Posted on 06/07/2006 8:12:05 PM PDT by Petrosius
Benedict XVI talked about the primacy intended by Jesus and recognized by the apostles. He said a spontaneous prayer so that ?entrusted to poor human beings, the primacy may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, that it may be recognized by our brothers not yet in full communion with us.
Vatican City (AsiaNews) The foundation of the primacy of Peter in the desire manifested by Jesus and recognition by the Twelve, and spontaneous prayers so that poor human beings entrusted with the primacy will know how exercise it according to the will of Jesus, and so it may be recognized also by Christians who are not in full communion with Rome. This was the thrust of the words of Benedict XVI in todays general audience. Thus, Christian unity, indicated by Benedict XVI himself as being one of the fundamental objectives of his pontificate, accompanied his reflection on the primacy, described as a constitutive element of the Church, which has always posed one of the main if not the main obstacles to Christian unity unity. In this regard, John Paul II, in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995), affirmed the openness of the Catholic Church to discussing not the primacy but concrete ways of exercising it. Today, Benedict XVI underlined that the task entrusted to Peter, is to strengthen his brothers. Off the cuff, he said: This is the primacy given for all times: Peter must be the guardian of communion with Christ, lead to communion with Christ with the charity of Christ, even to lead to the realization of this charity in everyday life. In his reflection, Benedict XVI today highlighted different aspects of the primacy: its institution by Christ, the awareness of Peter and recognition by the Twelve. On this spring day, Benedict XVI addressed at least 40,000 people who packed into the square and brightened it up with colourful flags, hats, handkerchiefs, and even a few umbrellas to offer protection from the sun, already rather warm at times. The pope drew attention to the narrative of John about the first meeting of Jesus with Simon, brother of Andrew, saying it records a singular fact: Jesus looked at him and said, You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas (which is translated Peter) (Jn1:42). Jesus did not usually change the names of his disciples, in fact, He never gave a new name to any of his disciples. However he did so with Simon, and that name, translated in Greek as Petros, would crop up several times in the Gospels and would end up by replacing his original name. This fact takes on particular significance when one recalls that in the Old Testament, changing a name was usually a prelude to entrusting one with a mission (cfr Jn 17:5; 32:28ff). In fact, the intention of Christ to attribute special importance to Peter within the Apostolic College emerges in many instances: in Capernaum, the Teacher went to lodge in Peters house (Mk 1:29); when the crowd flocked to the banks of the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus chose Peters boat from the two moored there (Lk 5:3); when in particular circumstances, Jesus took three disciples to accompany him, only Peter is always recalled as the first of the group: the same happened in the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (cfr Mk 5:37; Lk 8:51); in the Transfiguration (cfr Mk 9:2; Mt 17:1; Lk 9:28), during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (cfr Mk 14:33; Mt 16:37). And again: it was Peter who was approached by the tax collectors at the Temple and the Teacher paid for himself and for Peter alone (cfr Mt 17: 24-27); it was Peter whose feet He washed first at the Last Supper (cfr Jn 13:6) and it was only for him that He prayed so that his faith would not fail and that he may in turn strengthen his brothers (cfr Lk 22: 30-31). Peter himself is, after all, aware of his unique position: it is he who often, in the name also of the rest, speaks out, asking for an explanation for some difficult parable (Mt 15:15) or the exact meaning of a precept (Mt 18:21) or the formal promise of reward (Mt 19:27). Benedict XVI dwelt upon the profession of faith which, again in the name of the Twelve, he made near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus who asked: Who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Mt 16: 15-16). Jesus replies by making a solemn statement that defines, once and for all, the role of Peter in the Church: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:18-19). The three metaphors Jesus refers to are in themselves very clear: Peter will be the rock, the foundation on which the Church will stand; He will have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven to open or close as he sees fit; and finally, he will be able to bind or dissolve in the sense that he will be able to establish or prohibit as he holds necessary for the life of the Church, which is, and remains, of Christ. This position of pre-eminence that Jesus meant to confer upon Peter is apparent also after the resurrection: Jesus charged the women to take the news to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cfr Mk 16:7); it is to him and to John that Mary Magdalen rushes to inform them about the overturned stone at the entrance to the sepulchre (cfr Jn 20:2) and John allows Peter to go ahead when the two reach the empty tomb (cfr Jn 20:4-6); Peter would be the first among the Apostles to testify to an apparition of the Risen Lord (cfr Lk 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5). His role, decisively emphasized (cfr Jn 20:3-10), marks the continuity between his pre-eminence among the apostolic group and the pre-eminence he would continue to enjoy in the community born from the paschal events, as attested in the Book of the Acts (cfr 1:15-26; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:1-11.29; 8:14-17; 10; etc.). His behaviour is considered so decisive that it is the focus of observations and even of criticism (cfr At 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14). Peter occupies a leadership role in the Council of Jerusalem (cfr At 15 and Gal 2:1-10) and it is precisely because of his being a witness to the authentic faith that Paul himself recognized in him a certain quality of first (cfr 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:7ff; etc.). Further, the fact that all the key texts referring to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, when Christ confers upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brothers (cfr Lk 22:31ff), reveals how the Church born from the paschal memory celebrated in the Eucharist, finds one of its constitutive elements in the ministry entrusted to Peter. At the end of his reflection, Benedict XVI prayed, off the cuff, that the primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, may be always exercised in its original sense as desired by the Lord, so that it may be recognized still more in its true meaning by our brothers as yet not in full communion with us. |
If you notice, I said "we have such different ideas about the faith." By the term "the faith" I include the entire content of faith or belief, all those "differences in our ideas about worship, religious practice, and sacraments."
I do trust in Jesus and read the Scripture yet our beliefs are so different. If we are not to rely on the mediation of a divinely ordained church possessing apostolic authority then the Holy Spirit must be failing one of us (or perhaps both).
Then you do not understand Catholic teaching for we too hold that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Where we differ is that you are claiming an infallibility for your interpretation of the Bible.
Well done, Claud!
IMHO there isn't an animal named "the faith," it is "my" faith and "your" faith.
Coming from my background, I can actually see our commonalities much better than I see our differences....I guess it's all a matter of perspective (not ours, but His)
There IS unitiy in the Christian faith....we just need to open our eyes and accept it.
You're tempting me to set aside CPA studying and get back into Greek!
I haven't had a chance yet to check my Lexicon, but you raise an interesting point that I will see if the distinction is still present in 1st. Century AD Greek.
Don't think all Christian understanding has been influenced by the early Church fathers...and even by the current Pope?
I can't speak for all, but of course the leaders of the Catholic faith are men of God and can help us with our understanding. Do you believe they are infallible?
This should be readily recognized...Peter is often referred to in the epistles as "Cephas".
In the interest of following up, I checked my Liddell-Scott this morning and Iscool is right. There was a distinction between petros "stone" and petra "rock, mass of rock"--at least in Attic Greek of the 4th century B.C. Whether that distinction held in the 1st century NT Greek, I do not know.
Nevertheless, I think the argument still stands that Christ did not have this distinction in mind when he made this statement--1) because he gave the name in Aramaic not Greek, which is proved by John 1:42, and 2) because the Greek of Matt 16 has the word "taute" = "same" = "Thou art Rock, and upon this SAME rock, I shall build my Church"
100 posted on 06/09/2006 6:34:37 AM MDT by Claud
Did the Ru'ach HaKodesh breath the Word of G-d in Koine Greek or in Aramaic ? What a gift : The ability to read the mind of G-d.
b'shem Y'shua
" If we are not to rely on the mediation of a divinely ordained church possessing apostolic authority then the Holy Spirit must be failing one of us (or perhaps both)."
_____________________________
Clearly this is where you lost your way. It is a difficult journey when you've been raised within a system that tells you not to think, or question things for yourself, but to only believe what they tell you.
BTW, there are no Apostles living today.
Then you are denying the possibility of an objective truth about the faith. Faith would therefore be reduced to a subjective belief or opinion. If this were true then we could not claim a superiority of orthodox Christian faith over the various heresies that plagued the early Church or even over non-Christian faith, thus denying the truth of revelation.
BTW, if there is no "the faith" then why are you spending so much time arguing that "my" faith is wrong and "your" faith is right?
More than a little self serving.
Of course I do. But then again I believe that the Holy Spirit is working through the Church as manifested in the teachings of the Fathers and the proclamations of the bishops united with the pope.
I can't speak for all, but of course the leaders of the Catholic faith are men of God and can help us with our understanding.
I would like to sincerely thank you for that comment. I too, although I would take issue with their conclusions, do not question the true commitment of Protestants to seek and follow the will of God.
Do you believe they are infallible?
My best response come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The teaching office888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.(415) They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."(416)
889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."(417)
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.(418) When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"(419) and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."(420) This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.(421)
415 PO 4; cf. Mk 16:15.
416 LG 25.
417 LG 12; cf. DV 10.
418 LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I:DS 3074.
419 DV 10 § 2.
420 LG 25 § 2.
421 Cf. LG 25
You are obviously unfamiliar with the method of teaching Catholic theology. The Church has always shunned pure fideism and insisted on the ability to reason and come to sound conclusions. If you were to join with a gathering of Catholic theologians you would find that the debates would be quite intense. The modern university is a product of this legacy.
I would also maintain that you are no less beholden to Protestant tradition than the Catholic is to his.
As for the Apostles, their office does continue to this day:
For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.We can also see this in the work of St. Paul in appointing bishops in the churches he established.
(Acts 1:20-26)
"As for the Apostles, their office does continue to this day: "
______________________________
There is no Apostle living today. Only by your extra-Biblical sources and "Tradition" can you claim otherwise. SCRIPTURE clearly lays out what the qualifications were to be an APOSTLE. Also, what supernatural powers were passed on to those who followed the Apostles. Please give SCRIPTURAL examples.
I don't recall denying that. Of course it came from God. Peter's office, like that of all the Apostles, did not come from anything intrinsic to himself. But I might ask you to ponder why God chose Peter to be the recipient of this revelation and why Christ then granted him with the amazing authority that he did.
Peter was an Apostle of Jesus Christ and an Elder/Bishop in his local congregation (I Peter 1:1;5:1), no more, no less. He was never the "Bishop of Rome" or the Pope.
Every historical account we have maintains that he was in Antioch for a while then he went to Rome and headed up the Church there. Have you not read Eusebius' history of the Church? Or Irenaeus of Lyons? It's all very very clear there.
The power to "bind and loose" given to Peter in Matt. 16:19 was given to the other apostles in Matt. 18:18.
Indeed it was. But note that Peter got one special thing that the Apostles didn't get--the "keys to the kingdom of heaven".
The Catholic Church has grabbed one verse which might possibly indicate that Peter was superior to the other Apostles, while ignoring every verse which absolutely denies this fact.
I think you should read Benedict's speech again....it does not rely on one verse but argues that Peter is always granted pre-eminence in the NT.
Incidentally, it was 300 years after the fact that the Catholic Church made this determination. For 300 years Peter was never considered to be a Pope until the Catholic church decided to make him one in order to support another of their false doctrines which is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.
It is not only the Catholic Church that holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The Eastern Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonians (Copts, etc), many Anglicans and the Lutheran Church of Sweden also hold to it.
Now if you claim that the bishop of Rome was never called the Pope during the first 3 centuries, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, let's look at what Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons said in the year 170 or so:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.Now this is around 160-180 A.D.--and a clear statement of both the pre-eminence of Rome and the necessity of other Churches conforming to its teachings. That is the papacy in its very essence.
I do not know. But I *do* know that He breathed *this name for Peter* in Aramaic, which is all that's at issue here. This is proved by John 1:42 which says that Petros is a translation of Cephas and not the other way around. This argument is not built on some historical theory, but on the infallible word of God.
Please see my post #114 above.
I don't remember having that argument. :-) I believe you've added some manmade doctrine to your faith, that's all. I think you believe the same of me, isn't that right?
That's right. How then are we to transcend what are only our different opinions and arrive at the truth of the faith? With regard to the content of faith, how do we move from mere belief (I believe because I think so) to actual faith (I believe because God has revealed it)? Are we to believe that our Lord has left us in a state where we can only have private conjecture about these issues?
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.