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.
“that save favor or grace” should be “ that same favor or grace.” Sorry.
Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)
Thus, the Catholic Church accepts the ‘priesthood of all believers’ doctrine – it is not the exclusive domain of Protestantism.[7][8] This is exemplified in ‘chaplet of divine mercy’ prayer, in which the individual Christian declares: “Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins...” The primary difference between the teachings of the Catholic Church and those of the (non-Anglican) Protestant churches that reject the ordained priesthood is that the Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests:
1.first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
2.second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14-15); and
3.third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).[9][10][11]
Really? You made this ambiguous assertion before, and i showed you what you need to deal with, while if i am to deal with a question which was not even posted to me to start with, learn to link to it rather than making me guess.
Go grind your axe somewhere else.
It was you who began the exchange with me by responding to a post to someone else, and now that you have manifest that you effectively have invalidated the NT by your contrary basis for assurance of Truth, you wish i would go away. Sorry, but as long as you want to get involved in defending and promoting your elitist cultic org which misleads souls, then you must face the heat of the kitchen. If not, then it is you who must leave.
This simply is another example of the problem. As the RC must support Rome, so he/she uncritically follows men when they do so, and resorts to ad hominems and the unScriptural premise that unlettered men cannot be correct refuting scholars.
Yet i have already exposed Jerome as wresting Scripture to support his denigration of marriage (Gn. 2: "two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness"), while it remains that in the Greek "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" but i in Luke 1:28 it is "kexaritomena" which means "highly favored one," or graced, which the DRB inconsistently but rightly uses in Eph 1:6.
And evidently the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also thought they knew Greek better than Jerome, as they also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"
,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," (Jn. 1:14) using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT
Do not be like the scorning Pharisees, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:47-48)
Once again, that is your fundamental flaw. So once again, seeing as you affirm that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth;
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God,
How could both men and writings of God be established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium? And how could laity be right in following an itinerant preacher in the desert who ate insects, seeing as he reproved and disagreed with the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, as being the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture?
As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority? (Mk. 11:27-33)
Consistent with the "who are you to disagree with the historical magisterium" premise of RCs, then all should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses. But if the church began with common people being right, and the magisterium being wrong, and Truth claims being established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus your premise of the assured veracity of Rome, then you and your church are operating out of a foundationally contrary premise than the NT began under.
You elevate yourself to sole interpreter of scripture.
Resorting again and again to this fallacious charge, akin to saying i am making myself a pope, speaks of desperation, or an inability to deal with refutation, which i have shown you before. Again, appealing to the weight of wholly inspired Scriptural substantiation as the basis for credibility is not the same as presuming personal infallibility, which is your basis via reliance upon Rome which presumes this.
With respect to Luke 1:28, the commentary of the Patristics on this passage is supportive of the Catholic position
There is nothing wrong with seeking help, but an RC cannot objectively examine a text in order to ascertain its veracity, but the the Lord did not expect 1st c. Hebrew souls to always follow the traditional interpretation of their magisterium.
Meanwhile, there is actually nothing said by the two "fathers" listed in Lk. 1:28 besides Jerome, who, as with Gn. 2, examples how he can read into a verse what the text simply does not say. Even if what he makes this text say was true (that Mary uniquely was full of grace, which Scripture says the Lord was), yet it remains that this is not what the Greek words mean.
)Saint Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the Church
Which presumes much if meant of all time, and which does not translate into faithful rendering (the devil knows more). I have already shown how Jerome could read into Scripture what He wanted it to say in exegesis, and some cite evidence to his views on women doing likewise in his translation (though i certainly uphold the headship of men in the church and home).
And as Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M. writes ,
One problem was the character of Latin. In Jerome’s day, it was a fixed language that resisted new vocabulary. But Latin did not have words that corresponded to some of the religious language of the Bible. This required adopting Greek words into Latin or forcing Latin words to bear new meanings.
The principle that Jerome used as he translated was not “word for word” but “sense for sense.” Today the type of translation that Jerome favored is called “dynamic equivalence..” (http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp)
This “dynamic equivalence..” which the poor NIV also uses, means you are more likely to read what the translators think a word or phrase should say rather than what it does say.
in Luke 1:28 is the only place in the entire Bible where an angel addressed someone by a title rather than personal expression.
Another invention. ,Hail, "highly favoured" is not a title, but a greeting which describes what she is, like as Daniel who is called by the angel, "greatly beloved," (Dan. 10:11) and unlike where the Lord does give people a new title/name, the Holy Spirit never uses this sppsdly new title again - or gives her other titles in stark contrast to the approx 900 of Catholicism - but continues to call her Mary.
Saint Luke could have translated the passage as pleres Charitos, as he did in Acts 6:6 with respect to Saint Stephen yet he used a different expression in Luke 1:28 for Mary [kecharitomene] that is more revealing than the other rendering as it indicates God has already Graced Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who has been and is now filled with Divine Life.
The issue is not whether Mary was graced, even before the salutation, bu whether Lk. 1:28 states was uniquely full of grace. And this attempt to force Scripture to support Rome is actually another argument against her. The reason "plērēs is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because that actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. And which was unmistakably previous to this point.
Nor does kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)
If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, as Christ was, (plērēs charis).
Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate.
No, only to souls who want to think of mortals "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:60 and which this is part of. We must respect the Spirit's silence as well as statements, and Mary was a holy women chosen to be the instrument for the Christ who created her, yet she is mentioned in a rather marginal degree, while far more press is given to the apostle Paul describing his suffering for Christ and labor, and righteousness under severe testing, but who is very marginal to Caths compared with Mary.
Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine’s commentaries linked earlier, support the Catholic Position. The 16th century protestant rebels support your view.
And the church began with rebels against those whom RCs would follow, consistent with their unBiblical basis for determining Truth. You can have them as Hell will also. May God grant you repentance.
Indeed, but stand by for the same response
True whether we do so or not. As i pointed out, the church began because the laity saw the Truth while the leadership did not/would not.
White debates this issue here and gets into detail with the Greek. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)
And Swan stated ,
I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.
I don't look at it that way. When I read 2 Kings 2 I see Elisha in awe of Elijah's power with the LORD God of Israel. I don't try to fit it into today's culture. I just take it as it is. I remember that it was Moses and Elijah that Jesus brought to the Mount of Transfiguration where the Father spoke from heaven. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
I look in Revelation 11 and see the two witnesses performing the miracles that Moses and Elijah performed. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
So no, I don't think of Elijah the prophet as Elisha's friend and mentor. I think of him more like Elisha did, And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.
In light of these, I'm also reminded of Malachi 4 (Jesus quoted Malachi 3 in reference to John the Baptist, not Malachi 4), where both Moses and Elijah are again mentioned. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
I perceive Moses and Elijah sitting on two of the twenty-four thrones mentioned in Revelation, And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
We are not talking about marriage, we are talking about Luke 1:28 an the other verses that deal with Mary. I provided the Saint Thomas Aquinias Patristic commentary “Catena Aurea” which has all the patristic commentaries on Luke Chapter 1. None, not one had an interpretation that fits Calvin, Knox, or Zwingli. Again, I gave you the theological commentaries on Luke Chapter 1 and it is not only Jerome’s views that are consistent with what I posted, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil and all the others as well.
Good day to you and please don’t post to me again. I have tried to remain as charitable as I can be towards you even though you have thrown the loaded term “cult” numerous times. So again, lets just be done here and please don’t post to me again. I will respond in kind.
That is much another argument from silence, as besides the eisegetical Jerome i found nothing on Lk. 1:28 asserting "full of grace" is what the Greek meant, which it does not. Nor are ECFs always in agreement with each other and or Rome, but it remains that your premise is that Rome must be right and cannot be wrong as the historical steward of Scripture, if she does say so herself, by which reasoning you invalidate the church.
Good day to you and please don’t post to me again. I have tried to remain as charitable as I can be towards you even though you have thrown the loaded term “cult” numerous times
Using straw men such as accusing me of being like a pope is not charitable but ignorance or dishonesty, which the fact remains that both cults and Rome operate out of the same sola ecclesia premise, that their magisterium is the supreme authority, not Scripture, and all your conclusions are driven by that, contrary to objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching. To do so would be to doubt the assured veracity of Rome which she claims for herself, and by which you have your assurance. That is cultic, unless Rome is God.
So again, lets just be done here and please don’t post to me again. I will respond in kind.
You have tried this more than once in the past , and it's your call, but don't assume you can respond and expect me to be silence, and you started this by responding to a post that was not to you.
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.