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.
I sometimes use *pastor*, which is more in line with *shepherd*, but most of the time, use their first name.
Does that still excuse Catholics disobeying a direct, clear, simple command of Jesus?
I thought Catholics were the champions of the very words of Jesus Himself being of higher import than the rest of Scripture.
So what gives here, with this passage? Is it exempt? All of a sudden the very words spoken by Jesus are subject to revision and interpretation?
They don’t mean what they say?
That is an excellent question. Thanks for bringing it up.
metmom:
Yes the centrality of the Bible is the 4 Gospels, not that there is a canon within a canon, but the Person of Christ, all of it, is the key to how everything else is interpreted, including the NT epistles.
And of course, as I already have shown, Saint Paul disobeyed it as well, numerous times.
metmom:
The misuse of the term Father. God is the Creator and source of everything, thus in that Context, God is Father. But the term Father can refer to a Father of a nation [Abraham, Issac, David of the OT] were Fathers of the Jewish People in so much as they were chosen by God to be and cooperated with God in that fashion. Does not negate God as Father by calling each of them Father, which the NT does. A Father is also a biological term and God clearly had no problem allowing the use of the term as he commanded Honor thy Father. Saint Paul was a spiritual Father to the Churches he guided and pastored, again cooperating with God who is still God the Father, yet God works with and through human experiences and thus Saint Paul was a Father in a certain Context.
Mt 23:9 does state call no man Father, it also says do not call anyone teacher. Yet, later, In Mt 28:19-20 Christ commands his Apostles to do what, “teach” and who teaches, a “teacher” Saint Paul in 1 Timothy actually dares to call himself what? “a teacher”, along with apostle [1 Timothy 2:7].
So now we have Saint Paul calling himself 1)Father and 2) Teacher, both of which were referred to back in Mt 23.
So now Saint Paul is guilty of 2 Heresies? Calling himself “father” and “teacher”, if I were to use Fundie sola ego meo interpretation principles that you FR prots hold to. Of course, I don’t and never will.
I repeat my question since your response didn’t address it at all: What did Jesus mean in Matthew 23:9? He must have meant something. Since you reject an interpretation that seems to fit very well, what do you believe Jesus was saying?
Sorry, but you’ve now gone fully off the rails. Paul is a didaskolos, a teacher, but that is not only not a forbidden ecclesiastical title, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to some in the assembly for the edification of all. What Jesus prohibits are honorifics like “rabbi,” which actually means something more like “great one,” not “teacher.” It’s these lord high muckety muck titles that Jesus prohibits, not terms of natural relationship. An adjective is not a title unless everyone is expected to say it as part of your name. Such titles in the church foster pride and even idolatry, which Augustine himself understood to be the meaning of this passage. Google it.
But your strategy is the real problem here. First you make the category bigger than it really is, then you discredit it because of your alleged “obvious” infractions by Paul or whoever, and at the end of the sequence you have a command you can give lip service to, but which has no practical effect, because everybody gets to keep their honorific titles despite a plain command of Christ to the contrary. Brilliant!
Again, its your business what choices you make for yourself. As for me, I would never advise anyone to disregard a clear command of Christ, least of all because some institution says I can. Risky business.
Peace,
SR
Meant to ping you to 467. Itchy trigger finger syndrome. :)
No, Jesus said call no one teacher in Mt 23:9 [Rabbi] which means teacher. The Protestant translation that was cited was instructor, which hints at getting around the literal meaning [although it is a dynamic equivalent translation, I do recognize that].
The Catholic Dhouay Rheims Translation translates it as Rabbi, most modern Catholic Translations use Teacher which is a literal translation of the word Rabbi
No Rabi means Master of and Teacher of Jewish Law. It does not mean Great one. It’s most literal meaning is Teacher. Why don’t you look that one up?
And again, the use of the Greek word Papas was used for all Bishops of the Greek Catholic [mostly Orthodox now] to describe all Bishops and we have evidence of this dating to the 3rd century and it was also applied to priests as well. Papas means Father. Did the Greek speakers of the first few centuries of the Church not understand their own culture and language and it takes American Protestants today to figure out the true meaning of the text. Really????????????????? and you wonder why the term Ugly American is sometimes applied to Americans by non Americans. Arrogance.
Again, it has nothing to do with hygiene - No soap, no scrubbing, no cleaning under the nails - just the pouring of water from a proprietary jug, and a blessing... And it is not couched as a tradition - it is (in the blessing) directly called a commandment of YHWH, and is (in the Jewish tradition) a primary proof of the Pharisees' direct ability to add to Torah. Research the matter and you will find I am right.
You are correct though - There are times when YHWH required cleanliness - To include soap and scrubbing, and cleaning even under the nails... When one is to don the white garments, one is to be scrupulously clean (and perfectly quaffed). So the concept of actual cleanliness is not unknown - Hence, this ceremonial washing of the hands is different from that, and wholly invented...
And He continues in the passage to tick off example after example, just to drive the point home. Taken in it's context, Yeshua is railing against the traditions the Pharisees had built around the Torah.
And He did so time after time - In every instance, Yeshua derided the traditions as burdensome to the people and in some cases, directly opposing YHWH's commandments.
The Sabbath is a particularly good example - If one keeps Shabbat as YHWH commanded, it is a joyous time of rest. I look forward to it, and my reserved time with YHWH every week. But add to Torah the tenets of the Pharisee, and it truly is a burden - something it was never meant to be. And I would extend that remark to the same sort of strictures found in your religion, and among many of the Protestants.
Start from this premise: Yeshua necessarily had to have kept Torah, or He cannot have been the perfect sacrifice. So His example is the best possible example we could have wrt YHWH's intended use of Torah. So it seems to me that the things He endorsed and the things He derided necessarily hold tremendous weight.
This is an extremely important thing, as this same misplaced sense of authority is what enables our religions to be so far off the mark...
Nope. Go back and do your homework on rabbi. Means “great one.” Doesn’t mean these “great ones” didn’t do some teaching. But that was not their title. You look it up. For your reading pleasure, I will do a further word study later when I have access to my Hebrew resources. So if you don’t want to Google it, you can wait for that.
As for Ugly Americans, I never claimed to be pretty, so there! :)
Peace,
SR
Rabi is a teacher of the law and it is derived from Master, which means great one.
Exactly true, but with some extra sauce - The emphasis is upon following Torah, and not the commandments of men... Traditions.
Understanding the Pharisaical structure gives very important insight into what the problem was. They claimed direct succession from Moses by laying on of hands. They claimed TWO Torahs were handed down at Sinai, one penned by Moses for the people, and another, carried orally, to become the traditions which they employed. They claimed both the power of priest and prophet. They claimed that even YHWH HAD TO contractually listen to THEM, such was their power. They claimed congressional/corporate infallibility - They could not be wrong. They claimed to be YHWH vicariously. And they claimed that their pronouncements had the same power as Torah, or in cases, transcended Torah.
If you study what Yeshua did, you will find that He tore the core right out of their theology. If He was right (and He was), they were nothing more than usurpers - That is why they hated him so.
So, IOW, just because you think that some people may have disobeyed a clear, direct COMMAND of Jesus, that it’s OK for everyone to?
Is that how a free pass to sin works?
Gee, David committed adultery and murdered Bathsheba’s husband to try to cover it up. Just because he did, does that mean it’s OK for everyone else to as well?
metmom:
Totally different.
Nonsense.
This is what the Douay-Rheims translations says.
Matthew 23:9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-9.htm
And here's a link to the Greek, where it shows the word for *father* is used in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/23-9.htm
The Greek word is *pater*.
Arrogance is what it is in flaunting the commands of Jesus and calling religious leaders by the title of *father* in direct defiance of the clear and plain, COMMAND of Jesus to not do so.
God said in the Ten COMMANDMENTS, do not commit adultery.
People did anyway. That doesn’t make it OK.
Jesus said to not call any one on earth by the title *father* and yet people do it anyway. But that doesn’t make it OK, either.
A command is a command. Jesus command was not a suggestion. It contained no exceptions.
All the rationalization and justification in the world isn’t going to excuse anyone from the consequences of flagrantly defying the clear command of Jesus.
So as far as CC’s question then, just what WAS Jesus forbidding when he issued that command.
Don’t think that it hasn’t been noticed that his question has been evaded.
What was nonsense, the rest of the passage just before it:
“And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, [7] And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. [8] But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. [9] And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, Christ.
Commentary for this Catholic Link for the DR translation
[9] Call none your father upon earth: Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 15) and for our masters and teachers.
Disobedience is disobedience no matter how you slice it.
The command is clear.
Call no man *father*. Period.
In context, Jesus is talking about titles given to religious leaders, which makes it all the worse for the Catholic church to openly defy His command and try to rationalize and justify it, and demand that the laity sin by using that title, to boot.
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.