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.
I asked the question with Peter and the first apostles. That did not include Paul.
Thanks for your research. You proved my point. Peter is always deferred to by the other 11 apostles, always mentioned first in lists, speaks at the Council of Jerusalem with authority. Converts 3000 on the Feast of Pentecost. And the list goes on and on.
There are all kinds of resources and search engines for that for free on the web. You have no excuse.
Yes, I have and yes, I know, which is why I went to the Greek to clear up the ambiguity that is in English because it DOESN'T use gender in nouns and adjectives.
And you just shot yourself in the foot on the discussion about Peter and petra and petros.
Going to the Greek and taking into account the verb and noun endings, simply verifies and supports the argument that the Rock is Christ, not Peter.
It's only when you use English that it is possible to make the claim that Peter is the rock with any possibility that it might hold water.
**Additionally. the form *petra* is used for Christ in two other places.**
LOL! Christ is not feminine. Was it talking about the Church?
Always? Prove it.
Or do you mean like this?
Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Or perhaps in this list where He is mentioned first? Oh, er, wait a minute....
Galatians 2:7-9 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Ooops......
What about *this rock(petra) was Christ* (1 Corinthians 10:4) is so hard for you to understand?
And since when is the CHURCH the Rock of offense?
That also trashes your argument, because if *petra* here means *church* then it DOESN’T mean Peter.
Kudos for trying but you need to seriously get over your brainwashing.
Petra being feminine can’t mean Peter either then because Peter is a man, so by saying that Christ is going to build His church on *petra*, cannot mean Peter, a man.
Jesus used *petros*, masculine, to identify Peter, a man.
petra is the feminine form or petros. It would not be used in that way.
And being the feminine form, denotes a different object than *petros*, as already been clearly explained to you, with links.
You’ll do better when you stop twisting Scripture to fit your theology and have your theology fit Scripture.
Tell me, exactly why does Peter have to be the rock on which Christ’s church is to be built? Why build His church on a man, and not Himself?
petra is the feminine form of petros
Christ knew he wasn’t going to be around physically. So he passed on the authority of the Church to Peter as he head of the other apostles.
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
That is my point. What i can post are things RCs debate about, and while your anonymous "expert[s] on Catholic Doctrine" do not settle the issues either.
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,
It is the job of RCs to prove that i am not rightly representing RC doctrine, but go search my postings and see how often that charge has held up. Instead i often educates RCs, and find them engaging in misrepresentation.
which I “predict”, will be a different strand of Protestantism before you die.
Since one should grow toward perfection, i hope so.
Now, more to the subject at hand, there are different levels of Catholic teaching,
I know that, and also that some clergy divide them into 4, while they do not know which parts of the CCC are stating infallible teaching, or even how many total they are and what they all are. And some RCs say most of what RCs believe and practice has never been stated infallibly.
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.
Yes, very consistent, coherent and clear moral guidance.
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.
Of course; i know that, and which avoids the issue of the room or need for interpretation among RCs. 20th century Evangelicalism itself began due to a shared contention for such basic commonly held Truths..
This term Super RC, I don’t know of such term in Catholic Canon Law. Do you have a source on that?
Do not act ignorant or insolent. It is right next to "cafeteria Catholic" in Catholic Canon Law. In context it refers to just the RCs you described, who make themselves more Catholic than the Pope is.
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
That was never brought up, but that of RCs who disagree about what official Catholic teaching is and means. Do you even have an infallible complete list of what level each teaching belongs to, and an official commentary on all the Bible?
My argument is that while RCs attack SS adherents as having no infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and relying on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men, neither do RCs have an infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and must also rely on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men. And that what they can and do disagree on is extensive.
And that the church did not begin under the premise of assured magisterial infallibility of the stewards of Scripture.
Not in Scripture.
The earliest evidence of it is 140AD.
A debated Opinion.
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.
And where is Isiah 22:22 infallibly or "officially" interpreted as meaning that, since you want to avoid the interpretive problem. I can argue for that not teaching perpetuation and that Christ being the direct fulfillment is what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah. For upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)
However, Scripture is not your supreme authority, but it rendered a servant to support Rome.
. 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.
Nowhere does in the rest of the NT is Peter called the rock upon which the church is built. 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)
In any case, the Peter of Scripture stands in radical contrast to that of Rome with his supposed successors.
And who must perversely understand Scripture as supporting that,
there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
If these people would just read the Daily Readings thread and the reflections from experts there, explaining history, the connection with the First Reading that the Gospel has, etc.
Then we wouldn’t have all these questions. LOL!
But which is an absurd revision. . Why exclude Paul? He disproves your argument in principle, as the most mentioned denotes primacy.
Thanks for your research. You proved my point.
Wrong. You "point" was the most mentioned denotes primacy. Which leaves Peter second and Mary marginalized.
Peter is always deferred to by the other 11 apostles,
And whom Paul publicly rebuked, and did not defer to his judgment by example, while James was dead by Acts 25, and nowhere is any successor named.
always mentioned first in lists,
Wrong. The Holy Spirit lists Peter second in his list of those who "seemed to be pillars" in Gal. 2
speaks at the Council of Jerusalem with authority. Converts 3000 on the Feast of Pentecost. And the list goes on and on.
The point here is cannot merely that peter was the initial leader among the 12, but the leader all the church looked to as its supreme exalted infallible head, the first of a succession, all of which is simply not what is manifested. And James is the one who gave the final decree in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's recommendation and Paul's doctrine.
The excuse is that Paul spoils the parade and should be eliminated.
daniel212:
And again, all thoust opinions of thoust Daniel212 are thoust personal opinions.
And it is not my job to do a darn thing, if you are going to spout about Catholic Doctrine, you should state I am not a Catholic expert and am only making at best and educated guess as to what it means. It is more your job to try to represent Catholic Doctrine accurately if you are going to constantly post about it. Unlike you, I don’t have the hubris to think I am an expert in Protestant(s) theology whereas you think you are an expert at Catholic Doctrine.
It is quite clear what are non-negotiable teachings of the faith. The Trinity, Christological Doctrines, Creedal statements, seven sacraments. Scripture commentaries are just that, commentaries. The Church has Doctrines that are defined, to say that every scripture passage can be defined exactly is itself nonsense. Scripture has many levels. Yes, there are some passages which are definitively defined as having 1 clear meaning, other than those few, the Church recognizes that scripture can speak different things, yet all true, but it can’t contradict the Faith of the Church. When one begins to read scripture outside of the Defined teachings of the Church, then they have gone astray.
As for Papal Bulls on slavery, it was part of the human condition well before Christ and to be fair, Saint Paul did not say much about it either, only to say that Slave or Free all had access to God’s Grace. He never said anything about freeing slaves. Gradually, the Church reflected on the fact that Christ himself in essence destroyed slavery in that slavery was seen as a visible sign of man’s sinfulness, thus the ancient Israel’s crossing the red sea from and escaping Egypt is a prefigurement of Baptism and the Baptized Christian being baptized into Christ death and resurrection. Thus, as Saint Thomas Aquinas posited, slavery is against natural law and itself a consequence of orginal sin, thus while no NT writer clearly denounced slavery, Saint Paul again looked at as sort of status quo, some Popes began to look at Christ life and being to teach against Slavery, some not as much, but over the time period starting in the 1400’s, there was a gradual development of Catholic Doctrine that began to chip away at slavery. Here is the first such papal statement on the subject of slavery. Note that this was in 1435. Of course, not everyone listened to him, and this was not an attempt to define something like a Creedal statement but it does represent the Pope’s attempt to challenge Christendom at the time to move away from Slavery. Of course, not many listed to him and 100 years later, both Catholics and Protestants were not listening. Sublimeus Dei was issued in 1537 again rejected the enslavement of non-Christians, although it forbid arms trade with the enemies of Christendom, eventually, the Spainish and Portugese Kings protested that the Protestants had no such restrictions and the Pope allowed the enslavement of Muslims captured and put into ships as rowers, which was similar to the treatment of Christians captured. It did forbid the enslavement of other Christians, even Protestants, LOL.
So if you are going to pick a fight at the various Papal Bulls on Slavery, then perhaps you need to pick one with Saint Paul, or show me which Calvinist theologians argued against Slavery, in fact, Calvinism and its Divine election used Calvinism to its hyper doctrine of election and double predestination to justify slavery.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
So some Popes were more forceful on using papal bulls to restrict Slavery, some were not. But the fact is as far back as the 14th century, there was indeed a development of a doctrine in the Catholic Church to chip away at slavery. On that point, even the likes of you must concede that point.
You should find this interesting on this issue. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/built-on-sinking-sand-scriptural.html
The Muratorian Fragment was and is the earliest canonical list of the New Testament and was part of the Church at Rome’s Tradition. It dates from around 180AD. Even the Reformed Historian Schaff concedes as much.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.Muratorian_Fragment.html
The evidence in the text itself speaks of the reason why the Shepherd of the Hermas, which some Churches, held to be canonical and were read in the Liturgy of the Church was not be read in Rome. The reason, because the work was written at the time when Pius held the Chair of the Church of Rome. When was Saint Pius I Bishop of Rome, well from 140 to 155 AD. So the date 140AD is indeed accurate and is evidence that by 140AD, the Church of Rome had a Single Leader as Bishop. This would be consistent with NT practice itself as the Acts of the Apostles clearly state that James was the “Leader of the Church of Jerusalem”. And Saint John’s theology of Bishop clearly impacted the Eastern part of the Church as all the Churches that he wrote too and cared for, Philadelphia, Ephesus, Smyrna, had single Bishops by the end of the 1st century, as indicated in the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint John’s pupil, Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
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.