. :)
Peace,
SR
Still you go back to the church, which is not in this discussion. Do you believe that either interpretation is reasonable? If not, why not? There must be a reason that you are sure that Jesus was using ‘you plural’ here. I would appreciate knowing what convinced you of that because I read it exactly the opposite.
It’s times like these when it’s clear Jesus should have been born in the south, then He would have said y’all and cleared it all up.
:-)
O2
You can take it however you want to. Because authority is part of the issue at hand isn’t it?. You are relying on 1 or 2 things, Calvin and Knox’s interpretation or your own with them as the major authoritative source.
As I said the term Papa from the Greek Papas [literally Daddy] was applied to not only the Bishop of Rome, but all Bishops and priests, gradually, the term Papa or Pope began to be reserved as an ecclesiastical title for the Bishop of Rome and the word father was used as an ecclesiastical title for priests who were not Bishops.
By which they nullified the command of God in using a forbidden ecclesiastical title. I never read Calvin or Knox on the subject. The text is obvious on its own to any typical reader. There are no major ambiguities to wade through. This isn’t rocket science. My five year old granddaughter could understand this. But you have a tradition to defend, and so you do. Nothing surprising in that. But you understand how this terminates rational discussion of the meaning of the text. Your presumed authority can rewrite this text however they like in any given century. Talk about a blank check. And we poor weak ones look on with amazement as you carefully weave your rationalization for direct disobedience to a clear command of Christ. If you want to take that kind of chance, and trust that kind of authority, that’s a matter of your own personal judgment. I can’t go there. I’d be worrying all the time God wasn’t buying the rationalization. Jesus sure didn’t buy it when the pharisees tried it.
Peace,
SR
This is a clear, plain, simple command by Jesus. It can be taken at face value and does not need interpretation, as it has no hidden meaning. It's not allegory, metaphor, parable. It's a very clear, concise command of Jesus which the Catholic church has deliberately chosen to disobey and no amount of rationalization or excuses can justify it.
Ok, why is it that in the early Church as early as 3rd century, we have written evidence in the Greek Eastern Church that the term “papas” which is Daddy/Father was used not only for Bishops but for other members of the clergy. Now lets think about that, Greek speakers and ethnic Greeks whose language the NT was written in and it was in the cultural context of the Roman empire that it was written in [now add Latin language and culture] did not have a problem reading the same text you read in English and using those terms as ecclesiastical titles. These Same Fathers were the ones whose theology was normative in defending every heresy that popped up and was rejected at all the early Councils, yet somehow you say the text means no use of the word Father. Again, Abraham, David Isaac were all called Father by NT writers given their spiritual role in leading the Jewish People. Saint Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father as did Saint John, implicitly, I his letters were he refers to the local members of the Churches he is writing to as “His children”, This term is a spiritual Father who is the one that helped lead me and guide me on my Christian Journey. Again, it is in that context the early church used the term “papas” which is where Latin used “papa” which is where the English word “Pope” comes from.
Nobody is using it to say anyone but God is Father with respect to Divinity [God the Father, who is eternal]. Father is used to Distinguish the persons of the Trinity[ from Christ and Holy Spirit], 3 distinct Divine Persons yet bonded by Love thus One God.
We know what you (and other Catholics) believe Matthew 23:9 doesn't say. So then, what exactly was Jesus prohibiting? Your arguments aside, the interpretations that I have seen from Metmom and Springfield Reformer that prohibit the title as an ecclesiastical title certainly seem to fit the context of the entire passage.
Of course you see it that way, your are a protestant. Btw, what do all you protestants call the guy or lady who leads your church. Do you use the term Reverend, which I don’t think is in the NT, and that word means “One who is to be Respected” Do you use Minister, again from a Latin word meaning “servant” Do you use “pastor”, again from a Latin word to mean Shepherd [Isn’t Jesus the Only Good Shepherd]
In fact, none of those titles are ever used. So if you guys want to be “Biblical” [sic], you should use the term “Overseer Jim”, /presbyter/elder Bubba Bob or Deacon Jones, not to confused of course with the late great LA Rams DE Deacon Jones.
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.