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.
Perhaps; but it does a REAL good job of 'hiding' the plain meaning of Scripture in places.
If you have a point; it seems to me that you need to post what you are wanting us all to see, as we could use the time WE'D use, looking it up ourselves, and then trying to discern what we were suppose to be learning in a more productive manner.
Strange how it produced the COUNTER Reformation in the Roman Catholic Church; isn't it?
Why do no Catholics EVER seem to admit it was the excesses and SIN in the Catholic leadership that CAUSED the Reformers to appear?
Nope; I question the Church to say such a thing when you claim that EITHER 'interpretation' is acceptable.
It bears repeating: OFTEN!
How DARE you use human logic to try to understand spiritual things?
Come back to the Mother Church... NOW!
Well; SOMEBODY sure elected them BAD POPES!!!
What was GOD trying to do; anyway??
Paul did NOT tell his 'children' to call him Father.
This is an RCC construct.
No; they were not.
There is NO 'scripture' to support this assertion.
Scripture!
Sure it is.
You have Pharisees for PARENTS?
So; if I read you right; there are Catholics that do not know there is only one pope, and it had to be repeated, WORLDWIDE, to those who have been, evidently, poorly catechized?
Elsie:
That would mean People into Communion with Him and other people into the communion of saints. Should have been clearer
Elsie:
Actually, that passage has lots of great Catholic Theology in it. The Apostles received a ministry of reconciliation [us] and of course Paul got this how, by being linked to the Peter, James, John and other Apostles and what exactly is the ministry of reconciliation, that it the Apostles are ambassadors for Christ [ambassador meaning like his representative or agents acting on his behalf, etc] and God is making an appeal through us [Apostles] we implore you on Christ behalf, etc.
Ties well to the ordained clergy and having the authority by Christ to forgive sins and reconcile in his name and because of him, that is God acts and works to make himself known through the Church. Lots of Catholic Ecclesiology and sacramental theology present in that passage you cited.
See my earlier post. Nothing has changed since the last one I posted to you.
I cited this earlier. Papa is just a word that means “Daddy”. Pappa was used by priests and other Bishops but eventually the word was exclusively used for the Bishop of Rome as a term to relate which Bishop/Church had the Primacy [not that you all agree with Rome having a primacy but that is the context].
As for calling no man Father, the use of the term Father or other terms like Pope to refer to all priests or to see them as having a spiritual Fatherly role, as opposed to a biological one, is perfecting in keeping the NT.
In the OT, God said Honor your Father and Mother. Do you really think Christ meant “oh, btw, honor them, but don’t call them Father and Mother”. In Mt. 15 Christ tells scribes and Pharisees that God Commanded you to “Honor your Father and Mother” and he who speaks evil of father and mother, let him die [Mt 15:4-5]. The Gospels of Mark and Luke both cite Christ stating that a Christian should honor his Father and Mother [Mk. 10:19; Luke 18:20] and Matthew cites Christ again stating honor your Father and Mother [Mt 19:19]. Saint Paul tells the Christian Community at Ephesus to “Honor your Father and Mother” [Eph 6:2]. Did Saint Paul miss the memo, is he a heretic for using that theology.
In another Gospel passage, when Christ enters Jerusalem Saint Mark calls David “Father” [c.f. Mk 11:10]. In Luke 16:24, the parable of bosom of Abraham, we read “and he called out Father Abraham”.
The passages above are enough to show your views are not correct with respect to the term father. But lets go even further. Saint Paul, writing to the Thessalonian Church states “for you know, like a {father} with his children, we exhorted each one of you...” [1 Thess 2:11]. In 1 Timothy 5:1, Saint Paul states regard an older man exhort him as you would a {father}. Perhaps the greatest kicker is this one “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. I urge you then be imitators of me. [1 Cor 4:14-16, which has already been cited using the Catholic Latin Vulgate rendering or Douay-Rheims which is a direct translation from the Vulgate]
In numerous other passages, Saint Paul called Timothy his Child [obviously not his biological child, so in this sense, Paul was like a spiritual or theological father in the same sense Catholics call their priests Father]. For example, “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).
In other passages, he refers to Timothy as his son. “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22). Titus was also called by Saint Paul his child: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10).
In summary, if your view is correct that Father can’t be used in any context save for “God the Father” [and it is NOT], then all the Gospel writers and Saint Paul are heretics. Catholics call priests Father in the sense of a spiritual Father just as many of the Apostles referred to Abraham [as cited earlier] and Isaac [Romans 10:9] as spiritual fathers and Saint Paul referred to himself as a spiritual father. You can also read Saint John’s Letters were he referred to those Christians and those Churches that he was writing to as his children several times.
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
There were certainly commandments regarding washing; to whom and when they were a requirement is one aspect, and that they are generally followed today among the observant is without doubt. So it is a logical tradition of men that was derived from commandments and had a healthy sanitary effect. Perhaps the problem is more that the tradition regarded the washed as morally pure and the unwashed as morally impure, sinful, while ignoring their actual spiritual condition. This would fit more with what is recorded. Washing of hands is good, and the blessing is good, if a man understands it in the spiritual and moral context. The water does not clean the soul, just the body.
Hand washing before meals and after bathroom activities is proven to extend life expectancy significantly. How would one deal with that reality if one believes Jesus and his disciples did not, and were not supposed to, wash their hands before meals ? A literal fundamentalist might forgo washing hands so he could be a true disciple. Hmmm ... not good.
These are scriptures regarding washing of hands in the NT (Luke 11:37-54, Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-8; I'm including Matthew 23:23 and Psalm 24 to sum it up). and I think this from Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was more concerned about the spiritual condition of a man than his ritual observances, whether they be in the Law of Moses or added as a tradition. The issue is not tradition but the moral condition of the people. Are they fulfilling the law of Moses in the weightier matters, or are they like someone in a religious ministry (Institute of Basic Life Principles for example) who adheres to a system of religion but is morally unclean. Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying , Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?For God commanded , saying , Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say , Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying , This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear , and understand : Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended , after they heard this saying? But he answered and said , Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted , shall be rooted up . Let them alone : they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said , Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand , that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation. This is the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob. Selah.
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.