[Salvation]

The Sacred Page

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy: The Readings for the Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time

In terms of Catholic “preachability,” today’s Readings are a soft-ball pitch, a long high arc that every homilist ought to be able to knock out of the park.  The lectionary readings have been set up for a clear explanation of the nature of the Papacy and its basis in Scripture.

The context of the Old Testament Reading should be explained.  During the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah, the royal steward of the palace, a certain Shebna, was arrogating to himself royal privileges.  In particular, he was having a tomb cut for himself in the area reserved for the royal Sons of David.  Like Denethor in The Return of the King , he was forgetting his place as steward and confusing his role with that of the king (not an accidental parallel, by the way--Tolkien was Catholic).  As a result, the LORD sends an oracle to Shebna via Isaiah, to the effect that Shebna will be replaced in his position by a more righteous man, a certain Eliakim son of Hilkiah:

Is 22:19-23

Thus says the LORD to Shebna, master of the palace:
"I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
and gird him with your sash,
and give over to him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's shoulder;
when he opens, no one shall shut
when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot,
to be a place of honor for his family."

The role of “master of the palace,” literally “the one over the house” (Heb. ‘asher ‘al-habayith), was the Number Two position of authority after the King (observe the dynamic in 1 Kings 18:1-5, for example).  The office was first established by Solomon (1 Kings 4:6).  Apparently, the badge of his office was the wearing of the key to the palace on the shoulder (Isa 22:22).  The steward controlled access to the king, either by unlocking or locking the palace doors to those who sought the king’s presence.

Michael Barber has done work showing that the Royal Steward was understood as a priestly character.  I cannot repeat all his evidence, but I will point out the connections of which I am aware: (1) the girdle (Heb. ‘abnet) mentioned in the passage (“sash” in the Lectionary translation) is only mentioned elsewhere in the OT as a priestly garment, usually along with the robe (Heb. kuttonet): Ex. 28:4, 39, 40; 29:9; 39:29; Lev. 8:7, 13; 16:4. (2) The steward is said to be a father to the House of Judah.  “Father” is a priestly title in the Old Testament (Gen 45:8; Judg 17:10; 18:19). (3) Eliakim is the son of Hilkiah.  Although we are not sure which Hilkiah this is, it is notable that the name “Hilkiah” is only used by Levites in the Old Testament (Jeremiah, a Levite, is also “son of Hilkiah,” Jer 1:1), and at least two Hilkiahs were in fact High Priests (2 Kings 22:4 etc. and parallels in 2 Chron 34; Neh 12:7).

In summary, the Kingdom of David included the office of the Royal Steward (‘asher ‘al-habayit), a position associated with priesthood and second only to the king in authority.

As we move toward today’s Gospel reading, let’s not forget that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke both take great pains in their opening chapters to emphasize Jesus’ royal Davidic lineage.  He is the Son of David come to fulfill all the promises of the Davidic Covenant (see Jer 33:15, 19-21).  However, we as Christian readers usually practice a sort of literary schizophrenia when reading the Gospels.  We do not connect the "Kingdom of David" promised to Jesus with the "Kingdom of Heaven" that Jesus proclaims in his ministry:

Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.  32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,  33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

However, already in the Old Testament, there was an awareness that the Kingdom of David was a manifestation of God’s own Kingdom:

2Chr. 13:8   “And now you think to withstand the kingdom of the LORD in the hand of the sons of David?

The Kingdom of Heaven, manifested on earth as the Church, is also the Kingdom of David, and in its structures it reflects that Davidic heritage.

This Old Testament background elucidates the Gospel reading, a controversial one whose meaning is hotly debated because of the importance of its implications:

Mt 16:13-20

Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and
he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples
to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Isaiah 22 is clearly the background for the promise of the “keys to the Kingdom.”  Aside from Judges 3:23-25, which has no thematic parallels, Isaiah 22 is the only passage of the Old Testament where the word “key” even occurs.  The thematic parallels are strong: the promise to Eliakim concerning “opening” and “shutting” is repeated to Peter, although using the terms “binding” and “loosing.”  “Binding” and “loosing” were technical terms in first century Judaism referring to the authority to decide matters of halakhah (lit. “the walk”, i.e. “the behavior” or “how one behaves”), that is, the practical application of divine law. 

Jesus did not decide all matters of the application of divine law himself.  Nor did he write down a book with the answers to all controversies in this area that would ever arise in the history of the Church.  He did, however, invest Peter with the authority to make decisions in this regard. 

Even some non-Catholic commentators (most notably, W.F. Albright, father of American biblical archeology and Old Testament studies) recognize that, in Matt 16, Jesus is investing Peter with role of royal steward in the Kingdom that Jesus is establishing.

The Church has always held that Peter’s authority—like the authority of the apostles in general—was passed down to his successors.  Otherwise, passages like Matt 16:13-20 and others which speak to us of the authority of the apostles are simply matters of historical curiosity for us:  "So Jesus invested Peter and the apostles with authority over the Church.  After they died, however, Jesus left no provision for the governance of the Church, so now it is every believer for him- or herself."  This is the view I once held myself.

It implies that apparently Jesus didn’t recognize the continuing need for authoritative leadership in the Church.  Maybe Jesus thought he was going to return before the apostles died (but he was mistaken).  Or maybe he thought that while the Church was small, it would need strong and visible leadership, but in subsequent generations, when it spread all over the world to a host of cultures and a host of controversies would arise, there would no longer be the need for strong and visible leadership to maintain the Church’s unity and doctrine.

Let me voice my disagreement with the above-mentioned position.  I do not think Jesus made a mistake about the timing of his return, nor that he did not foresee the continuing need for leadership in the Church.  The succession of subsequent generations to the authority of the apostles is already visible in Scripture itself (Acts 6:1-6; Titus 1:5; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Peter 5:1-2).   

The Church was not mistaken in understanding Peter’s authority to be passed to his successors.  So we see, already in the first or early second century, Clement of Rome exercising a spiritual authority over churches far away from his immediate geographical jurisdiction (see 1 Clement).

The priestly and paternal roles of the Royal Steward, Peter and his successors, is reflected in titles given to the Bishop of Rome: “pontifex maximus” (“greatest priest”) and “Papa” or “Pope,” meaning “Father.”

He continues to authoritatively “bind” and “loose,” making decisions of halakhah for the People of God.  A pertinent modern example: how does divine law apply to physical and chemical contraceptives, which were not as widely available in previous centuries?  Paul VI gave an authoritative halakhic decision: they are impermissible.  The decision remains universally controversial, but Christians who will not accept it, I am afraid, will find themselves voluntarily extinguishing their own communities as the generations pass.

Posted by John Bergsma at 10:07 AM

[Salvation]

Archdiocese of Washington

If No One Is Pope, EVERYONE is pope! A Meditation on the Gospel for the 21st Sunday of the Year

By: Msgr. Charles Pope

The Gospel today sets forth the biblical basis for the Office of Peter, the Office of the Papacy, for Peter’s successors are the Popes. The word “Pope” is simply an English version (via Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tongues) of the word “papa.” The Pope is affectionately called “Papa” in Italian and Spanish as an affectionate indication that he is the father of the family, the Church.

That Peter receives an office, and not simply a charismatic designation we will discuss later. As to certain objections regarding the office of the Papacy, we will also deal later. But for now lets look at the basic establishment of the Office of Peter in three steps.

I. The Inquiry that Illustrates – The text says, Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?“

It should be noted that, in asking these questions, Jesus is not merely curious about what people think of him. He seems, rather, to be using these questions as a vehicle by which to teach the apostles, and us, about how the truth is adequately revealed and guaranteed.

Jesus’ first two questions reveal the inadequacy of two common methods:

1. The Poll - Jesus asks who the crowds say he is. In modern times we love to take polls, and many moderns put a lot of weight in what polls say. More than just politics, many people, Catholics among them, like to point out that X% of Catholics think this, or that, about moral teachings, or doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something, it must be true, and that the Church should change her teaching based on this.

But, as this gospel makes clear, taking a poll doesn’t necessarily yield the truth. In fact ALL the assertions of the crowd were wrong, no matter what percentage thought them. Jesus is not John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets redivivus. So, running the Church by poll taking or democracy seems not to be the model that works.

2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a panel of experts, a “blue ribbon committee,” if you will. He asks the twelve, “Who do you (apostles) say that I am?” Here we simply get silence. Perhaps they were looking around like nervous students in a classroom not wanting to answer, lest they look like a fool. The politics on the panel leads not to truth, but to a kind of self-serving, politically correct silence.

That Peter finally speaks up is true. But, as Jesus will say, he does not do this because he is a member of the panel, but for another reason altogether.

Hence the blue ribbon panel, the committee of experts, is not adequate in setting forth the religious truth of who Jesus is.

And through this line of questioning, Jesus instructs through inquiry. Polls and panels are not adequate in yielding the firm truth as to his identity. All we have are opinions, or politically correct silence. Having set forth this inadequacy, the Gospel now presses forth to describe the plan of God in adequately setting forth the truths of faith.

II. The Individual that is Inspired - – The text says, Simon Peter said in reply,”You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

We are taught here not merely that Peter spoke, but also how he came to know the truth. Jesus is very clear to teach us that Peter spoke rightly, not merely because he was the smartest, (he probably wasn’t), or because some one else told him, (Jesus is clear that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him), and not merely because because he guessed, and just happen to get the right answer. Jesus teaches that Peter came to know the truth and speak it because God the Father revealed it to him. God the Father inspires Peter. There is a kind of anointing at work here.

So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: he anoints Peter.

It’s not polls, or panels that God uses, it’s Peter.

And while truths may emerge in the wider Church, reflecting what is revealed, it is only with Peter and his successors that such views can be definitively set forth, and their truth adequately guaranteed. Thus, the other apostles are not merely bypassed by God, but He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.

The Catechism says of Peter and his successors, the popes:

When Christ instituted the Twelve, he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them….The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council. But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #s 880-884 selected)

All these truths point back to this moment when we see how God himself chooses to operate.

And note too, the dimension of faith we are called to have. We are to assent to the Pope’s teaching and leadership not merely because we think he is smarter, or because it might happen that he had power, riches other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, no, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not flesh and blood in which we put our trust, it is God himself, whom we believe has acted on our behalf by anointing someone to affirm the truth, and adequately guarantee that truth to be revealed by God.

And this then leads to the final stage wherein Jesus sets forth a lasting office for Peter.

III. The Installation that is Initiated - The text says, And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus does not merely praise Simon for a moment of charismatic insight. He goes further, and declares that he will build his very Church upon Simon, and thus he calls him, Peter (Rock). And here too, he does not merely mean this is a personal gift or recognition that will die with Peter. In giving him the keys, he is establishing an office, not merely indicating a personal promotion for Peter. This will be God’s way of strengthening and uniting the Church. In Luke’s Gospel Jesus says more of this:

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, all that he might sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith may not fail; and when thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:31)

Hence, it is clear once again that God’s plan for the Church is to strengthen one man, Peter and his successors, that in turn the whole Church may be strengthened and united.Thus the Lord Jesus establishes not only Peter, but also his office. This is God’s vision and plan for his Church.

It is true many have objected to this teaching. There is no time here to do a full apologetical  reply to every objection. But frankly most of the objections amount to a kind of wishful thinking by some, who want this text to mean something other than what it plainly means.  Nothing could be clearer that the fact that Jesus is establishing Peter and an office which will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of his Church.

Some object that within verses Peter will be called “satan” and will later deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this, and still said and did what he does here.

Others object that Jesus is head and foundation, that he is the Rock. True enough, but apparently Jesus never got the objectors’ memo, for it is he himself who calls Peter rock, and establishes him with the authority to bind and loose. It is also true that both Jesus and Peter can be head and rock, in terms of primary and secondary causality (more on that HERE).  And yet again, that Peter and his successors are head and rock by making visible and being the means through which Christ exercises his headship and foundational aspect.

Finally, to return to the title of this post, “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” For the fact is, without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The experiment tried to replace the Pope with scripture and gave it sole authority. But they cannot agree on what Scripture says, and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves, and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a Pope they become one themselves. If no one is pope, everyone is pope.

I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a Pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But what is more arrogant, to claim there is a Pope other than me, or to in fact act like one myself?

In the end, the experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of  denominations as high as 30,000. I personally think this is slightly exaggerated, but not much. They all claim the Scriptures as their source of truth but differ on many, very essential matters, such as the necessity of baptism, once saved always saved, sexual morality, authority etc. When they cannot resolve things they simply subdivide. There is an old joke, told even among protestants that goes:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!” Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

A strange little joke, and not entirely fair since most Protestants of different denominations I know get along fine personally. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very essential things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless divisions. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Some one must exist to who all look and agree that he will resolve the differences after listening.

Jesus has installed an individual in this role to manifest his office of rock and head and that individual is Peter and his successors.

Here’s a light-hearted video I put together commemorating the Pope’s many visits to unite and strengthen us.