Pope Saint Peter

[Aloysius]

i occasionally spit this out while debatin and stuff, so i'll make a thread about interpretting Matthew 16:18 and such

this be from The Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 16

13

8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16

11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

20

15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

21

16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

So let's see. We have a question about the Christian community. Who is the messiah? So far, the Apostles have been free to think it was John the Baptist or Elijah or somethin or another. Now, does Jesus personally let everyone know who the messiah is after they all pray about it and are guided by the Spirit? NO.

POPE SAINT PETER declares a dogma. POPE SAINT PETER (and logically his successors) and his dogmas are declared the rock on which Jesus, the Divine Rock, will build His Church. The Petrine rock will be planted firmly on the Divine Rock, as Jesus will bring up the questions, and stop the Pope from erring in answering them.

And so Peter has been givin the keys before any other apostle. This means that Peter has been declared a 'prime minister', for the prime minister of ancient cultures would have the keys and could open and close with no challenge. The rest of the apostles get them later. They are the other 'ministers' i guess.

Peter the Pope? Yes Peter the Pope. And if He hadn't settled that question, u might be worshipping John the Baptist or Elijah right now.

Pax et Amo Christi!

[FlipFlopHead]

Does Jesus' pronouncement of Peter as the "rock" thereby entail his infallibility? If so, why would Peter later denouce Jesus (three times)? If his confession of Jesus as the "Messiah, the son of the living God" was infallible because it was ex cathedra, but his denial of Christ was not ex cathedra, what is the authority for judging which papal statements are infallible and which are not?

Thank you.

[JP2Iloveyou]

A papal statement is infallible when it deals with faith and morals. When Peter denied Christ three times, he was not speaking on faith and morals. Every pope is a sinner. Our current Pope, Pope John Paul II goes to Confession daily because he knows he is a sinner. No one claimed that individual men within the Church would be perfect. There have only been two people in the history of the world who lived to adulthood without sinning: Jesus and Mary.

So, if the Pope says that there is life on Mars, is that an infallible statement? No! It's not a matter of faith and morals. However, if the Pope says that mary was immaculately conceived, is that an infallible statement? Yes! It's a matter of faith. If the Pope says that all sex outside the confines of marriage is wrong, is that an infallible statement? Yes! It's a matter of morals.

I hope that clears things up somewhat.

[FlipFlopHead]

Thank you for your answer.

But I am still a bit confused. Isn't a denial of faith (or of knowledge of/association with Jesus) a statement on a matter of faith?

Thanks in advance.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

You realize, Aloysius, that "Pax et Amo Christi" means "Peace of Christ and I love", right? Do you mean to say "Peace and love of Christ"? If so, write "Pax et Amor Christi".

[cmotherofpirl]

Thank you for your answer.

But I am still a bit confused.  Isn't a denial of faith (or of knowledge of/association with Jesus) a statement on a matter of faith? 

Thanks in advance.

Peter was made head of the Church when Jesus pronounced him Peter.

Lets look at the context.

THey are walking thru Cassarea Philippiand Jesus asks the Apostles who everybody thinks the Son of Man is. So the Apostles start listing the various ideas: Elijah, Jeremiah etc.

THe Simon Peter says "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God."

THe next line is very important ; "Blessed are you Simon bar( son of ) Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my FATHER IN HEAVEN."

Jesus is saying God the FAther has revealed this to Simon.

JEsus THEN changes his name to Peter, just like God changed Abram to Abraham.

He says" You are Peter (Kephas in Aramaic) and on this rock, I will builld my Church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatyever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

In the old Testament. a king would travel and leave his prime minister in charge to run the Kingdom. He would gve his keys to the prime minister to signify who was in charge when the King was gone.

After this, in all the Gospels accounts Peters name comes first.

So at this point Peter is head of the Apostles.

However until the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit.

An infallibity doesn't mean Peter stands there and says "ok this is the way its going to be".

It means when all is said and done, when all the discussion is over, is in the first Council of Jerusalems discussuion of circumcision and food, that Peter will make the right final decision for the sake of the Church.

Edited September 10, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[FlipFlopHead]

Thanks.

Concerning the Council of Jerusalem, how can you say that Peter made the final and authoritative decision? There is testimony from Peter, Paul, Barnabus, and James. And if anything, it appears that James happens to make the final decision. "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God..." (15:19).

I understand the argument from Matthew 16, but that still does not entail unique infallibility since there are judgments about binding and loosing in other places (Matt 18 and John 20, I believe) which are not solely to Peter. Also, it does not suggest any such thing as a succession of the Petrine "rock" to lead the entire Church universal.

Blessings.

[FlipFlopHead]

Also if the explanation for Peter's denial of Christ is that he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost), then what about in the epistle to the Galatians where Paul says Peter was "clearly in the wrong" concerning his beliefs about table fellowship with Gentiles? This seems to be in direct contradiction to the ruling of the Council of Jerusalem, and it also seems to be a matter of both faith and morals. What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage (Gal 2:11-21).

Thank you.

[Dave]

Concerning the Council of Jerusalem, how can you say that Peter made the final and authoritative decision? There is testimony from Peter, Paul, Barnabus, and James. And if anything, it appears that James happens to make the final decision. "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God..." (15:19).

I understand the argument from Matthew 16, but that still does not entail unique infallibility since there are judgments about binding and loosing in other places (Matt 18 and John 20, I believe) which are not solely to Peter. Also, it does not suggest any such thing as a succession of the Petrine "rock" to lead the entire Church universal.

The Pope, with the bishops in union with him are infallible as a unit when they come together in a council, as was done at the Council of Jerusalem.

As for your reference to Matthew 18, I don't see a passage regarding binding and loosing. But for John 20, the passage you refer to has to do with confessing our sins to priests, not the authority of the Pope.

Also if the explanation for Peter's denial of Christ is that he was not yet filled with the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost), then what about in the epistle to the Galatians where Paul says Peter was "clearly in the wrong" concerning his beliefs about table fellowship with Gentiles? This seems to be in direct contradiction to the ruling of the Council of Jerusalem, and it also seems to be a matter of both faith and morals. What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage (Gal 2:11-21).

That had to do with church discipline, which can be changed, as it's neither doctrine nor dogma. It's actually not a matter of faith or morals.

[FlipFlopHead]

It seems that Paul disagrees, or else why would he spend so much time lecturing Peter in Galatians 2? It seems Peter's actions were showing a false belief... one that itself was condemned by the Council of Jerusalem. Or am I mistaken?

And the Matthew 18 verse is in verse 18. It gives a collective "binding and loosing" authority to the disciples (or the "Church").

[Dave]

As for Peter rebuking Paul, here's a snippet from an essay by John Hellman on Matt1618's Apologetics Site:

A LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Peter is accused of acting hypocritically. To act hypocritically is to say one thing and then to act contrary. This passage necessarily implies that while Peter’s actions were wrong, his teachings were all the while correct.

THE INTERPRETATION OF SAINT JEROME

Saint Jerome advances a different interpretation (in his Letter 112, sections 4-18, 404 AD) that he says he received from the Fathers of the Church. And he implies that he does not know any Father who supports the literal interpretation. People that Saint Jerome considered "Fathers" of the Church would obviously be people who are much closer to times of the Apostles and therefore people who had much closer contact to the thoughts and traditions of the Apostles themselves and what was really intended by Paul and what really happened in Antioch. Certainly, people who knew the Apostles, or who new the followers of the Apostles, where privilege to more information than just what was recorded in Sacred Scriptures. For example, the Bible does not give Peter’s response to Paul or Peter’s explanation for his actions.

Saint Jerome, one of the greatest thinkers of the early church, gives several problematic difficulties that a person encounters when he assumes a literal understanding of Paul’s words, and thereby assumes a sin on the part of Saint Peter. Jerome points out how that is was to Saint Peter that the Lord revealed that the Gospel was open to the uncircumcised Gentiles in Acts chapters 10, and 11. Jerome also points out how it was much later in chapter 15 that a dispute arose among others in the Church over whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised.

At this point we must examine what happened in Acts 15 and after that return to the discussion of how to interpret Galatians.

We read in Acts 15:2 "…it was decided that Paul, Barnabas… should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." At the Council in Jerusalem it is reported that Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe...' " Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told "The whole assembly fell silent..."

Who had more authority in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter or James ? Some say that the reference to James’s "judgment" in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority.

Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 "After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath."

However, it should be noted that James begins his discourse with a specific reference to Peter and his declaration. James accepts what Peter proclaimed, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement the Peter’s decision.

Also, Peter’s voice was not just one of many because we are told that he gave his decision "after much debate" which implies that the debate was over when Peter took the floor. Furthermore, Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, we are told that he rose up to do so. Standing in Jewish culture was a posture of affirmation and enforcement. The fact that the "whole assembly fell silent" after Peter had spoken showed the attitude of the Church after the Rock had issued his judgment. The attitude of the Council might well have been characterized by Saint Augustine’s famous quote "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished." (Sermo 131, 6:10 in 417 AD.)

Another observation comes to light when we compare the above text of Galatians and Acts 15. It is worth noting that it was the people who " came from James" that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. (see above.) Cf. Acts 11:2-4 Since it was the members of James’s own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that Luke recorded James’s decision to follow Peter. Presumably, James’s community would have been left with no other decision but to get in line behind Peter as well.

All of these points show that is was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.

Returning back to the discussion Galatians and Paul’s "rebuke" of Peter we note that Acts 10 -15 show that even before Paul, Peter came to see that the ceremonial laws were no longer in effect. And further more "Peter was the prime mover in issuing this decree" for the rest of the Church.

The context of Galatians shows that Paul regarded Peter of such a great authority it is hard to imagine Paul literally rebuking Peter. Saint Jerome quoting Galatians 1:18; 2:1-2 writes,

" ‘Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.’ In the following context, again, he adds: ‘Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles;’ proving that he had not had confidence in his preaching of the gospel if he had not been confirmed by the consent of Peter and those who were with him. The next words are, ‘but privately to them that were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.’ "

Then after quoting Galatians 2:11-14 Jerome writes,

"No one can doubt, therefore, that the Apostle Peter was himself the author of that rule with deviation from which he is charged. The cause of that deviation, moreover, is seen to be fear of the Jews. For the Scripture says, that ‘at first he did eat with the Gentiles, but that when certain had come from James he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.’ Now he feared the Jews, to whom he had been appointed apostle, lest by occasion of the Gentiles they should go back from the faith in Christ; imitating the Good Shepherd in his concern lest he should lose the flock committed to him."

Peter, like the Good Shepherd, was going to those who were weak in their faith out of fear that he might lose them. Peter knew that he could clarify things to the Gentiles later. It seems as though Paul, in anticipation of what he knew would be Peter’s response, provided Peter with an opportunity to clarify his position to the Gentiles. Paul did this by "rebuking" him, in a figurative sense, because he was wrong, if his actions were to be understood that the ceremonial laws were still binding.

If a person takes the words literally and says "Yes, Peter was wrong" he is faced with an even more difficult example in Paul’s own life for which there would be no valid explanation. Saint Jerome writes, "As I have shown, therefore, that Peter was thoroughly aware of the abrogation of the law of Moses, but was compelled by fear to pretend to observe it, let us now see whether Paul, who accuses another, ever did anything of the same kind himself."

Jerome quotes Acts 16:1-3 "He (Paul) reached (also) Derbe and Lystra where there was a disciple named Timothy… and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

(Note: The Greek word #4942 "sunupokrinomai" in Galatians 2: 13 is translated in various English editions as "acting hypocritically," "acted insincerely," and "dissembled." To dissemble is to dissimulate.)

And then Jerome adds,

"O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter for dissimulation, because he withdrew himself from the Gentiles through fear of the Jews who' came from James, why art thou, notwithstanding thine own doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a Gentile, nay more, a Gentile himself (for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised)? Thou wilt answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.?’ If, then, thou forgiveth thyself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, forgive Peter also, who has precedence above thee, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews."

In addition Jerome quotes Acts 18:18 where Paul cuts his hair in accordance to the Nazirite vow and comments,

"Be it granted that he was compelled through fear of the Jews in the other case to do what he was unwilling to do; wherefore did he let his hair grow in accordance with a vow of his own making, and afterwards, when in Cenchrea, shave his head according to the law, as the Nazarites, who had given themselves by vow to God, were wont to do, according to the law of Moses ?"

Jerome also quotes Acts 21: 18-26 where Paul gives instructions for four men to have their heads shaved, which was according to the Nazirite vow, and then purified himself with them and made an offering in the temple, all in accordance with the Old Covenant ceremonial laws.

Acts 21:18-26 "The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry. They praised God when they heard it but said to him, "Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law. They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived. So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law… So Paul took the men, and on the next day after purifying himself together with them entered the temple to give notice of the day when the purification would be completed and the offering made for each of them."

In commenting on this passage Jerome says,

"Paul, here again let me question thee: Why didst thou shave thy head, why didst thou walk barefoot according to I (the) Jewish ceremonial law, why didst thou offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for thee according to the law? Thou wilt answer, doubtless, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, thou didst pretend to be a Jew; and James and all the other elders taught thee this dissimulation. But thou didst not succeed in escaping, after all. For when thou wast on the point of being killed in a tumult which had arisen, thou wast rescued by the chief captain of the band, and was sent by him to Caesarea, guarded by a careful escort of soldiers, lest the Jews should kill thee as a dissembler, and a destroyer of the law; and from Caesarea coming to Rome, thou didst, in thine own hired house, preach Christ to both Jews and Gentiles, and thy. testimony was sealed under Nero's sword."

"We have learned, therefore, that through fear of the Jews both Peter and Paul alike pretended that they observed the precepts of the law. How could Paul have the assurance and effrontery to reprove in another what he had done himself ? I at least, or, I should rather say, others before me, have given such explanation of the matter as they deemed best, not defending the use of falsehood in the interest of religion, as you charge them with doing, but teaching the honorable exercise of a wise discretion; seeking both to show the wisdom of the apostles, and to restrain the shameless blasphemies of Porphyry, who says that Peter and Paul quarreled with each other in childish rivalry, and affirms that Paul had been inflamed with envy on account of the excellences of Peter, and had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption, reproving in another that which he himself had done. They, in answering him, gave the best interpretation of the passage which they could find; what interpretation have you to propound ? Surely you must intend to say something better than they have said, since you have rejected the opinion of the ancient commentators."

(chapter 4, section 12) "You say in your letter: ‘You do not require me to teach you in what sense the apostle says, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;" ’ and other such things in the same passage, which are to be ascribed to the compassion of pitying love, not to the artifices of intentional deceit. For he that ministers to the sick becomes as if he were sick himself, not inDouche falsely pretending to be under the fever, but considering with the mind of one truly sympathizing what he would wish done for himself if he were in the sick man's place. Paul was inDouche a Jew; and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way, and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, even when he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these, but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers; provided only that they did not build on these their hope of salvation, since the salvation which was foreshadowed in these has now been brought in by the Lord Jesus."

Jerome sums up his commentary in section 17 with

"…for I say that both Peter and Paul, through fear of the believing Jews, practiced, or rather pretended to practice, the precepts of the Jewish law; whereas you maintain that they did this out of pity, ‘not with the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the sympathy of a compassionate deliverer.’ But by both this is equally admitted, that (whether from fear or from pity) they pretended to be what they were not. As to your argument against our view, that he ought to have become to the Gentiles a Gentile, if to the Jews he became a Jew, this favors our opinion rather than yours: for as he did not actually become a Jew, so he did not actually become a heathen; and as he did not actually become a heathen, so he did not actually become a Jew. His conformity to the Gentiles consisted in this, that he received as Christians the uncircumcised who believed in Christ, and left them free to use without scruple meats which the Jewish law prohibited; but not, as you suppose, in taking part in their worship of idols. For ‘in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but the keeping of the commandments of God.’ "

At this point we must give the challenge that Jerome makes in section 4 of his letter.

"If any one be dissatisfied with the interpretation here given, by which it is shown that neither did Peter sin, nor did Paul rebuke presumptuously a greater than himself, he is bound to show how Paul could consistently blame in another what he himself did." It seems as though Paul learned from Peter’s good example in Galatians chapter 2 and imitated it in order to shepherd those weak in their faith.

[Dave]

As for Matthew 18:18 (sorry I missed it the 1st time -- my brain doesn't want to work today), yes, Jesus gives authority to the disciples. But remember, they were the first bishops of the Church, that is, the first hierarchy. Remember that I said the Pope AND the bishops in union with him are infallible when the come together in a council. And they're also infallible when, although they aren't together in a council, they agree that a given teaching is from God concerning faith and morals.

[Aloysius]

You realize, Aloysius, that "Pax et Amo Christi" means "Peace of Christ and I love", right?  Do you mean to say "Peace and love of Christ"?  If so, write "Pax et Amor Christi".

oooooooooops! maybe i should just stick 2 english, im not smart enough 4 latin!

Peace and Love of Christ!