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.
You can show due respect without defying the clear command of Jesus in the matter.
memom:
And Saint Paul said I became your Father to the Christian community at Corinth. Go tell him that why don’t you because he must have not gotten the memo. And the Apostle John in 1 John 3:18 seems to see himself as a spiritual father as he refers to that Church Community as “his Children”, thus he sees himself as a Spiritual Father. Did he also not get the memo.
Y'all are arguing a moot point - 'Rabbi' is an exterior appellation... The people called them 'rabbi'... And the term comes with 'master' type baggage due to the remarkable knowledge it took to become a rabbi, not to mention a 'Great Rabbi'. 'Master' is an interior appellation... A rabbi's disciples called him 'master' and also 'rabbi', but master was the main term of submission. So the two are somewhat interchangeable, interior vs. exterior to the 'assembly' of a rabbi.
'Father', to my knowledge, has no honorific among the Hebrews beyond the normal patriarchal sense, but was very broadly used in pagan circles (PATR, PETR) as an honorific for their priests, as was something like 'master' among their high dignitaries. Pope does derive from this, but the office comes from the universal high priest of the ecumenical hierarchy of the eastern mystery religions... The 'Pontiff Maximus', a title later bestowed upon Roman emperors in their role as priest kings. It was inherited into the Roman church as such, with it's ascension to 'emperor' over the Western Empire.
Exellent analysis!
Thanks Roamer. My info suggests “father” did have honorific usage. But I do appreciate your thoughtful input. Always nice to have even more to think about. :)
Peace,
SR
If y'all get to posting that, please ping me to it, if you would... always appreciate learning...
roamer_1:
Ok but Rabbi as a term would connote a Master/Teacher of Jewish Doctrine, Law, practice and thus one who teaches. So all educators are indeed teachers, but a PHD would be in essence a Master/Teacher of a discipline and thus could teach a subject at a University, and elementary school teacher while still be an educator like the PHD, but not a master teacher.
As for Father, so you do note that it does have usage in a context other than to refer to God the Father, as in Hebrew it had patriarchal links with the likes of Abraham. THe early Church viewed certain sees [Rome being first among them] as patriarchial sees [Antioch and Alexandria also] thus the Bishops of those Churches were seen as Fathers, i.e. Greek Pappas, which would be what a little child would call his or her Father. That word became Papa in Latin is where Pope Comes from. Pater is also used as a title for Father, but that would be not the child’s use of papa, So Pater would be also Father and used in Latin for God and also honorific like Papa for Pope and Pater for a spiritual Father. Now why did the Popes want Papa reserved for them and pater for parish priests, perhaps in the sense that they saw all of the Church as being under their spiritual care taking cue from Christ command to Saint Peter “Feed my Lambs” and only he was given that command. So what type of Man, if is a true man, does not work to provide food to feed his family, so in that sense Saint Peter was given a charge to be a spiritual father to his fellow apostles, not to Lord over them but to serve and strengthen them [which Christ also specifically commanded Saint Peter, and only him, to do in Luke 22].
You're not the author of this comment but because you're using it as your explanation for the text, I'll ask you the question. Where is the highlighted point stated or implied in Matthew 23:9?
CommerceComet:
I have already answered it and I think the commentary is stating don’t follow those who call themselves masters, teachers, or father, if they lead you away from Christ. Who are these masters, teachers, spiritual fathers today that do that, the masters, teachers, and spiritual fathers of secularism, political correctness, excessive materialism, communism, etc, etc, So that is how I apply that to my life situation today, God is the Father Almighty first an foremost, the Church is my spiritual Mother and the Popes and Priests who convey and teach the orthodox Catholic Faith would be my spiritual fathers, teachers, masters that I listen to as I believe that does not lead me away from God the Father. Now that is my personal reflection on it and I dont’t make it with any dogmatic certainty.
NONE of us iz. They all died and John was the last of 'em.
Here is another user of the term father, as opposed to Father. Note how Saint John is referring to certain men as fathers [spiritual] and for them to lead the flock they are shepherding in accordance with the Doctrine Saint John Taught them. I have both the Catholic NAB and RSV versions
http://usccb.org/bible/1john/2
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2&version=NRSVCE
Note again how Saint John addresses the entire Church as his children then specifically tasks certain men, he calls them father, to in essence guard the flock. One would think these mean or probably presbyters [again, literally elderly men] and he calls them fathers, which is entirely consistent with the usage in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church.
boatbums:
I agree I am not an apostle, so the ministry of reconciliation that Saint Paul was talking about was given to the Church and the Apostles and those the Apostles ordained to carry on their apostolic ministry. That was precisely the point I was making.
And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces. He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.
Elijah was "father" and "master" to Elisha in Hebrew.
pope (n.) Old English papa (9c.), from Church Latin papa "bishop, pope" (in classical Latin, "tutor"), from Greek papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father." Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073 (usually in English with a capital P-). Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in English, preserve the original vowel. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pope
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[13][14][15][16][17] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[18] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[19]
The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops.[20] From the 6th century the title began to be used particularly of the Bishop of Rome, and in the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that has been widely interpreted as stating this by then established Western convention.[20] By the same 6th century, this was also the normal practice of the imperial chancery of Constantinople. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
boatbums:
I don’t disagree with anything you posted. It is generally consistent with everything I have been saying. And the term was used in the context of a spiritual father and honorific title and used in the context of how the Apostles used it to describe patriarchs like Abraham, David, Isaac and even themselves, in the case of Saint Paul and it appears presbyters in the case of 1 John, as I noted in an earlier post.
And as I, and others frequently do, we quote from the “Church Fathers” which again is a spiritual and honorary title applied to those orthodox men of the Faith.
There must be a distinction, then, between those who "parent" us in the faith - including our acknowledgment of that paternity - and the forbidden act, by Jesus, Himself, of his disciples allowing themselves the TITLE for formal usage. What do you think Jesus meant when he said:
But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matt. 23:8-11)
Gill's Exposition of the Bible says regarding this passage:
So, rather than Jesus forbidding all uses of the term "father" when speaking of both the physical and spiritual, I think He directs us back to understanding the source of all things - our Father in Heaven. He alone is worthy of the title.
Does he? I don't see anywhere that Paul told those he led in the faith to call him "Father" or "Rabbi".
boatbums:
I agree with you up until your last statement, God is indeed the source of everything...I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.
That is the opening statement of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is the normative Creed professed at every Catholic Mass/Liturgy. So I(we) Catholics profess that every Sunday. So by Stating God the Father, we are acknowledging God the Father as the Source of all things, but when we call the Pope, Pope Francis, or Father, Father Mitch, or Saint Augustine a Church Father, etc, that is a spiritual sense of term and in no way does it suggest anything to mean it as God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, etc, etc. Christ himself was comfortable with referring to Abraham as the patriarch of the Jewish People and the person through which God began to reveal himself to the OT Jewish people. For example in John 8:56 “your father Abraham looked forward to my coming” In a similar text, MT 3:9 Christ again refers to Abraham as father, etc. Of course while referring to Abraham as father and pointing to Abraham and all the patriarchal fathers of the OT were pointing to his coming.
boatbums:
I was using that sarcastically. Of course I don’t think Saint Paul disobeyed, I think the NT writers understood the context of how Christ was using the term Father and when they used it, they were using it in a context that in no way detracted from God as the Father Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth.
My point is that if Saint Paul and Saint John used the term father to describe themselves and to other men who were pastoring churches, then it is the FR Protestants on this board who are wrong with the charge that Catholics are violating Christ direct command. As I have explained in earlier post, Catholics use the terms Pope and Father with respect to clergy in the context of patriarchal fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood consistent with that usage of the term throughout the New Testament.
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.