If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

How ironic that a man named “Pope” would give such a homily. Haha. I just found it kind of funny.

It was remarkable actually. At my parish the priest didn’t talk about this obvious topic but rather on the faith of Saint Peter, and how we all need the same faith. He spoke of how this faith sustains us in times like today, mentioning IS beheadings and the Feurgeson flap.

It’s interesting don’t you think? First, I would have thought that the homily here would be the obvious go-to homily for this most critical passage of Catholic dogma. But as I do recall last time this came up in the cycle of readings, it wasn’t the homily then either. And this was another priest.

After reading this thread too, it’s struck me that perhaps a larger issue is missed in debating this again. Certainly it’s a controversey among Catholics and Protestants, but is that all the passage will be for either?

What is Jesus saying here to Peter that we can take away today? I return to the homily I heard on Sunday. The lesson I received is this: the church is built with humanity, with humans. Who are focused on Christ, not the world. A church in the world but not of the world.

This manifestly necessitates a visible presence, not because the church needs to be visible to be valid, but because it needs to be valid to be visible. That is, it’s validity makes it visible. It’s a concrete thing we can see in our lives. It’s a way we can, in our humanity, focus on Christ.

As humans we simply require something to be visible, something to be concrete, objective, a “fact” to assign any level of validity to it. We are very clever in our self-deception, we can convince ourselves of many things if we aren’t careful especially of spiritual matters. But let me conclude with one final thought.

What was St Peter’s mindset when he called Jesus the Christ? How did be come to that conclusion? Can we imagine ourselves as St Peter at that time (in history) how could we have said the same thing?

“By the Holy Spirit” he called Jesus the Christ. But what does that mean? Does that mean at that instant, for no reason whatsoever other than a random thought popping into his head, he shouted out “You are the Messiah”? Is that really our faith? Is that why you, the reader of this post now, call Jesus the Christ? Because of a random thought that popped into your head?

I submit that perhaps there is a reason to call Jesus the Christ beyond the simply mysterious. Maybe it’s “ok” to believe that I am the same kind of human being as St Peter. Maybe he had a reason, or reasons, unique to him but still facts he knew, about Jesus, after having met him and ate with him and walked dusty hot roads with him. Maybe his reason for calling Him the Christ was for those kinds of reasons. Reasons based in reality. Reasons based on the remarkable, astounding, provocative kind of human being that Jesus must have been on Earth.

Maybe that’s the lesson here. That to have the same faith as St Peter we need to experience Christ at such a level. Experience Him in reality. Have the same kind of experiences as St Peter did and the other apostles and deciples. Not the exact experiences obviously, but the same kind of experiences, that is, encountering a remarkable kind of humanity, that is obviously not of this world, but still in the world. In other words, something (or someone) visible.

Otherwise how can we say we have the same faith as the Apostles?

Approaching Christianity thusly, we then have a new way of reading and understanding this and other passages of Scripture, if not also a new way of approaching our faith in general. This awakens a need we all have, a need to see Him face to face, in reality, as a fact, that we all tend to compartmentalize and outright suppress for fear of it’s implication. Because it’s easier to “believe in” a Jesus who’s only in some pages of a book. In our minds as a nice idea. “Easier” in the sense that such a Jesus doesn’t make any demands upon us that are excessive. “I can’t be charitable today, I have a headache” or “I don’t want to pray today, I am too busy”. “He understands, after all he’s in heaven, he went through all of this so he understands. He doesn’t expect me to be really engaged in this world, it doesn’t really matter”. This is what we tell ourselves because we don’t expect to encounter him here, in this world. Because “it doesn’t really matter”.

Then when we call him the “Christ”, we aren’t doing it for any reason here, just because “the Holy Spirit leads me to say it”. Whatever that means. But surely it’s not just my own idea. I “know” it’s the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure how anyone can make such a claim of knowledge without some fact in their life, without truly having a real “personal relationship with Jesus”. A relationship shared on a hot dusty road. Through turmoil and pain, in other words reality. In other words, with another person here. In other words someone or something visible.

Otherwise when we say he’s the “Christ” we never are quite sure it’s not just a nice idea on our part. A bit of easy escapism dressed up in 2,000 years of time. Otherwise, we are denying a part of our humanity. We become less human in such a fantasy. And that’s not being Christ-like: he was and is, fully human.

The old Saint Peter vs. Saint Paul dispute. It is like these FR Fundie Protestants think they have found the gotcha moment when in fact, great theologians 1,600 years ago dealt with these same scripture passages yet somehow they don’t agree with FR Protestant Fundie bible-thumper theology.

Such men do not agree with each other even about Peter being the rock, and both Augustine and Jerome teach erroneous things about marriage, that as re conjugal union, "the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust," "carnal concupiscence." (Augustine; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm). And Jerome resorts to absurd reasoning from Scripture to justify his idea of marriage being unclean,

that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)

In addition, despite Jerome;s verbose attempt to deny what is obvious, that Peter did Peter sin and that Paul rebuked one (presumably) greater than himself, the fact is that what you do testifies to what you believe at any given time, as faith is manifest by works, (Ja. 2:18) and in withdrawing from the Gentiles for fear of the Jews then Peter did sin (much less than me), and Paul rebuked him,

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation [hypocrisy]. (Galatians 2:11-13)

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Galatians 2:14)

This was not the same as Paul using his liberty to become all things to all men in following the recommendation of James in Acts 21, or personally following an aspect of Jewish ritual law, while even if Paul himself was duplicitous in so doing, this would not negate the fact that Peter was acting contrary to the Jews and Gentiles being "one new man," and equal members in the body.

That men would seek to absolve Peter of this sin is simply a testimony to the bondage of papal protection which prevents objective exegesis of Scripture, and compels it to be a servant to serve Rome.

Moreover, Paul does nothing to support the demigod status of popes in his description here, as Peter was listed 2 among those who seemed to be somewhat, and had never been ordained by any apostles, and went 14 years after his brief stay with Peter after conversion, and stated by the Holy Spirit that "in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing." (2 Corinthians 12:11)

Holy Peter was the street-level leader among the 11, and the first church and the first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel by which souls are placed therein, (Col. 1:13) but is not set forth in Scripture as a Roman pope to whom the churches looked to as its exalted supreme infallible head. Nor is submission to him in particular by the churches ever enjoined, even as a solution to its problems, or commended or faulted, in any church epistles or the Lord's critique of the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3.

In addition, the Holy Spirit nowhere shows or teaches successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number (cf. Rv. 21:14) - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, (Acts 1:15ff) which Rome has never used.

Furthermore, Rome herself judges such "fathers" more than they judge here, and your error is that of your basis for assurance of doctrine being based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

You are not to search the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but your one duty is to allow yourself to be led, and like a docile flock to follow your RC Pastors.

FR protestant pope daniel1212” and the other FR protestant popes in this thread.

This is another instance of resorting to this RC sophistry, as to be a pope is to presume a personal anointing of assured infallibility, which no adherent to SS can claim, lest he be Divine, and appealing to weight of support from the Divine plenary inspired Scriptures as the basis for veracity is to not be a pope.

Given that the power to loose and bind is the explanatory definition of the keys, Jesus gives that same power to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. To build on that a presumption of a unique, singular office, transferable to persons of any spiritual character via an essentially political process, inclusive of both spiritual and temporal authority, is far more confusing to me than anything you have recited. All the more so as Christ had gone to great lengths to insure they would have no "papa" among them, but look only to their heavenly Father for that ultimate spiritual guidance and authority.

But as to why would God leave us to wrestle with a few passages like this? I don't know. But it is evident He does. Peter said so:

2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul said so:

1Co 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. (19) For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

And Jesus even indicates that some of this confusion is providential:

Mat 13:12-16 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. (14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: (15) For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (16) But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

So that doesn't seem to be a very good basis for determining divine truth. Better the process of simply comparing Scripture with Scripture while admitting our fallibility and need of God's guidance, and also admitting the reality that God does guide those who do belong to Him through the ministry of fallible humans whom He gifts to be teachers, preachers, and evangelists. It is a mystery how all that could work, yet we have Christ's word that it will work. His ecclesia will prevail. For if Christ be for us, who can be against us?

daniel1212:

The Muratorian Fragment does not list several books for the simple reason that the NT canon itself was in debate until the 4th century. That is a fact, so it is not surprising that the NT list drawn up at Rome in 180AD was not complete yet for the NT canon was not 100% settled. So the Church up till 200AD had not defined NT canon but it still was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

The text clearly states when Pius held the Chair at Rome. That is evidence that by 140 AD there was a single Bishop in Rome. That does not mean there was not one prior to that, there is no evidence to say that there is one way or the other, although the evidence does point to there being a single Bishop in Rome before then.

And you can’t show anything but argue from a Protestant polemical theoretical position 2,000 years later. I can show Saint Ireneaus listing the Bishops of Rome in his work around 175AD, he too was connected to the Apostles via is study under Saint Polycarp who new the Apostle John.

You can cite Francis Sullivan all you want, again, I know him well, he was the Doctoral advisor for Fr. Richard Mcbrien and among his positions are that he does not believe it is impossible for the Catholic Church to ordain women, he is also a dissenter on Humanae Vitae.

While I will not judge his soul, he is among the higher critics who emerged after Vatican II. His work is his work, but I question it and again, he is not saying what you are trying to get him to say. I have seen Fr. Francis cited a lot here lately on the forums, it seems he is the new celebrity Catholic who gets sited a lot.

And again, if it is his opinion that the development of Bishops in the Church was a post NT development, that does not reject that development, all that means is while there were Apostles in place, they were in charge, as they died out, they put men in place to carry on the Apostolic Faith [The Pastoral Epistles themselves attest to this, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, etc] and by the time of the death of the last Apostle John around 90-95AD, the development to Bishops running churches in major cities has taken root across the Mediterranean world. I don’t know what the Scots and Welsh, and English Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformed were doing at that time, but the immediate witness of the Church Fathers Clement of Rome, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Polycarp attest to the 3 tiered ministry of Bishop, Priest/Presbyter [a discussion I have already had ad nausem with you before] and Deacon.

daniel1212:

I am well aware of their views on marriage, both had a high view of embracing celibacy for the kingdom of God, apparently embracing Christ elevation of embracing celibacy for the “Kingdom of God” [that is the orthodox reason] stated in Matthew 19:10-12 very strongly. Of course, while both of these orthodox Church fathers had a strong view of Celibacy, the Church did not pit celibacy for the kingdom of God against Marriage, in fact, Marriage is taught has a core Doctrine of the Church as being among the 7 Sacraments, celibacy a Church discipline. So what is your point, both men did have a high view of embracing celibacy, there views of marriage being a consequence of original sin perhaps are be taken that at times even in marriage, a man rather than loves his wife, still falls into lust. Nevertheless, the Church guided by the Holy Spirit handled the question of celibacy and marriage in a way that is orthodox and not in contradiction to the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition.

And again, back to the Apostolic succession notion, nowhere in Scripture does it teach against it, although there is transitional evidence of that development in the Pauline Pastoral epistles, So you can say the NT does not teach Apostolic succession, I can just as easily retort it does not teach against it. However, I can find numerous Church Fathers, ones that new the Apostles that attest to it, which does suggest it was the development of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that was willed by Christ as the Holy Spirit guided that development.

Elsie:

The fact that Peter was First among the Apostles is not debated. There are various interpretations among the Fathers regarding Mt 16:16-18 with respect to was it Peters Confession of Faith or Peter, etc. I am well aware of those various interpretations. I have no problem whatsoever with Saint Augustine. The other Text supporting Peter as First Among the Apostles is John 21:15-20. The Fathers also have lengthy commentaries and writings of this passage as well. For example, Saint John Crystostem’s Homily 88

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

Saint Augustine here on the same passage and while yes, he does state that it was Peters Confession of Faith, it does also indicate Peter’s unique role among the Apostles

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701124.htm

There is extensive commentary on John 21 as well.

http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm

Saint Augustines Sermon 295 also uses both Mt 16 and John 21 to state why Saint Peter is “First Among the Apostles”

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/151/Peter_and_Paul____St._Augustine.html

So the meaning of Mt 16:16-18 with respect to rock, Peter, his person or confession, does have several interpretations. That is allowable in Catholic Doctrine and the debate here is nothing more than polemics. Regardless, the passages do indicate Peter’s chief role among the Apostles, all who shared equally in the Apostolic mission, but Peter was the leader and the unity of the Apostles was centered on being united with Peter.

The Protestant Bible thumpers here only read Mt 16:16-18 and get into a bible thumping match as to the meaning of Christ changing Simon to Cephas [Peter]. Simon actually means obedient one and Cephas does mean rock in CHrist language of Aramaic. When it got translated into Greek, there were some distinctions made in Greek, not present in Aramaic which distinguish Christ as the Rock and Peter as still a rock, but not a rock like Christ [which of course he is not]. So this big rock small rock debate is more dealing with the Greek. The name Cephas in Aramaic means rock. Now, as to what is the theological meaning of Mt 16:16-18, it is Peter and his confession, is it Peter’s person, etc, both views are plausible and whatever one you take, does not negate Peter’s role as Chief of the Apostles. Saint Augustine, who favored the rock Being Peter’s confession of faith, although he also thought it being his person was acceptable, when you read his commentary on John 21:15-20, it is clear he sees Peter as Chief among the Apostles. Other Fathers also take the position of Peter as Chief of the Apostles, regardless of the differences of interpretation of Mt 16:16-18.

Furthermore, if you go to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined at Vatican 1, both Mt 16:16-18 and John 21:15-20 “Together” provide the full theological basis for the Definition of Papal primacy from scripture, and I might add, Luke and the feed my sheep passage as well as it often times is read at Liturgy.

In addition, in the Vatican I definition of Papal Primacy, it is also correlated with the authority of the Church of Rome for there is a cite to Saint Irenaeus [I think it is stated and footnoted] that does draw the link between the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to the Authority of the Church of Rome and from where does the authority of the Church of Rome come from, its connection to Saint Peter and Saint Paul [both] as Saint Ireneaus so clearly stated and as Saint Augustine notes in Sermon 295, it is for this reason that the Church of Rome even in his time [and well before] celebrated the feast day of SS Peter and Paul on June 29th together. Furthermore, Papal Bulls are issued with the Seal of the current Pope on one side and icons of both SS Peter and Paul on the other. Not a coincidence.

Unfortunately, what we are dealing with here in many cases are a bunch of Protestants who think the Bible fell out of the sky [in King James English] sometime during the Protestant revolt in the 16th century and that only American Protestants, because we are American and Protestant, are the ones who figured this stuff all out as it can’t be those peoples of Mediterranean stock [of which my ancestors came from, being of Sicilian ancestry] who wrote in Latin and Greek and lived in the Roman culture that was Latin and Greek because we are American WASP and we know better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.