Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
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 with them later. But for now let’s 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 that He is. In modern times we love to take polls and many moderns put a lot of stock in what polls say. Many people (Catholics among them) like to point out that x% of Catholics think this or that about moral teachings or about doctrines and disciplines. It is as if the fact that more than 50% of Catholics think something makes it 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 held 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 a model that works.
2. The Panel - Jesus, having taught this implicitly, now turns to a group of experts, a “blue-ribbon panel” 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 foolish. The politics on the panel led 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 forward to describe God’s plan in 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 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), or because he happened to guess correctly. 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. He anoints Peter to unite them and give solemn declaration to what they have seen and heard.
The Catechism says the following 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, pp. 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 has power, riches, or other worldly means that might impress us or compel us to assent. Rather, we assent to the Pope because, by faith, we believe he is inspired by God. It is not in flesh and blood that we put our trust; it is in God Himself, who 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 as a personal gift or as a sort of recognition that will die with Peter. In giving Peter the keys, He is establishing an office, not merely a “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 that 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 than the fact that Jesus is establishing both Peter and an office that will serve as a foundation for the unity and strength of His Church.
Some object that within other verses Peter will be called “Satan” and will deny Christ. But Jesus knew all this and still said and did what He does here.
Others object that Jesus is the 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 the 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 in addition 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, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!” Without a visible head, there is no principle on earth for unity in the Church. The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority. But Protestants 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 pope. 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 which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
In the end, the Protestant experiment is a failed one. Many estimates place the number of Protestant denominations as high as 30,000. Personally, I think this is exaggerated—but not by much. Protestants all claim the Scriptures as their source of the truth but differ on many essential matters such as sexual morality, authority, the necessity of baptism, whether once saved is always saved, 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 that I know get along fine on a personal level. But the truth is, the denominations disagree over many very important things. The Protestant experiment is a failure that leads only to endless division. The Church needs a visible head. The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it. Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Jesus installed an individual in this role to manifest His office of rock and head of the Church. That individual was Peter and after, his successors.
Using Bible verses to support the True Faith, Catholicism, is not spam. Using Bible verses to support Protestant heresies is nothing more than spam.
If Bible verses support non-Catholic teaching then it’s not heresy.
Uh-huh.
What a well defined response.
One not needed. Protestants promote heresy in this board. They use their interpretation of Scripture to back it. Over and over again. To respond with more than that is a waste of my time. It’s why I rarely get involved in the Bible tit-for-tat. I usually dust off my sandals. The protestants here are obstinate.
RM, Could you delete post 167? I thought I posted in another markomalley post.
Which post of mine? I’ve got lots on this thread.
No, I thought our posts went to markomalleys other post about Demons believing. I asked the RM to delete it.
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.
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.
Indeed" "blessed" on steroids, while she was not the only one who was given that manner of testimony.
Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent. (Judges 5:24)
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.
I like this:
Quite rightly, too, did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed (Jn. 21: 15-19). It is not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is the first among the apostles. Do not be sad, Apostle. Answer once, answer again, answer a third time. Let confession conquer three times with love, because self-assurance was conquered three times by fear. What you had bound three times must be loosed three times. Loose through love what you had bound through fear. And for all that, the Lord once, and again, and a third time, entrusted his sheep to Peter.
from this link.....thanks.....http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/151/Peter_and_Paul____St._Augustine.html
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.