Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy

AsiaNews ^ | 7 June, 2006

[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 today’s 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 Peter’s house (Mk 1:29); when the crowd flocked to the banks of the lake of Gennesaret, Jesus chose Peter’s 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.”

[colorcountry]

Okay Petrosius, let's cut to the chase, what part of your Catholic Church must I have to receive salvation?

I really don't know, but coming from a Mormon background who believes I must perform ordinances here upon earth, that are designated by supposed prophets of God, in order that I might earn the Celestial Kingdom and a dwelling space with Him, I just don't see that we are separate. I'm asking you right now, what part of faith do you have in Christ Jesus, that is not available to me?

[Claud]

Hey jrny, do you have a NT Greek lexicon? I have a classical Greek one, and I'd like to supplement with NT Greek. Not sure what the best one is though. Any thoughts?

[jrny]

Each entry in my lexicon lists all the different spellings and meanings for the different time periods and localities which spoke Greek. So, it's not specifically NT, and it was also a gift, so I have not had much experience trying to buy a Greek Lexicon myself.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS>Did the Ru'ach HaKodesh breath the Word of G-d in Koine Greek or in Aramaic?

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.

117 posted on 06/09/2006 9:04:34 AM MDT by Claud

Do you mean John 1:42?

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said,
"You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

as in;
small pebble
see :

1 Co 1:12
1 Co 3:22
1 Co 9:5
1 Co 15:5
Gal 1:18
Gal 2:9
Gal 2:11
Gal 2:14

b'shem Y'shua

[tenn2005]

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.

You have chosen to ignore most of the scriptures in my post and attempted to refute clear Bible teachings with the writings of ordinary men (your Catholic Fathers) which were written 100 to 130 years after the fact. That is a very lame approach but undoubtedly one that you have been taught by the Catholic Church

[tenn2005]

We can also see this in the work of St. Paul in appointing bishops in the churches he established.

That would also be wrong. If you will checks Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, you will find that he sent them to appoint Elders/Bishops in every church. There is no scripture which states that Paul ever personally appointed an Elder/Bishop. Sorry, it is just not there.

[Claud]

You have chosen to ignore most of the scriptures in my post and attempted to refute clear Bible teachings with the writings of ordinary men (your Catholic Fathers) which were written 100 to 130 years after the fact.

My friend, we are doing almost nothing but arguing scriptures. I have made repeated points about the Greek of Matt 16 which are going totally unanswered and ignored. Again I ask, what is that "taute" doing there? Thou art Rock, and upon this SAME (taute) rock, I shall build my church. I have demonstrated clearly from Scripture why Peter's name was given in Aramaic not Greek.

As for the Fathers, I posted that quote because you said the papacy and those other traditions were invented 300 years after Christ. They most certainly were not. They were well in place by 150-160 A.D. Peter founded the Church of Rome and died there. That is a historical fact.

[wmfights]

"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."
(Acts 1:20-26)
___________________________________

If you read the passage you are quoting to support this notion that your church has Apostles running it today, or has special authority based on succession, it will fall on it's face. Let me point out that when Mathias was selected it was by lots. Peter did not have any special authority to dictate anything. Also, some of the criteria for what is an Apostle are noted. Again I say there are no Apostles living today.

If you want some direction on what SCRIPTURE says the requirements to be an Apostle were they can be found in Acts 1:22,
I Corinthians 9:1 and Galatians 1:1.

BTW, it is falling into this trap of believing that your church and its leaders have special authority that leads you to tolerate your leader kissing the koran and embracing islam.

[Claud]

Do you mean John 1:42? John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).

Yes I do. And I already agreed with the fact that Petros/petra were distinct usages in some forms of Greek. We are well beyond that point in the conversation now.

But that point is moot because John 1:42 states clearly that Jesus called Simon Cephas which was then translated into Petros.

[Kolokotronis]

"Whether that distinction held in the 1st century NT Greek, I do not know."

Not really. It honestly is a play on words. I think your first explanation is linguistically correct.

[Titanites]

leads you to tolerate your leader kissing the koran and embracing islam.

By accusing him of embracing Islam, are you suggesting the lie that Pope John Paul II became a Muslim or believes Islam brings salvation?

Here are some of JPII's own words:

Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.

JPII knew perfectly well that Islam is not a religion of redemption. If you are disappointed that he did not call the Muslims the spawn of Satan, that is no reason to spread the calumny that he accepts Islam as a road to salvation.

You may believe JPII sinned by kissing the Koran. There aren't many Catholics, if any, including JPII, who don't think he was a sinner. The Catholic Church is a church of sinners. If you belong to a church for just the perfect, please tell us about it. JPII wasn't perfect and made many mistakes throughout his life. Many Catholics believe his kissing the Koran was one of them. Personally, I don't. I view it as a sign of respect to other humans beings and not as a sign that he accepts the Koran as the true word of God, as JPII clearly states in his words above. Spitting on the Koran that was presented to him, or even just refusing it would have accomplished nothing in the meeting he was at. JPII loved all people, including Muslims, and to me the kiss demonstrated that. I spent the previous 6-years working in a Muslim country in North Africa and the Muslims greatly appreciated the dialogue JPII opened with them and the respect he showed them. Did this appreciation result in mass conversions - I doubt it. But the dialogue is there and nothing will happen unless you acknowledge these people with respect. I am convinced that JPII's efforts increased the understanding of Christianity amoung many Muslims and I had a number approach me to talk about it, which I attribute to this effort.

Also, I don't recall seeing anything in the news from your congregation calling Muslims the spawn of Satan and the benefits that has reaped. If there has been, please share it with us.

[Kolokotronis]

" Did the Ru'ach HaKodesh breath the Word of G-d in Koine Greek or in Aramaic ?"

Depends on who he was talking to. My bet is that its usually in Greek, but then again, Latin might have a claim. Many Protestants seem to think it was in the King's Englaish, but I doubt that.

[Claud]

Not really. It honestly is a play on words. I think your first explanation is linguistically correct.

Eucaristw Kolo! Well you know how hard it is for folks to read Scripture through the Fathers, it is also hard for some 21st century Anglo-Americans to read Greek through the Greeks! So I am trying to entertain every possibility on their behalf, even though I am quite convinced this really is what you say.

Ahh, it must be frustrating for you to hear us talk about what your language MUST mean! LOL

[tenn2005]

As for the Fathers, I posted that quote because you said the papacy and those other traditions were invented 300 years after Christ. They most certainly were not. They were well in place by 150-160 A.D.

The word "Pope" does not appear in any of the writings that you referenced. And these writings were over 100 years after the fact.

Peter founded the Church of Rome and died there. That is a historical fact.

That is not historicel fact, it Catholic tradition. Present any historical writing, other than the Catholic Church Fathers, that says Peter died in Rome. If Peter established the church in Rome and was there, why was it necessary for Paul to write the letter to the Romans? Why was it necessary for Paul to come there in order that the church in Rome could receive some spiritual gifts? Why couldn't Peter have taken care of that himself?

My friend, we are doing almost nothing but arguing scriptures. I have made repeated points about the Greek of Matt 16 which are going totally unanswered and ignored.

Finally, get of Matt 16 and answer the rest of my scriptural refereces.

[Iscool]

Seems to be conjecture...But since Paul appears to have spoken Hebrew to the Hebrews in the Synagogues, well, you get the picture...But let me really stretch it here...

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Jesus spoke in the language of the angels as well...And I'm going to hazard a guess that Adam and Eve spoke in the language of God and the angels...

I'm going to guess that God spoke in Hebrew which is probably God's chosen language...Anybody with me on this???

[Kolokotronis]

"I'm going to guess that God spoke in Hebrew which is probably God's chosen language...Anybody with me on this???"

Only until the Incarnation... since then he speaks Greek! :)

[Kolokotronis]

" Ahh, it must be frustrating for you to hear us talk about what your language MUST mean! LOL"

Ah, well, Claud, as the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants, I am honored to be educated by my Anglo Saxon betters, even about the mother tongue. Someday I hope to pass for white, too! :)

[Petrosius]

First I want to point out that, contrary to the charges of some, Catholics do not believe that we earn salvation from acts that we perform, it is a pure grace. While salvation is a gift earned by the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross it results in the union with God through an act of love.

And one of them, a doctor of the law, asked him, tempting him: Master, which is the great commandment of the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
(Matt. 22:35-40)

This act of love is the total submission of the intellect and will to God. Because of Original Sin however we are born with a defective nature, our intellect clouded and and will weakened. God teaches us through revelation, which for the Catholic includes both the Bible and Sacred Tradition which are the products of the Teaching Authority of the Church. Without this divinely established Teaching Authority protected by the Holy Spirit we would still remain in ignorance and uncertainty as the various debates here concerning the true meaning of Scripture demonstrate.

But this assent of the intellect is not enough to be a complete act of love, there must also be the submission of the will to God. To strengthen our will the Holy Spirit comes to us with the gift of grace, allowing us to conform our will to God. Indeed this grace is the actual indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our soul.

It is the Catholic belief that the primary (not the only) means of this is through the seven Sacraments. These are outward and visible signs instituted by Christ to be the channels of his grace. Of these the most important is the Holy Eucharist. This is the sacrament of the Body of Blood of Jesus Christ that he instituted at the Last Supper when he took bread and wine and said "this is my Body" and "this is my Blood." As Catholics we take these words literally, that as God Jesus turned the elements of the bread and wine into his actual Body and Blood, with only the appearance of the bread and wine remaining. And when we commanded "Do this for a commemoration of me" he empowered the priest to repeat this action so that every time Mass is said the bread and wine presented at the altar becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which we are invited to receive in Holy Communion. This is the center of Catholic worship and this is what is not available to you as a non-Catholic.

[Petrosius]

There is no scripture which states that Paul ever personally appointed an Elder/Bishop. Sorry, it is just not there.

Check out 2 Timothy 1:6:

For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of hands. [i.e., ordination]

[Petrosius]

Only until the Incarnation... since then he speaks Greek! :)

K, I will grant you that our Lord speaks Greek but the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church in Latin!