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.”

[Kolokotronis]

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

A likely story, concocted in some Vatican hideaway to justify "filioque" no doubt! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"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."

A question for you. You note that Christ "empowered the priest to repeat this action". I have remarked before on other threads that the epiklesis has virtually disappeared from the Latin Rite Liturgy. Is this because it is believed that the consecration takes place by virtue of the priest's powers received at Ordination? In Orthodoxy the priest prays at the consecration:


"Priest (in a low voice):
Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Bread.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.

(He blesses the holy Cup.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

(He blesses them both.)

Deacon (in a low voice):
Amen. Amen. Amen.

Priest (in a low voice):
So that they may be to those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, forgiveness of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fulfillment of the kingdom of heaven, confidence before You, and not in judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer this spiritual worship for those who repose in the faith, forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith."

Plainly in the Divine Liturgy the priest prays that the Holy Spirit effect the change.

Am I seeing a difference which in fact does not exist?

[Petrosius]

It is the Catholic understanding that the bread and wine are changed into Body and Blood of Christ by following our Lord's command "Do this for a commemoration of me", that is by repeating his action of taking bread and wine and saying the words "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood." Notice that our Lord did not command that we invoke the Holy Spirit in order to accomplish this. This was the common teaching of the Latin Fathers. This can also be found among the Greek Fathers. St. John Chrysostom states:

The priest stands there and sets up the outward sign, while speaking these words; but the power and the grace are of God. "This is my Body," he says. These words transmute the gifts.
(De proditione Judae hom. 1, 6

Along with this we have the testimony of the liturgical tradition held by the West. This being said, however, we must remember that although we attribute various actions to the three persons of the Blessed Trinity that they all cooperate in actions ad extra, thus the consecration is the work of the single Godhead. And so we have in the Roman Canon the following prayer:

Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quæsumus benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus, et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Which oblation do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to make blessed, approved, and acceptable, that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus there is an epiclesis/invocation in the Roman Canon, though it is addressed to God as a whole and not just to the Holy Spirit. At Florence the Greeks maintained that Transubstantiation did not occur in the Roman Mass until the following prayer in the Canon:

Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: jube hæc perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in comspectu divinæ majestatis tuæ: ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione cælesti et gratia repleamur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

We most humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, to command that these offering be born by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine altar on high in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us as at this altar shall partake of and receive the most holy Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

[BnBlFlag]

Sorry, Pope, it ain't gonna happen.
That said, I admire his courageous moral stands, especially in the pro-life areas.

[tenn2005]

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]

Nice try but that passage was written to Timothy who was an evangelist, not a Elder/Bishop, and referred to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which he had received from the hands of Paul. Keep looking, but it is just not there.

[tenn2005]

This is the center of Catholic worship and this is what is not available to you as a non-Catholic."

As Christians we celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week just as the Christians did in the first century (Acts 20:7), and like them we do not need a priest to make it possible. We have Jesus as our High Priest who is ever at our disposal. Having Jesus, why whould we need some self-appointed man with his shirt on backward to intervene in our behalf.

Please provide a scripture that says that there must be a Priest involved in order to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

[tenn2005]

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).

The Holy Spirit is not failing anyone. He inspired the writers who gave us the word of God and God us the good sense to read and understand it for ourselves. If not, why did he command us to study it? Why didn't He just tell us to go and ask the Priest?

There are no apostles today because no one today can meet the qualifications to be an apostle (See Acts 1:20-22) No apostles, no apostolic authority. If you believe that the apostles had sucessors, please provide your scriptural proof.

[Kolokotronis]

"As Christians we celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week just as the Christians did in the first century (Acts 20:7), and like them we do not need a priest to make it possible."

No you don't. So far as I can see you folks have a pretend Mystical Supper. Its no more real than when my two Catholic altarboy buddies and I an Orthodox altarboy,as 9 year olds played Divine Liturgy in my living room, complete with grape juice and Wonder Bread (I got to be the priest because my altarboy robes were gold and theirs were just black with a white surplice.)

You refer to Acts 20:7. We have an actual description of what was going on in those early liturgies from +Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle +John, the successor but one to +Peter as bishop of Antioch. Indeed there is a tradition that he was the child who sat on Christ's lap. At any rate, his Eucharistic theology, from the late 1st, very early 2nd century, makes it clear that the Eucharist occurs only within The Church which is found in its fullness where the bishop is, surrounded by his clergy and laity and centered on the Eucharist. That is where Christ is and thus the Eucharist of The Church is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He also makes it clear that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles and that they must be obeyed.

Now T, this is about as early as you can get for testimony about what the earliest Christians believed. In fact, his letters are something of a continuation of Acts. He learned from +John himself! I'll grant you that the writings of +Ignatius are not scripture, but they do form part of the knowledge held by The Church, what we in the East and the Latins in the West call Holy Tradition. As such they are part of "what The Church always and everywhere has believed" which constituted the yardstick against which various writings were measured when being tested by The Church for inclusion into the canon of the NT which we all read today. Do you honestly think that The Church, in putting together the canon of the NT would have constructed it as it did so that a proper interpretation of it would contradict everything The Church stood for in its ecclesiology? That's absurd.

The Eucharist may only be celebrated within the body of The Church. We live our lives within The Church as a liturgical people and advance in theosis within a community nourished by the Eucharist which is Christ.

Because all Christians believed that The Church is defined as I laid out above for the first 1500 years of its existence, and those in The Church do to this day, and because that definition requires that the consecrated Eucharist be in fact the very Body and Blood of Christ, if one is in a group which does not have bishops, or better said, bishops within the Apostolic Succession and a "real" Eucharist, one isn't in, strictly speaking, a church at all but rather an "ecclesial community" as +Benedict XVI (whom we Orthodox have the greatest respect for as the elder brother at Rome) so finely put it. Your personal interpretation of scripture in this regard is just that, personal. It is not at all what Christ's Church infallibly believes.

[Uri’el-2012]

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock;
And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation,

b'shem Y'shua

[Petrosius]

Nice try but that passage was written to Timothy who was an evangelist, not a Elder/Bishop, and referred to the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which he had received from the hands of Paul.

Where did you get such a silly idea? Timothy wrote not one of the gospels nor even one of the epistles. In 1 Timothy 4:14 we read:

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Thus the grace that was given to Timothy was not from a personal charism of Paul but from the office of priest. Paul clearly sets up the offices of bishop, priest and deacon. Being offices they are endowed with authority, otherwise they would be empty titles. In Titus 1:5 we read:

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as also I appointed thee.

So we see that Paul also appointed Titus a priest and instructed him to do likewise. Thus the office of priest is gained by way of ordination from another and not by the congregation. Its authority descends from the hands of the apostles.

[Petrosius]

As Christians we celebrate the Lord's Supper on the first day of every week just as the Christians did in the first century (Acts 20:7), and like them we do not need a priest to make it possible. We have Jesus as our High Priest who is ever at our disposal. Having Jesus, why whould we need some self-appointed man with his shirt on backward to intervene in our behalf.

Please provide a scripture that says that there must be a Priest involved in order to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

Our Lord clearly established a hierarchy among his followers, distinguishing between disciples and apostles. (I hope that you are not going to dispute this.) As my earlier quote from Acts shows this was an office that survived the death of its first holders and was passed on to others. At the Last Supper our Lord gave the command "Do this in commemoration of me" only to the apostles. Your reference to Acts 20:7 only shows that the Christians gathered on Sunday for the breaking of the bread, not that any believer could preside over such an assembly without holding the office of priest. I will now turn the tables on you and ask you to pleas provide Scripture that shows any Christian believer can preside over the Eucharist.

Unfortunately this myth that the early Church had a non-hierarchical congregationalist organization is purely a self-serving product of the Protestant imagination. As early as A.D. 110 we find St. Ignatius of Antioch writing:

You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that by considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or the celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.

Now I know that you will object that this is not Scripture, but it is testimony of what the early Church believed. It must also be pointed out St. Ignatius was only the second bishop of Antioch after St. Peter and that he had been a hearer of the Apostle John himself. The seven letters of St. Ignatius were written within twenty years (perhaps as few as fifteen) of the death of St. John. Thus this congregationalist style of church that you imagine must have last but a very short time.

[Petrosius]

The Holy Spirit is not failing anyone. He inspired the writers who gave us the word of God and God us the good sense to read and understand it for ourselves.

If there is indeed no need for a visible teaching church and that each believer has immediate access to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit to know the truth then how is it that for 1500 years before the rise of Martin Luther and the other Reformers that no one knew the truth? And how is it that even today over 1 billion Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, (these comprising the vast majority of the worldwide Christian population) have a different understanding of the faith and Scriptures that you do?

I claim as much good sense as you do and I have studied the Scriptures for years. My sincere conclusion is that the Catholic faith is in complete conformity with them and that it is the Protestants who have an erroneous understanding of the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit failing me?

[tenn2005]

I claim as much good sense as you do and I have studied the Scriptures for years. My sincere conclusion is that the Catholic faith is in complete conformity with them and that it is the Protestants who have an erroneous understanding of the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit failing me?

Evidently

[wmfights]

"We have an actual description of what was going on in those early liturgies from +Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle +John, the successor but one to +Peter as bishop of Antioch. Indeed there is a tradition that he was the child who sat on Christ's lap. At any rate, his Eucharistic theology, from the late 1st, very early 2nd century, makes it clear that the Eucharist occurs only within The Church which is found in its fullness where the bishop is, surrounded by his clergy and laity and centered on the Eucharist. That is where Christ is and thus the Eucharist of The Church is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. He also makes it clear that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles and that they must be obeyed."
__________________________________

Why is his Eucharistic theology more powerful than SCRIPTURE?

BTW, that's a pretty neat story that he was the child on JESUS'S lap. Is there any real evidence of this, or is it another story that has been passed on orally.

[tenn2005]

As early as A.D. 110 we find St. Ignatius of Antioch writing:....

That would be eighty years after the fact and by then many congregations had indeed turned from the truth.

The seven letters of St. Ignatius were written within twenty years (perhaps as few as fifteen) of the death of St. John. Thus this congregationalist style of church that you imagine must have last but a very short time.

Once again you go to the writings of a man rather than the Bible and letters written 80 years after the facr. But you still got that right. Maybe you are starting to see the truth. Just to help you along in your search try reading Gal. 3:1, written in approximately AD49 and also the letters to the seven churches in Rev. Chap.2-3.

Still waiting for you to provide a scripture that says that there must be a Priest involved in order to celebrate the Lord's Supper or are you unable to do so?

[wmfights]

What I'm finding interesting is how quickly things changed after the Apostles died. During the period the Apostles lived decisions were made as a group after praying for guidance. When the Apostles were alive there was no one "super-Apostle". However, after the Apostles died you see the early leaders of the church immediately begin to consolidate power. I suppose it is a typical human failing to want to "control" everything including outcomes.

[kittymyrib]

With the RCC in shipwreck all over the world, why waste his time on trying to convince non-Catholics that Jesus was giving Peter extra-Scriptural authority over His Church? We understand that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." That confesson concerning Jesus is the rock upon which He bulds the Church, certainly a stronger foundation than building it on a mere man, who had previously exhibited his weakness and sinfulness in denying Jesus.

[tenn2005]

Ignatius of Antioch:

Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

Have being the child in Jesus lap would have been a really neat trick since according the Catholic Encylopedia he was born 20 years after Jesus died.

[wmfights]

"Have being the child in Jesus lap would have been a really neat trick since according the Catholic Encylopedia he was born 20 years after Jesus died."
______________________________

Thanks for the info. I was doing the time line as I read the info.

You know these last couple posts are a perfect illustration of why we become susceptible to false doctrine if we deviate from SOLA SCRIPTURA.

[tenn2005]

Where did you get such a silly idea? Timothy wrote not one of the gospels nor even one of the epistles. In 1 Timothy 4:14 we read:...

Better read my post again. I did not say that Timothy wrote a Gospel, rather that I Timothy was a letter written to him by the Apostle Paul.

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

It is interesting to notice that you and the Catholic Church, in their own version of the Bible, have changed the word eldership to priesthood Thus the grace that was given to Timothy was not from a personal charism of Paul but from the office of priest.

Better read II Tim 1:6. Timothy as well as Titus got their miraculous power of the Holy Spirit from Paul not some priesthood. Also, both Timothy and Titus were Evangelist (not priest) and they appointed Elders/Bishops (not priest). By your twisted logic you have priest appointing priest for the task of appointing priest.