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.
Msgr Pope ping
Oh I get it. It’s like saying, “If no one is God, then everyone is God.” If we deny that there’s no “Pope”, the supposed successor to the Apostle Peter, then everyone is “Pope”. Since that would be wrong and everyone can’t be “Pope” or “Papa”, then there must be legitimate a Pope in Rome. Hey, I have an idea. What if I deny the premise and refuse to accept that everyone must be “Pope” if I den that there’s to be a Pope in Christianity. Or better yet, What the only true “Papa” is the Father in Heaven and what if I don’t deny Him at all! Then I wouldn’t be making myself Pope and everyone wouldn’t be Pope. Folks, the article shows the convoluted thinking of the Catholic Church. It’s how they make Mary a perpetual virgin. It’s how they make Mary’s own conception a miracle to spare her the hereditary sin of her parents. It’s how they decide babies are sinners and for centuries taught babies who died without Catholic baptism were in “limbo”. It’s how they justify the need for a multitude of saints to pray to. Catholicism “jumped the shark” a long time ago when they got in bed with the Roman Caesars.
Msgr. Pope failed to make the obvious joke.
Have a little snark for breakfast this morning, didya?
Hmmmm...I must confess I never thought about what the word "pope" actually meant. Now that I know this verse sprang to mind:
Meaning a perpetual assuredly infallible (conditionally) papal office, to whom all the church looks to. But which is invisible in the NT church. While being the street-level leader among the 12 and exercising a general pastoral role, yet nowhere is the church corporate exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, and as rendering the final decree on issues, much less in Rome, or referred to as such, not even in the church epistles where he is rarely mentioned, or in Peter's own epistles ("a servant," "an elder," "an apostle") or in the letters to the 7 churches.
Submission to the pope as supreme is not even set forth as a solution to church problems, and where he is shown conferring sanction then he is the second among others "who seemed to be pillars," and is publicly rebuked, (Gal. 2) while in Acts 15 it is James who provides the final decree on what should be done, confirmatory of Peter's proposal and the doctrine of Paul.
And instead of the pope being the more sure word, Peter sets for Scripture as being that. (2Pt. 1:19-21) While the RC magisterium effectively presumes to be the supreme authority, its words are not wholly inspired of God.
And in critical 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 - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used.
In addition, even Catholic scholarship supplies evidence contrary to the myth of a perpetual infallible papacy to whom all the church looked to. Among others , Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:
"The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative." “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)
It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz, 4). More :
Furthermore, the claimed apostolic successors of Rome are not actual apostles, as they fail of the requirements of personal discipleship, and degree of supernatural attestation, and of virtue, under which the unity of the NT church was realized, with manifest apostolic power, purity, passion and performance which supernaturally attested and established the apostles as being of God.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, .... (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
The deformation of the church was progressive , with a key pope even in the century employing a murderous mob to secure his seat, and politically expanding the papacy .
Increasingly errors were established as doctrine, with traditions of men being perpetuated, and faith becoming much institutionalized, and carnality in both rule and morals increasing. Reformation, if imperfect, was thus necessitated.
Yet the church never ceased to exist as the body of Christ, which is visibly manifest wherever by faith which worketh by love, as long as humble faith existed in Christ to save, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, the visible church is never perfect, and is not the bride of Christ, nor is the church of Rome even one church in reality, but exists in sects and schism.
For indeed, Catholicism's unity is largely on paper and merely organizational, but while overall Christianity exists as a divided kingdom, yet there is a blessed spiritual unity among born again believers due to a shared personal conversion an and relationship with Christ as per Jn. 17:21,23, and which is greater than their external divisions which is transcends.
The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority.
As usual, RCs must resort to using a straw man to justify RC unScriptural presumptions. SS does not make Scripture the sole authority, and leaving every man to fend for himself what Truth is, but holds Scripture as the only supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired and thus assured, word of God, and thus the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim plenary inspiration for the supreme authority for RCs, while just what is infallible and its meaning and that of other magisterial teachings can require varying degrees of interpretation.
Nor does SS leave the believer to fend for himself, or the church without ecclesiastical authority, but as Westminster affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, and which is the Real Issue .
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.
This also is a miscontruance, as to be a pope is to claim the anointing of infallibility, which is only what cults effectively claim, leaving the RC objection to be that of lay people correctly discerning what Truth is in contradiction to the magisterium. Which is what RCs argue is necessary.
For the RC polemic is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
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.
Would you not agree that this is your real argument?
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?
This is based upon the straw man that SS adherents are claiming assured personal infallibility, which is what makes the pope the RC pope (which even the EOs reject), or that SS rejects the teaching office, both of which are manifestly false.
The faithful believer is to seek to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth." (2Cor. 4:2) Thus the real objection objection remains that of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience, and to the laity being able to correctly judge what is of God in contradiction to the magisterium. Therefore you need to justify the real RC argument as described above, rather than engaging in the use of straw men.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
Out of which is extrapolated the perpetuated infallible Petrine papacy, but which is not taught or necessary, but is based upon the unScriptural premise that, as said, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
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.
Moreover, as Steve Hays states ,
In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain [see link]. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.
[Of which dogmatic development of doctrine see links.]
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .
The author gave a an argument for his assertions. What's the argument for yours? Your interpretation of Scripture? If so, why should I accept your authority on the matter? In fact, if you're basing you assertion on Scripture, which book? How do you know that book forms part of the authentic Scriptures Christ wants us to follow?
So, Francis strengthens and unites the Catholic Church.
Not a true statement. Something is clearly off.
It has failed? 100's of millions would disagree... Isn't their division within the Catholic Church as well...
The Church needs a visible head.
Isn't the living Christ head of the church or is he still hanging on the cross?
The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it.
Even within the Catholic Church the Bible has different interpretations
Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Why, our salvation is not dependent on consensus...
This is simply sophistry, as it is employed to refute what really is the position of Scripture being the sole supreme infallible standard on Truth as literally being the plenary inspired assured word of God - which cannot be said of the supreme standard for RCs - while using a definition of Protestant that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian sodomite Episcopalian 747 thru it!
Such is the result of abandoning the position and esteem of Scripture which defined Protestantism.
However, those who most strongly hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired and assured word of God are much more unified i n basic key beliefs than the fruit of Rome, even surpassing weekly mass goers. Thus both Rome and liberals have treated such "fundamentalists" as their greatest ideological enemies.
And while this is far from comprehensive unity which has ever been a goal not realized, "unity" in Rome is largely on paper or merely organizational, while the greatest scope of unity is found in cults, which also basically operate out of the RC model of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority.
And under which cultism the members are to ascertain the veracity of church teaching by searching the Scriptures, as assurance is based upon the premise of the anointed assured veracity of the magisterium, for if it was by Scripture then they would be as evangelicals.
However, what RCs can disagree on is extensive , from just how many infallible teachings there are, and what level each teaching falls under, and thus what level, of assent is required, to what the meaning of these are.
The real question remains, did the church begin under the premise of an anointed assured veracity of the magisterium as the steward of Divine revelation, or upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Christ bases His rock upon what God the Father has revealed, not upon the flesh and blood of Peter. This is also why it is unshakeable.
This argument never ceases to amaze me. The scriptures says "Call no one father." I recite the command and state that we shouldn't call anyone father. Then someone says I'm "interpreting" it.
This isn't a dream or vision. Nor is it complicated. There isn't anything to interpret. I'm reciting a command. It's up to people to determine whether or not to follow it.
That is YOUR interpretation.
I thought you were giving me the typical Catholic answer that Peter is the holder of the keys. That is a flawed interpretation of scripture.
Christ is the Rock and cornerstone.
And if Athanasius were around today, he would (or would he)probably declare that all of the separate Catholic rites (not the right word, but I’m referring to Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox; Russian Orthodox; Armenian; & etc as heresies, as he did those who followed Arius and other small Christian sects/groups in the 3rd & 4th Centuries.
And then we have the seeking for “one” church to be the official church of the renewed Roman Empire under Constantine and finally Theodosius.
But bottomline for me is all Christians are saved by the Grace of Salvation through Jesus, who was sent here by His Father to rescue us/our souls from perishing on this spec of galactic debris.
So are you saying that Peter was not the first leader of the Church after Christ? The first Pope?
So I guess you don’t call your dad “father”.
Just as Sheen before him, Pope proves that a brilliant mind can still be a bound one—i.e. bound to the traditions of men. One wonders how this supposed “Papa”, Peter, would later come to be publicly rebuked by the apostle Paul “because he stood condemned”. Perhaps because God (contra the Catholic Church) “shows no partiality”?
If the blind lead the blind, will they not both fall into a ditch? Pope takes a stab at Protestants and their “sola Scriptura”, but it is in fact Scripture which authoritatively counters the error of Rome.
“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”—Jesus!
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.