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.”

[Iscool]

Self-delusion often is.

Whatever...

[Kenny Bunkport]

The basic problem here is that apostolic teaching in the New Testament states very clearly that there is only one head of the church, and it is Jesus Christ (not the pope), that there are various ministry offices established within the church -- apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist ("pope" is not mentioned), that Christ's authority in the church is delegated through a group of elders (not the pope), and that each and every believer is characterized (in Peter's first epistle, 1:29) as a priest.

A lot of man-made traditions have grown up within the Catholic church over the last 2000 years, and much of them have questionable validity, and much of them obscure the simplicity of the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ.

[wmfights]

"You are SO mistaken...We see what you see...But we want no part of it..."
__________________________________

Amen. I'll stick with the SCRIPTURES.

[colorcountry]

Have you been baptised into the Church of Peter?

1Cr 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? wasPaul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

[ELS]

I post the transcripts of the Pope's weekly audiences on FR. You can see the thread for this week's audience.

[Claud]

I understand. Hey, but you had 2 years of Latin, which is more than most people have!

On the Petros/Petra difference. Yes, you were taught a fairly common exegesis of that passage which attempts to distinguish between the meanings of petros and petra. I am by no means a Greek expert, but I do not think that distinction applied in Greek of the first century, though it *may* have earlier in Attic Greek. I will look it up in my Liddell-Scott lexicon when I get home, and I'm pinging jrny whose Greek is better than mine.

But even if that were so, that distinction does not seem to be what Christ was intending here. You mention the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. We have evidence from the 2nd century that states that Matthew wrote in Aramaic (or Hebrew), but obviously that kind of statement is not infallible. What is infallible, however, is the Bible itself, which repeatedly calls Peter Cephas--the Aramaic form. Furthermore, John 1:42 shows which was the original form when it says "Cephas which, translated, is Peter." If Christ originally used Greek, what the Bible would have said was the reverse.

There is an easy explanation, moreover, why there are two different forms of "petr-" here. Matthew wanted to imitate the Aramaic in Greek: so he wanted to play on the word "Rock". However, in doing so, he was constrained to change the gender of feminine "petra" to make it fit a man: "Petros".

This is the explanation that best fits the available evidence and does not twist an interpretation out of the text which is not there.

[Petrosius]

But it was the Protestant Reformation that divided the Church, not the existence of the papacy. If you want unity in the Church (as we all should since it is the will of our Lord) then enter into the Catholic Church which was the one church for 1500 years before the Reformation and the establishment of Lutheranism (i.e. the Church of Luther) or Calvinism (i.e. the Church of Calvin).

[Claud]

that Christ's authority in the church is delegated through a group of elders (not the pope)

But that is directly opposed to what Matt 16 says. Christ gives his authority most directly to Peter. There is no one else in the NT to whom such sweeping authority is given (i.e. the keys of the kingdom of heaven). What's throwing you is that you are looking for the word "pope" and not finding it, so you conclude that there was no pope

The word is irrelevant. Call him a ham sandwich if you like. But the *office* is what is important and it was the office of Peter that we are talking about which is the office of Pope. One cannot be separated from the other.

[colorcountry]

There is One Church made up of all believers in the Divinity of the One Jesus Christ....the rest of it is just man-made doctrine, (even the division).

[Claud]

Y'shua addresses Peter as a pebble , a small rock not unlike any of us. You need to refer to the Koine Greek for that descernment.

Fine me a reputable Greek scholar who puts stock in that distinction and we'll talk.

But in any case, Greek was not the language Christ used to confer this name. John 1:42 states explicitly that "Petros" was a translation to Greek from the Aramaic Cephas. Cephas was the original, according to the infallible word of God.

[colorcountry]

If you want unity in the Church (as we all should since it is the will of our Lord) then enter into the Catholic Church which was the one church for 1500 years before the Reformation and the establishment of Lutheranism

Oh, and BTW I should ask which Catholic Church should I become a "member" of? The Roman one or the Orthodox one?

[ksen]

Christians hold the Old Testament fulfilled, and do not hold it as being authoritative like we do the New Testament.

That's a new one....the OT isn't authoritative? Last I checked it was just as much God's Word as the New Testament is.

[Petrosius]

... the rest of it is just man-made doctrine ...

I assume that this would also apply to your opinions and those of the Reformers who rent the Church asunder?

[Petrosius]

Oh, and BTW I should ask which Catholic Church should I become a "member" of? The Roman one or the Orthodox one?

As long as you are asking ... ;) In either case you will find that outside the question of the papacy we are in substantial agreement in opposition to the Protestants.

[jrny]

I'll have to look into my Lexicon as well, which defines varying forms of Greek from Homeric to Attic to New Testament time periods.

"so he wanted to play on the word "Rock". However, in doing so, he was constrained to change the gender of feminine "petra" to make it fit a man: "Petros".?"

I agree. And besides, the etymology of the word means that Peter means the same thing as rock, the difference in gender being a grammatical necessity.

[Theoden]

Read my other posts.

[colorcountry]

... the rest of it is just man-made doctrine

...Yessir I do, at least all those parts that are not Biblical. I believe in the what the Bible says - period.

I kindly thank God for his Word - and the way he used the early Popes and others to preserve it for us. :-)

[colorcountry]

In either case you will find that outside the question of the papacy we are in substantial agreement in opposition to the Protestants.

Ah, but there's the rub...which one has the authority of Peter?

[Claud]

Where in scripture is there a necessity for "patriarchal authority" of one church over another, and where in scripture is such authority conferred?

I believe it's the same passage that mandates Wednesday night Bible studies, altar calls, and TV ministries.

Seriously though, that's the question I believe we are discussing here.

[Petrosius]

Yessir I do, at least all those parts that are not Biblical.

Of course I would hold that your reading of the Petrine passages, as well as all the inventions of the Reformers, are not Biblical.