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.”

[Petrosius]

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

Well, there is only one church which claims this authority. Do you care to give a guess which one?

[colorcountry]

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

Well, just don't hold it too tight. :-)

Because the Bible tells me in Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now we're not talking about Peter here, nor the current Pope, nor the Prophet Joseph Smith (inside joke), we're talking about the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.

I suppose you will also tell me that without the Pope, I can't have the Spirit. In that case, we will have to agree to disagree. That is what my last "God appointed" religious leader tried to tell me. I'm done with giving my authority to listen to the Holy Spirit away to a Church or a Church leader.

[markomalley]

Iscool,

My apologies for not getting back with you sooner. Was tied up with something:

You correctly cited John 18:36

John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

You'll note, of course, that Jesus said my kingdom IS not of this world. He did not say my kingdom will not be of this world. The word recorded by St. John here is the Greek verb eimi (to be, to exist). It is in the third person singular active present. It is not in the future, the aorist, or the perfect. It is in the present.

Secondly, of course you note the word "hence." Hence (enteuthen) is an adverb of location. It literally means (depending upon how its used) "to here" or "from here."

So, based upon the tense of the word eimi and the meaning of the adverb enteuthen, it's obvious that Jesus was acknowledging in this section that he was a king...just that his kingdom was not here.

As a side note, if you would care to examine Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, you'd note that the entry with the waving palms was appropriate for a king, as well.

You said, If some of you folks would quit reading the hype put out by your church and get into the Bible, you'd pick up on some of this stuff...

To which I'd like to respond, if you actually read your Bible, you would have no alternative but to come to genuine, apostolic Christianity.

[Petrosius]

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Now we come to the question of how the Holy Spirit guides the Church. This past Sunday was Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles. Here the Holy Spirit does not come to the Church by way of individual and private revelation by through the ministry of the divinely appointed Apostles.

But Peter standing up with the eleven [notice again how Peter is named separate from the rest of the Apostles], lifted up his voice, and spoke to them ...
(Acts 2:14)

Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and the rest of the apostles [Peter again listed first and separately!]: What shall we do, men and brethren?
(Acts 2:37)

Nor do we have an option of ignoring their authority for our Lord said:

He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
(Luke 10:16)

Now if we were to reject this understanding of how the Holy Spirit operates and insist that he comes to each believer privately and individually we have a problem. I too, like you, claim to be a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ yet we do not share the same faith. Does the Holy Spirit teach you a truth that is different than he teaches me or is he failing to come to one of us. If it is the later, how are we to test the spirit and know the truth. Do not reply that we need to study the Bible. I too study the Bible and have found that agrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

[colorcountry]

This past Sunday was Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles.

I could have sworn it was almost 2000 years ago. My, how time flies when you're having fun...

Perhaps God knows you need someone else (Pope) to tell you how to talk to him. I don't really know what your relationship is to him. I only know my own....he'll sort out the rest of you guys. ,-)

[Petrosius]

Perhaps God knows you need someone else (Pope) to tell you how to talk to him. I don't really know what your relationship is to him. I only know my own....he'll sort out the rest of you guys.

So, are you claiming for yourself an infallibility that you are denying to the pope and the bishops?

[Iscool]

I think yer stretchin' it a little...As I pointed out and you concurred, the Kindom He is referring to is 'not at this time' located on earth...

You are suggesting that even so, He is still the King, at this time...

However, He states that if He were the King here and now, His servants would fight for him...Is a King only a King when he's in his own Kingdom??? Not generally...

What Greek are you alluding to, specifically???

[colorcountry]

So, are you claiming for yourself an infallibility that you are denying to the pope and the bishops?

Neither. I'm giving you (and them) the benefit of the doubt. (Not that I'm doubting that you DO have a relationship with Him...it's just that I KNOW that I do.)

[Iscool]

You have taken Matt. 16:18 as your proof text for the existance of the Catholic Church...You then try to interpret the Bible to line up with that perceived truth...

Sure Peter was a significant apostle...But at the same time, he was the biggest screw-up of the bunch, aside from Judas...

His ministry was to the Jews...When Peter started preaching to Gentiles, he skipped water baptism until 'after' salvation was established-Acts. 10:47...

And then Peter remember in Acts. 11: that it's not water that saves you, water will only get you wet...It was a 'type' of salvation, vs. 16...

Now if we were to reject this understanding of how the Holy Spirit operates and insist that he comes to each believer privately and individually we have a problem.

That's exactly how the Holy Spirit works and if you don't believe that, we're not the ones with the problem...Look at Acts 11:17 again...This is just one of hundreds of places where this is confirmed in the Bible...

We are all filled with, and guided by the Holy Spirit 'when' we asked Jesus to save us from our sins...Nothing more, nothing less...And as such, we are members of His church...The Bride of Christ...

[Kolokotronis]

"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"."

You are right on the money, Claud. By the way, "Petros" as a name probably translates as "Rocky" Its really a triple play on words but in Greek.

[Petrosius]

By the way, "Petros" as a name probably translates as "Rocky"

Would that mean that the movie about the life of Pope Benedict XVI should be called:

ROCKY CCLXV

:)

[Kolokotronis]

LOL!

[Petrosius]

You have taken Matt. 16:18 as your proof text for the existance of the Catholic Church...You then try to interpret the Bible to line up with that perceived truth...

If you look again at what Pope Benedict stated above you would see that our understanding of the role of Peter is based on more than this one text. Moreover, as Catholics we look beyond the Bible to the Sacred Tradition of the Church, of which the Bible is a product.

We are all filled with, and guided by the Holy Spirit 'when' we asked Jesus to save us from our sins...Nothing more, nothing less...And as such, we are members of His church...The Bride of Christ...

Then how do you explain that we have such different ideas about the faith for I pray everyday to be forgiven by Jesus of my sins and to be guided by the Holy Spirit?

[colorcountry]

how do you explain that we have such different ideas about the faith

Actually, I'm not so sure we have different ideas about "faith." We have differences in our ideas about worship, religious practice, and sacraments. I think we agree very well on faith, God, and Jesus Christ, and his Word.

I could be mistaken, and since I am such an infant Christian I could be very wrong about my above assumptions, but I don't think so.

[wmfights]

"I suppose you will also tell me that without the Pope, I can't have the Spirit. In that case, we will have to agree to disagree. That is what my last "God appointed" religious leader tried to tell me. I'm done with giving my authority to listen to the Holy Spirit away to a Church or a Church leader."
___________________________________

God Bless You! Just trust in JESUS and read your SCRIPTURE.

[tenn2005]

There are statements of the Church Fathers that say that the Rock is Peter's confession. And they are right--it is. But it is ALSO Peter's person. His confession came from his person, and the two cannot be separated in this context, particularly in light of the Greek grammar which leaves no room for doubt that Peter's person is the referent.

The knowledge behind Peter's confession did not come from "Peter's person" but from a revelation from God (Matt 16:17).

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. The power to "bind and loose" given to Peter in Matt. 16:19 was given to the other apostles in Matt. 18:18. Jesus' church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles (pl) and Profits, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20), not upon Peter. The Apostle Paul as well as all the other Apostles were on a par with Peter (II Cor 11:5). Peter was the Apostles to the Jews, while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7).

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. 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.

[tenn2005]

So, are you claiming for yourself an infallibility that you are denying to the pope and the bishops?

No, We are claiming for the Bible an infallibility that is denied by the pope and the bishops.

[ARAD]

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.”


Just a reminder about what we're talking about, and a prayer for unity.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus chose Cephas. Paul understood the authority of apostles, and in Timothy we learn an important lesson, that we aren't to look for truth here and there, when Truth is found in the Church. Additionally, without help, sinners (you and I) tend to eventually modify our environs to support our tendancies. That's how heresies develop. By only trusting our own opinion of Scripture. Paul, in an above post, mentions them. Individuals who seemingly were Baptised, after hearing the Word, became incorrect in their beliefs, and Paul spoke out strongly against such errors, lest they lead souls away from Jesus' meaning. Reading about early slapdowns of heresies can be fun, and informative to help us better defend today's current ones. History repeats itself. Yep. Only trusting our own opinions on Scripture seems to take us too close to the cliff of the dictatorship of relativism.

Have a nice weekend. I'm off to bed.

[markomalley]

I think yer stretchin' it a little...As I pointed out and you concurred, the Kindom He is referring to is 'not at this time' located on earth...

No offense, FRiend, but you are starting to change your tune a little bit. In your initial response to me, you stated, I don't have a problem with it...Jesus is not YET the King...But He will be...

You said nothing about "not at this time" located on earth. You said "not YET the King...but He will be..."

I'm very sorry, but he has always been King of the Jews. Even the magi knew this (Matt 2).

You are suggesting that even so, He is still the King, at this time...

Of course I am.

However, He states that if He were the King here and now, His servants would fight for him...Is a King only a King when he's in his own Kingdom??? Not generally...

Proving that He was rejected by His own, as prophesied.

He could have easily called for twelve legions of angels to fight for him (Mt 26:53), but He voluntarily didn't, so that he could be the authentic paschal sacrifice (Heb 9:12), the first-born lamb born without spot or blemish (1 Pe 1:19).

What Greek are you alluding to, specifically???

I cited two greek words in my previous post (eimi and enteuthen). I think, if you read the post carefully, it's fairly evident how they are used.

[Claud]

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"