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.
Read the same verses, but using spiritual perception, rather than soulish perception. The meaning becomes obvious to th believer in fellowship with God, but misunderstood to those without such perception.
This is not a debate about the canon.
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.
And history also records a sppsd successor employing a murderous mob in seeking to obtain he office, and both records testifies to the contrast between what the Holy Spirit records in the plenary inspired Scripture versus the uninspired words of traditions.
And you can’t show anything but argue from a Protestant polemical theoretical position 2,000 years later.
That is absurd, as what i can show is how the Holy Spirit is faithful to record important events, thus the nature of Peter's leadership, and apostolic credentials, and the death of James but no successor, or manifest preparation for one in the light of Peter's impending departure, while describing the apostles as being part of the foundation which the church is built upon, and clearly instructing and recording the ordination of elders, not priests. Among other contrasts.
You can cite Francis Sullivan all you want, again,
Oh yes, bias assertion. No evidence can be accepted from conservative evangelicals that impugns Rome as they are driven by anti-Catholic bigotry, while Catholic scholarship that does the same must be dismissed or marginalized as they are liberal. I suppose even objecting to the title “Co-redemptrix” for Mary could be attacked.
They may be liberal and possible bias is to be considered, as is true of committed papists, but their arguments should be judged by their merits. Of course, Sullivan is not alone, as Paul Johnson and Klaus Schatz, among others must also be rejected or marginalized.
were Apostles in place, they were in charge, as they died out, they put men in place to carry on the Apostolic Faith
Exactly, not Romish popes.
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.
And it remains that this is not what Scripture teaches, with the Spirit not once titling "presbuteros" "hiereus," the exclusive word for "priest," but which was a later development due to imposed functional equivalence, and is defended by reliance upon etymological fallacy.
But while we can debate Scripture and history on and one, yet for a committed RC, this cannot be the basis for assurance of Truth, as it relies upon fallible human reasoning. For as i have said, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
As long as this falsehood is your premise then further exchange becomes increasingly a problem.
daniel1212:
All of your views of what scripture say are just that, your views. It is not absurd. The Apostles put men to take over, the NT is very silent about what those men did and what were there roles. Clearly Titus and Timothy were leaders of Churches there acting as overseers. So Bishops are in place during the transition from Apostles to the next generation. All of the Patristic evidence indicates how this transition was implemented and it was Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
You can only show what you think scripture teaches, I appeal to the early Fathers who canonized the scriptures and defended them against Gnostic heresies don’t interpret them the way you do. For example,, your writing “For I have written” I could give a hoot what you think. Who are you, another ex-Catholic turned protestant internet theologian????? Really?? Can you honestly say that the NT gave precise instructions as the ministry and function of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon. It is very unclear and an appeal alone to Scripture can’t answer it, all you have is a protestant view that developed 1,600 years ex post the NT period. Saint Clement of Rome’s Letter, and he was a pupil of Saint Peter and there is evidence that we is the Clement that Saint Paul mentions clearly speaks of the fact that the Apostles worried that men would argue over who should be Bishop, etc, and thus they appointed men to lead the Churches. Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters are even clearer and he was closely connected to the Apostle John, having been Saint Polycarp’s pupil who new The Apostle John.
Are you saying that all these men got it wrong????? and you got it right?
LOL! I actually used that line in law school once (not the “fodder” part). I don’t remember the details, but it had to do with someone marching over to someone else to do them harm, but then something being said by the would-be victim that was so shocking it would change the would-be perp’s intent. On the spur of the moment, that’s what I came up with. The class erupted in laughter, but the professor was not amused. :)
Did you know that according to the online etymological dictionary we’ve been getting called “bible thumpers” since 1843? I found that fascinating. I always take it as a compliment. :)
PS, CT, I read the Jerome letter, especially the Peter vs Paul sections. Interesting stuff. Not exactly on point, but a good read nonetheless. Some RC posters here on FR could learn a lot from his gracious example. Thanks.
And your response to the use of the word *petra* in the Greek is what exactly?
SHhow me where Peter is called *petra*.
I’m not southern and haven’t read King James in over 35 years after the NIV came out.
Enjoy your stereotypical delusions.
And the comment about you remaining ignorant is based on your own admission that you would not read something to learn more.
Your choice.
Springfield Reformer:
Yes, it is a good read. Glad to see you read it, it doesn’t take the King James only Bible Thumbing protestant spin and say Peter’s sin negated his authority, or negated the role as First among the Apostles which Christ gave him, which was why I decided to cite it and help the King James only types out a bit, consider that a charitable act on my part. As for gracious, well, at times I can be, and there are some protestants here who I have dialogued/discussed with over a long time and not got used lets say less than 100% charitable tone with [I freely admit that]. On the other hand, with many of the usual suspects among the FR protestants here, not so much. I will also freely admit, my patience is at and end with many of them thus the harsher tone.
Using Bible verses to support Protestant heresies is nothing more than spam.
Using Bible verses to illustrate Catholic heresies is nothing more than spam; according to the weak apologists on FR.
Catholics promote heresy in this board. They use their additions to Scripture to try to PROVE their point. Over and over again.
Taint none of it sticking to the wall these days.
metmom:
First off, I did not say I would not read them. Second, I said further, that I would not read them and post the commentaries in response to your scripture post fest. And I am very well versed in the Writings of the Church Fathers. I just have had it posting with you. And while you are not Southern, your approach is very similar to the King James Only Southern Bible thumpers who believe that the NT was written in King James English. So philosophically, your approach to things is consistent with theirs. So run along to your flavor of the week, maybe month, or perhaps year, protestant sect you are hanging out with these days, which I hypothesize, is not the first one you joined when you rebelled against the faith of your birth and ancestors.
Among Catholics who have been adequately catechized.
Peter being 'first' isn't even SHOWN in Scripture.
This, however, is...
::yawn::
I now see where CULTS get THEIR rules from!
Read the stuff with a comprehension of the language it was written in; and 'hidden' meanings will NOT be coming forth!
I did this in grade school.
My punishment; uh, failure to communicate, lesson was to place my nose in a very small circle on the blackboard for, what it seemed to me at the time; ETERNITY!
I suppose these days my mom could have sued the teacher/principal/school/school board/state and probably Obama, too, for Cruel and Unusual punishment.
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.