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]

" Why is his Eucharistic theology more powerful than SCRIPTURE?"

As has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads, the canon of the NT was not fixed until the late 4th century and it was fixed by The Church. In other words, the NT is a product of The Church and not the other way round. The Eucharistic theology of +Ignatius of Antioch expresses the belief of The Church in the earliest days and its belief today as to the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession and in fact its ecclesiology. It expresses the faith of The Church at the time The Church determined what was "in" and what wasn't in the canon. The canon of the NT which you use, with some deletions of works which Luther found "inconvenient" to his rebellion, is a product of The Church (interestingly, the OT you use, the so called Hebrew canon, didn't even exist when Christ preached. The "scriptures" refered to in the NT are the LXX). It never ceases to amaze me how so many Protestants have what appears to be a thoroughly heretical, Mohammaden view of scripture, namely that God in some fashion dictated the NT or the OT word for word and that they, rather than The Church, were given the power to correctly interpret it without reference to what The Church always and everywhere believed. No wonder the likes of that heresiarch Griswold, the "Presiding Bishop" of ECUSA talks about "pluriform truths".

"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."

I doubt there is any evidence as such. So far as I know its a story which has been repeated throughout the centuries. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't. It is a neat story though.

[tenn2005]

In other words, the NT is a product of The Church

The New Testament is a product of the Holy Spirit. All the Catholic church did was compile the writings that had been used by the churches for almost 300 years.

[wmfights]

"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."

I doubt there is any evidence as such. So far as I know its a story which has been repeated throughout the centuries. Maybe its true, maybe it isn't. It is a neat story though.
_____________________________________

Tenn 2005 posted the time lines a little bit earlier, but I do appreciate your integrity to so quickly state that you didn't know if it was accurate or not. As to the rest of the post I'll have to get back to you. My son wants to use the computer.

[Kolokotronis]

"The New Testament is a product of the Holy Spirit. All the Catholic church did was compile the writings that had been used by the churches for almost 300 years."

T, there were a lot of those writings. I don't doubt that the HS inspired the selection. Do you think the HS hadn't been keeping The Church in line theologically for the previous 300+ years? Had he gone off to China, or Utah? Of course not. The Holy Tradition, what The Church always and everywhere believed had been safeguarded by the HS and thus became an accurate measuring stick for the canon. Its really pretty clear, T. The theology you espouse, even the canons you read, were products of the men of the Reformation, 1500 years after Pentecost.

[Petrosius]

How can you be sure that it I whom the Holy Spirit is failing and not you? And why would the Holy Spirit abandon me, the entire Church for 1500 years and the billion+ Catholics in the Church today?

[Petrosius]

Why is his Eucharistic theology more powerful than SCRIPTURE?

And who said that St. Ignatius' Eucharistic theology is more powerful than Scripture? Kolokotronis and I hold the St. Ignatius is in complete harmony with Scripture. You are assuming a contradiction without proving it.

[Petrosius]

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

And we are to assume that an obscure monk in the backwaters of Germany in the Middle Ages 1500 years after the fact had a better understanding of the true gospel than the entire Church why?

[Petrosius]

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?

I have shown you that our Lord only gave the command to the apostles and not to all his disciples. I am still waiting for you to provide Scripture that says any Christian believer can celebrate the Lord's Supper or are you unable to do so?

[Petrosius]

What I'm finding interesting is how quickly things changed after the Apostles died.

And how do you know that they did change rather than what St. Ignatius wrote being a true reflection of the what the Church believed from the beginning?

During the period the Apostles lived decisions were made as a group after praying for guidance.

If you look at Acts you will see that the dispute over circumcism was not settle by the congregation at Antioch but rather that they sent a delegation to see the apostle and priests in Jerusalem for a decision.

1 And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.
2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and priests, declaring how great things God had done with them.

6 And the apostles and priests assembled to consider the matter.

Thus we clearly see that it was assembled hierarchy, and not the general congregation, that settled the matter.

I suppose it is a typical human failing to want to "control" everything including outcomes.

It is, which is why some would seek to deny the proper authority granted by God to apostle and the bishops as their successors and seek gain power for themselves.

[Petrosius]

We understand that Jesus was referring to Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

And how do you know this? As Claud has admirably shown:

1) The distinction between Petros and petras did not exist in Koine Greek, which is the language of the New Testament, as opposed to Attic Greek which was already at that time an ancient language;

2) the presence of taute as a modifyer of petras shows that it refers back to Petros;

3) that in any case John 1:42 shows that Petros is a translation of Kepha, this being the actual name that our Lord used in the passage and which can only mean 'Rock'.

The grammar, despite your desire to the contrary, clearly shows that our Lord was indeed referring to Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is, which is why some would seek to deny the proper authority granted by God to apostle and the bishops as their successors and seek gain power for themselves."

Reminds me of a patristic text, P, from +John Chrysostomos:

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies."

[Petrosius]

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

I believe that here we have the case of a difference in the use of terms. In Catholic usage evangelists refers only to the writers of one of the four gospels (in Greek euangelion, and in Latin evangelium). Beyond this misunderstanding however, how, in your mind, would Timothy's and Titus' office of evangelist differ from that of bishop which Paul describes?

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

And where do you think the term 'priest' comes from? It is a corruption of the Latin word 'presbyter', in Greek presbuteros, meaning elder. If we were discussing this in either Latin or Greek we could not have this dispute over the name of the office. It was the reformers who changed the translation from the traditional 'priest' to 'elder' to mask the relation to the modern priesthood.

[tenn2005]

Beyond this misunderstanding however, how, in your mind, would Timothy's and Titus' office of evangelist differ from that of bishop which Paul describes?

Take a look at Eph. 4:11. This is a listing of the offices in the New Testament church. You will see that an Evangelist is a different office from that of Pastor.

Now look at Acts 12:8 where Philip is expressly referred to as an Evangelist. Philip did not write a Gospel.

Now look at II Tim 4:5 where Paul specifically instructs Timothy do do the work of an Evangelist.

Evangelist is an office in and of itself separate from the other offices in the NT church. Timothy and Titus were Evangelist reporting to the Apostle Paul. Phillip probably reported to Peter but that cannot be proven.

It was the reformers who changed the translation from the traditional 'priest' to 'elder' to mask the relation to the modern priesthood.

That would be incorrect. The NT was written in Koine Greek. The word presbuterios is nowhere in Greek literature translated as Priest. It is always tranlated as Elder. Check it out for yourself in Thayers Greek Lexicon. I agree that the word Priest is a corruption of the Greek, but it is the Catholic church that has currupted it.

[tenn2005]

I am still waiting for you to provide Scripture that says any Christian believer can celebrate the Lord's Supper or are you unable to do so?

I gave you in my last post but just in case you missed it look at Acts 20:7. In addition, the Lord's Supper is part of the Apostles Doctrine, as given to them by Jesus Himself, and the first century church celebrated it before there was any other offices other than that of Apostle (Acts 2:42).

I have now given you two scriptures. Can't you find even one to support your possition.

[tenn2005]

The grammar, despite your desire to the contrary, clearly shows that our Lord was indeed referring to Peter as the rock upon which he would build his Church.

If you believe what "Claud has admirably shown", then please explain Eph 2:19-20

[tenn2005]

And why would the Holy Spirit abandon me, the entire Church for 1500 years and the billion+ Catholics in the Church today?

The Holy Spirit hasn't abandoned anyone. It is the Catholic church an the adhearents to it's false doctrine that have abandoned the Holy Spirit and His teachings.

[Petrosius]

You did not answer my question. How would this differ from the office of bishop? In the early Church there was some flexibility on the usage of the names of offices which would latter be standardized in the three offices of bishop, priest and deacon.

In any case Paul clearly shows these three offices which were given from above and not generated by the assemblies. Under which bishop do you operated? Remember that his office must be grant by those who held authority before him.

As for the term 'priest', unfortunately in English we have the conjunction of two ideas. Originally, as was stated above, 'priest' meant 'presbyter', i.e. an elder of the Christian Church and was not directly related to a sacrificial office. In Latin such a sacrificial officer, such as at the Temple, would be termed sacerdos. Thus we see the priest in parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:31 being called sacerdos in the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church has always used the term presbyter for the ordained priesthood. In England this was corrupted by popular speech, not by the Catholic Church, into 'priest'. When the Bible was translated into English this was naturally the term that was used to translate presbyter. The confusion, and only in English, arises that since the Middle Ages the only familiarity that the people had with a sacrificing official was the Catholic priest/presbyter and the sacrifice of the Mass. This term was then taken in English to be used for all such sacrificing officers. Again, if we were having this discussion in Latin or Greek we would not be having this silly argument.

[tenn2005]

No. That would be the Apostles and Elders. Why do you insist in currupting the Koine Greek?

[Petrosius]

I gave you in my last post but just in case you missed it look at Acts 20:7. In addition, the Lord's Supper is part of the Apostles Doctrine, as given to them by Jesus Himself, and the first century church celebrated it before there was any other offices other than that of Apostle (Acts 2:42).

Again, Acts 20:7 does not show that any layman can celebrate the Lord's Supper, only that the Christians gathered together on Sunday for its celebration. It does not mention who lead the celebration.

As for the Eucharist being a part of the instruction given to the Apostles, that is what I said. But it was only given to the Apostles, not to all of the disciples. The Apostles could celebrate the Eucharist because of our Lord's command. Show me where anyone else can?

[Petrosius]

No. That would be the Apostles and Elders. Why do you insist in currupting the Koine Greek?

Priest=presbyter=elder. These terms mean one and the same thing but if you wish we can use the term 'presbyter' which applies to the Catholic priest and is the term used in Latin.

BTW, the word is 'corrupting'. Why do you insist on corrupting the English language with 'currupting'? : )