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.
1Pe_2:8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
If Christ’s meaning for Peter to be the foundation and leader of the Church was to be limited to Peter and not his successors, what was to happen to the church after Peter died? Is it supposed to go on with no chosen leaders?
Those are good questions. You are assuming that man must control the destiny of the church or the church will die out. However, the destiny of the church was always and will always be guided by God.
Being Catholic, I am not at all familiar with the bible, so I can’t offhand cite the scripture where Jesus called himself ‘the rock’.
I would encourage you to personally read the scriptures and ask God to open His word to you. This is a promise of God. If you truly seek to know Him, He can be found in His word and He will reveal Himself to you.
Your post indicates that the masculine form of the word (boulder or pebble) would not properly describe a rock to be used for a foundation. So either Jesus would have had to use the improper masculine form and have his church built on a pebble, or he would have had to give Peter a feminine name to have the word forms agree. That seems a bit of a stretch.
Anyway, the scripture I was looking for was where Jesus said that He was the rock and foundation, because that is what was asserted in the post I replied to, and what prompted my question about interpretations.
O2
Christ is the Rock and the Cornerstone, but He builds His Church upon that which the Father provides. Christ never glorifies Himself.
Please see post 7 and 8
The only command to the churches to ordain leadership after Judas was replaced to maintain the original number of foundational apostles (none were mentioned for James of Acts 12:1,2) was that of ordaining elders, this being the same as overseers/bishops, (Titus 1:7-7) and who are never titled "priests."
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (Titus 1:5)
Moreover, Nor is Peter confirmed to be the rock upon which Christ built His church, but the Christ of Peter's confession is. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) And even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the Roman papacy being the reality in the early church.
Good to have you onboard
So do they, as i could, contrary to your position.
Disagreements among Catholics here on this site, or on other sites, who make themselves more Catholic than the Pope is in reality people who think too much of themselves. In that sense, they are behaving in some sense like your Protestant cohort.
I will try to remember you when i next engage such super RCs. But this simply illustrates my point that submission to the pope in one century as understood as plainly stated, can mean something the opposite in another. Want examples?
I don’t have that kind of a search engine for the Bible. Mine is focused on books and verses.
Have you ever studied a foreign language. Genders, etc. verbs, past, present, future have different forms.
And this took place at Caesarea Philippi. Do you know why?
daniel1212:
No, because your interpretation of any thing you post is your view. You of course are entitled to your view, but you are not an expert on Catholic Doctrine, in my view, you are “likely” an ex-Catholic who thinks he knows Catholic Doctrine and now as Protestant is trying to frame it from your new found Protestantism, which I “predict”, will be a different strand of Protestantism before you die. Again, I am only making observations and predictions, not statements of fact with respect to you.
Now, more to the subject at hand, there are different levels of Catholic teaching, things that are Doctrines that are to be held definitively and are part of Divine Revelation and thus are not teachings that can be changed are different than things that taught as to be held as taught via the ordinary magisterium or through a papal bull to ease tensions in the church or to provide a teaching on a matter as general guidance or another thing. With respect to the Jesuits for example, there have been Papal BUlls that 1)Founded the Jesuits, 2) Put them under restriction, 3) Out right suppressed them and took away their canonical standing and 4) eased the suppression and 5) Fully restored the Jesuits back to Full Canonical Standing. There have been Papal Bulls on Slavery that indicated some Popes wanted to end Slavery going back as far as the 14th century, there were some that tolerated it, but put parameters on it, etc, etc.
On all those matters, we are not talking about the Nicene or Apostles Creed, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome, etc. On these matters, there is a clear teaching that has remained unchanged, as all of these are part of the Dogmatic and Doctrine of the Church and come directly from Divine Revelation of Christ to the Apostles.
This term Super RC, I don’t know of such term in Catholic Canon Law. Do you have a source on that? Perhaps you are talking about SSPX followers or Sedevacantist? You are talking about in the former case, schismatic at a low level [they at least at times have entered into dialogue with the Pope], and the later, outright heretics and schismatics.
Again, I am not interested in what an internet Catholic guy says if he or she is spouting off things that have no basis in official Catholic teaching anymore than I am hearing from Protestants of the same stripe. They in essence, while different are in this case the same, they each set themselves up as their own “Pope”. I am comfortable with the fact that in my lifetime, there have been now 5 Popes and I haven’t been one of them.
daniel212:
The testimony you cite are Catholic Historical critics, I am well aware of them all. The point of the question is when did it become clear of a single Bishop of Rome. The earliest evidence of it is 140AD. That does not mean there was no single Bishop in Rome prior, it just means the evidence is not there definitively. Again, the debate here does not negate the passage from Mt 16:16-18. In fact, the Keys is another significant part of the passage and is a fulfillment of Isiah 22:22. The fact that Christ is called Rock does not mean that Peter was also called Rock as in that sense, He is given a role among the Apostles that is unique as Apostleship is connected to the person of Christ as it means literally, one being sent from. Just as Abraham had his name changed, were both given Divine Missions, and like Peter, Abraham was also called a rock [Is 51:1-2]. The fact that Christ is indeed the Rock which the Apostles were connected to does not mean that Christ can also refer to Peter as rock as well. Saint Paul in Ephesians 2:20 gives what appears to be a tension or contradiction [in the protestant either/or world view] to a Catholic one that is comfortable with the both/and as he writes “members of the household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which Christ Jesus as the capstone”. Christ is the Rock but his Apostles since they were sent by him, loved him, and faith in him, hoped in him, etc, were also used by Christ as “rocks” to build his Church on [in fact, all save Saint John, would give their blood, including Saint Peter] and among those Rocks, Peter has a chief place among the Apostles.
And as far as Mt 16:16-18, a much more comprehensive commentary on that passage is below.
http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
And Saint Thomas Aquinas Interpretation of John 21, the other important Petrine text, with references to Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrystosem, also indicate Saint Peter’s singular and unique role among the Apostles.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/John21.htm
Not nearly as boring and well-worn as the Protestant heresies repeated on this forum day in and day out.
1Co 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.Again, no ambiguity here. From Paul's approach we see that he treated his readers as Jewish or otherwise aware of Jewish history. Same thing applies to the "rock" passage in Matthew 16:18. It would have been very easy for those hearers to associate the Petra with the divine intervention of God on behalf of the wandering Israelites, and therefore quite a stretch for them to think it could ever refer to Peter.
Why?
THANK YOU for that.
I went to Biblehub, which gives the Greek. Here is the link.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
If you look for *rock* in taht passage that identifies the Rock as Christ, it DOES us *petra*.
*Petra*, Jesus, is the rock on which Christ is building His church.
Additionally. the form *petra* is used for Christ in two other places.
One is Romans 9:33 and the other is 1 Peter 2:8, where both Paul and Peter identify *petra* as Christ, the stone of stumbling and the *ROCK* (petra) of offense.
Then what are you doing inferring Peter’s name is mentioned in the Bible more than ALL the other 12 apostles, when your have already been refuted before in asserting, "Peter’s name in scripture? More than all the other apostles put together"?
And by my searching i found "Peter" mentioned by that name 162 times in all of the NT, sometimes together as "Simon Peter," and separately as "Cephas" 6 times, and separately as Simon 17 times at most, for a total of 185, but which includes duplicate accounts and sometimes in the same verse. In addition, a cursory count finds other apostles are mentioned by name about 80 times.
However, Paul is mentioned 163 as "Paul" and 26 times as "Saul" giving him a total of 189 times.
Moreover, he wrote 13 books of Scripture, nearly 50 percent of the New Testament, and mentions Peter after James in Gal. 2:9, and the latter gave the definitive final decree in Act 15, and Peter is not even heard of in Acts after Acts 12, nor in Paul's extensive list of acquaintances in Rm. 16, nor is submission to or prayers for Peter or mention of him as the supreme head in Rome ever seen in any of the church epistles.
Thus Peter not mentioned by his names more than all the other apostles put together, esp. when not counting duplicate accounts.
Moreover, using popular Catholic reasoning, here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy.
In addition, using your logic that the more one is mentioned then the higher the primacy, then since Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned very few times then she must be very low on the VIP list.
Now will you continue to posting specious parroted RC polemics?
I thought of that as well when I was just talking with mr. mm.
Good catch.
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.