Ref. Section:church Authority/apostolic Succession

[phatcatholic]

pham,

this is where you post info which proves that church authority and apostolic succession is necessary in order to maintain the unity of the church.

thanks,

phatcatholic

[cmotherofpirl]

TRADITION IS NOT A DIRTY WORD

Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of "dirty word."

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of "Sola Scriptura," or "Scripture Alone," which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or "rule of faith" for evangelical Protestants today. "Sola Scriptura" by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.

First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church's authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus' conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like "your tradition," "commandments of men," "tradition of men," as opposed to "the commandment of God." St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God's true traditions). Corrupt Pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus - see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian Tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.

The Greek word for "tradition" in the New Testament is "paradosis." It occurs four times in the Bible: in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: ". . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you." (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV "ordinances" as "tradition{s}").

2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ". . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle's mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical "tradition of men."

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn't read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.

Furthermore, the related Greek words "paradidomi" and "paralambano" are usually rendered "delivered" and "received" respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:

1) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures."

2) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: ". . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

3) Jude 3: ". . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

(Cf.Lk 1:1-2, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:23, Gal 1:9,12, 2 Pet 2:21)

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as "word of God," "doctrine," "holy commandment," "faith," and "things believed among us." All are "delivered" and "received":

1) Traditions "delivered" (1 Cor 11:2), "taught by word or epistle" (2 Thes 2:15), and "received" (2 Thes 3:6).

2) The Gospel "preached" and "received" (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).

3) Word of God "heard" and "received" (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).

4) Doctrine "delivered" (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).

5) Holy Commandment "delivered" (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).

6) The Faith "delivered" (Jude 3).

7) "Things believed among us" "delivered" (Lk 1:1-2).

Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul's writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, "gospel," "word of God," and "tradition" are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that "tradition" is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then "gospel" and "word of God" are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.

To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:

1) 2 Timothy 1:13-14: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (14) That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."

2) 2 Timothy 2:2: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to "hold fast" his oral teaching "heard of me," but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (capital "T"), or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, "apostolic succession." The phrase "Deposit of Faith" is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3).

The Catholic Church considers itself merely the Custodian or Guardian of this Revelation from God. These doctrines can and do develop and become more clearly understood over time with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13-15). The development of doctrine is a complex topic, but suffice it to say that although doctrines develop, they cannot change their essential nature in the least. And doctrines with which Protestants agree developed too. For example, the Trinity was only established in its definitive and lasting form in the 4th century, after much deliberation. It was always believed in some sense, but came to be understood in much greater depth and exactitude by the Church, as a result of the challenges of heretics such as the Arians (similar to Jehovah's Witnesses) who disbelieved in it partially or totally.

Protestants who are perplexed or infuriated by the seeming "corruption," "excessive growth," or "extra-biblical nature" of some distinctive aspects of Catholic Tradition, must read an extraordinary book by John Henry Newman, a brilliant Anglican clergyman who converted to Catholicism after writing it in 1845. It is called An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (a misnomer since it runs about 450 pages!) - well worth the time for anyone seeking to fairly examine the Church's philosophy of organic development and its denial of the Protestant tradition of "Sola Scriptura."

The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity - the authoritative and insired written revelation of God's New Covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., Tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture. The biblical books were not all immediately obvious to all Christians. Many notable Church Fathers accepted books as part of Scripture which are not now so recognized (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement). Many others didn't accept certain canonical books until very late (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation).

Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q'uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of "Sola Scriptura" have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the "Bible Alone" mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.

In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as "twin fonts of the one divine well-spring" (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.

[cmotherofpirl]

THis is a big document :

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM

[cmotherofpirl]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ60.HTM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ176.HTM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ486.HTM

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ250.HTM

[cmotherofpirl]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html

[cmotherofpirl]

The Marks of the Church and the Early Church

Acts 22:18 Jesus to St. Paul: "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me."

Acts 23:11 Jesus to St. Paul: "Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."

What can we know about Christ's Church from Scripture? It:

is one, unified Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, John 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 12:5, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, Corinthians 3:3-4, Corinthians 10:17, Corinthians 11:18-19, Corinthians 12:12-27, Corinthians 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1

is holy, but not all who belong to it will be saved Matthew 7:21–23, Ephesians 5:25–27, Revelation 19:7–8

is universal (ie, "katholikos" in Greek, or "Catholic") Matthew 28:19–20, Revelation 5:9–10

is Apostolic Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 9:6-8, John 20:21-23, Acts 5:5, Ephesians 2:19–20

is hierarchical and has bishops (episkopos), priests (presbyteros or "elders"), and deacons (diakonos) Acts 1:20, Acts 15:2-6, Acts 20:28, Acts 21:18, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:7, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Peter 2:25,

is the Pillar and Ground of Truth

1 Timothy 3:15

is the "light of the world", visible, cannot be hid Matt. 5:14

was founded by Christ through Peter, whom He made the Church's earthly father, and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against it Matthew 16:18-19 (see also page on Peter as "The Rock" for evidence of Peter's authority among the Apostles)

The Church's priests and bishops:

were sent and commissioned by Jesus Mark 6:7, John 15:5, John 20:21, Romans 10:15, 2 Corinthians 5:20

were ordained and acted as representatives of Jesus

Mark 3:14, Luke 10:16, John 13:20, Acts 14:23, Acts 16:4, 1 Timothy 2:7, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:23, Titus 1:5

had the authority to bind or to loose ("to forbid" and "to permit" with reference to interpretation of the law, and "to condemn" or "to acquit") Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, Luke 24:47, John 20:21-23, James 5:15, Acts 5:2-11, 1 Corinthians 5:3-13, 2 Corinthians 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, Titus 3:10

had the authority to perform Baptisms and offer the Eucharist Matthew 28:19, Luke 22:19, Acts 2:38-41, Acts 2:42, Acts 2:46, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:16

referred to themselves as "fathers" and thought of themselves as "fathers" 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, 1 Thessalonians 2:11, 1 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 John 2:13, Philemon 1:10 (Compare KJV with NIV)

offer pure sacrices and incense Malachi 1:10-11

annointed the sick Matthew 10:1, Luke 9:1-2, Luke 9:6, James 5:13-15

performed exorcisms Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:15, Luke 9:1

extolled celibacy for those called to it (note that in the beginnings of the Church, many of the Apostles, such as Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, were already married before beginning their ministry, but they abstained from marital relations after ordination; the Eastern Catholic Churches permit married priests -- not Bishops -- but in the early Church, they were expected to abstain from marital relations with their wives) Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:7-9, 1 Corinthians 7:20, 1 Corinthians 7:25-38

What can we learn about the early Church from extra-Scriptural sources? To all who think the early Christians got together to sing "Rock of Ages", hold hands, have a piece of mere bread once a year "in memory of Christ," and just generally indulge in a feel-good, non-hierarchical, totally egalitarian "fellowship" with each other, here are a few writings to ponder. Do these words of St. Cyprian of Carthage (baptized ca. A.D. 246) this sound like a non-hierarchical, get-together-to-fellowship kind of Church?:

You have written also, that on my account the Church has now a portion of herself in a state of dispersion, although the whole people of the Church are collected, and united, and joined to itself in an undivided concord: they alone have remained without, who even, if they had been within, would have had to be cast out. Nor does the Lord, the protector of His people, and their guardian, suffer the wheat to be snatched from His floor; but the chaff alone can be separated from the Church, since also the apostle says, "For what if some of them have departed from the faith? shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid; for God is true, but every man a liar." And the Lord also in the Gospel, when disciples forsook Him as He spoke, turning to the twelve, said, "Will ye also go away?" then Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the word of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure, that Thou art the Son of the living God." Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is inDouche connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

In the 1st century, St. Ignatius, Peter's appointee to the Antiochian bishopric, addressed his letter to the Roman Church like this:

...to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

In his letter to the Smyraean Church he wrote:

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist [the Catholic word for "Communion"], which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

In his letter to the Ephesians:

[speaking of Bishops] For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And inDouche Onesimus [see Colossians 4:8-10 and Philemon 1:10] himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, inDouche, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

While Scripture is evidence enough for the marks of Christ's Church, we can see in the writings of Ignatius -- written in the first century, within 67 years of Christ's resurrection, by a close friend and appointee of the Apostle Peter and friend of Polycarp -- that the early Church had a very Catholic interpretation of Scripture:

the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)

the threefold character of the hierarchy (Epistle to the Magnesians)

the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Epistles to the Magnesians, Smyraenians, and the Trallians)

the importance of unity of the Church (Epistles to the Trallians, Philadelphians, and the Magnesians)

emphasis on the holiness of the Church (Epistles to the Smyraeans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans)

the catholicity of the Church (Letter to the Smyraeans)

the infallibility of the Church (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)

the doctrine of the Eucharist -- i.e., belief in Transsubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in Communion (Epistle to the Smyraeans)

the Incarnation (Epistle to the Ephesians)

the supernatural virtue of virgnity (Epistle to Polycarp)

the religious character of matrimony (Epistle to Polycarp)

the value of united prayer (Epistle to the Ephesians)

the primacy of the Chair of Peter (Epistle to the Romans, introduction)

a dencouncing of the (later Protestant) doctrine of private judgement in matters of religion (Epistle to the Philadelphians)1

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, born between A.D. 115 and 125 (or between 130 and 142, the date is unclear though it is certain that he met Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna) wrote in his Adversus Haereses Book III Ch. IV about sorting Truth from heresy:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

Which Church was he talking about? The Church built by Christ on the rock of Peter:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere" (ibid., Book 3, Ch 2, 2).

I challenge Protestants to plunge themselves into early Church history! Read the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Irenaeus, Polycarp, St. Augustine, etc... They are rich with Catholic doctrine -- and the earliest evidence we have for what the Church was like in its earliest days!

Footnote

1 Information from the Catholic Encyclopedia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Scripture

Matthew 7:21-23

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 9:8

But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Matthew 12:25

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew. 28:19–20

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 17:20-23

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

John 20:21-23

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Acts 4:32

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Romans 12:5

So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Romans 16:17

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3-4

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1 Corinthians 4:14-15

I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [NIV: I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel]

1 Corinthians 10:17

For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1 Corinthians 11:18-19

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

2 Corinthians 12:20

For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:

Ephesians 2:19-20

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ephesians 4:3-6

Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Ephesians 5:25–27

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Philippians 1:27

Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Philippians 2:2-3

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

1 Thessalonians 2:11

As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children

1 Timothy 6:3-5

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Titus 3:9-10

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

James 3:16

For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

2 Peter 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Revelation 5:9–10

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 19:7-8

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cmotherofpirl]

The Primacy of Peter

Bottom line: Christ spoke Aramaic and nicknamed Simon "Kepha," ("Cephas") which means "Rock." Most of the New Testament was written in Greek (or translated into Greek, as is possible in the case of Matthew's Book), and Kepha was translated as "Petros" or "Petra" (depending on stylistic needs of the context), which both mean "Rock." In our English Bibles, "Petros" and "Petra" get translated into "Peter." 1 Peter IS "the Rock," the earthly head of Christ's Church as Christ Himself states in Matthew 16. This would be as if you and I, speaking English and discussing someone named Mary, were quoted by an Italian who wrote her name as "Maria," which a Frenchman translated as "Marie".

Many Protestants try to get around Matthew 16:15-19 by pointing to 1 Corinthians 10:3-5 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." But this is something no Catholic would disagree with! Yes, the SPIRITUAL Rock, Christ, the High Priest and Head of the Church, authorized Peter to be the earthly Rock, His Vicar, of the Church -- the father of the New Covenant, just as God the Father made Abraham the earthly father of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 51:1-2) while remaining the ultimate, SPIRITUAL Father of that Covenant.

Some try to get around these verses in other imaginative ways, saying that Christ was talking only about Himself or only about Peter's faith, as below:

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Simon makes a profession of faith

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Jesus calls Simon blessed and Simon "bar-Jonah," which means "son of the Dove" (the Holy Spirit)

And I say also unto THEE, Jesus is talking to Simon

That THOU art Peter (KEPHA, translated into Koine Greek as "petros" meaning "rock" and into English as "Peter"), He is still talking to Simon and now renames him "Kepha," or "Rock." He said "THOU art Rock," not "I am Rock" or "your faith is rock"

AND UPON THIS ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. According to some Protestants, after just calling Simon blessed and renaming him "Rock," Jesus is suddenly talking about another "rock" (Peter's faith, or Jesus Himself)

And I will give unto THEE the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now they say He just as suddenly is talking to/about Peter again -- as He gives him the keys to Heaven!

But reading the verse honestly, especially in context and without anti-Roman prejudice, shows the above sort of rendering to be -- well, quite absurd. It's almost as though they would have it read, "Simon, you are blessed! Know what I'm going to do, you old son of the Holy Spirit you? I'm going to call you Kepha, which means "rock," which the Koine Greek translators of what I am saying will write as "petros," which 1,500 years from now people called "Protestants" will insist means "little pebble." The Protestants will have it right: calling you a little pebble is what I inDouche mean 'cause that's all you are -- a tiny, insignificant stone. Kind of Me to point that out after your profession of faith, eh? And, hey, forget about My having just called you blessed and how an insult simply doesn't fit the context of what I've been saying. It's the schizophrenia acting up again. Speaking of which, and by the way, while you're here, take the keys to Heaven, please; I don't really mean anything by this gesture at all, I just thought it'd be a nice thing to do." Silliness!

Now obviously Christ re-named Simon "Peter" in response to Simon's confession of faith in Christ the Rock, the Foundation Stone, so the Protestant assertion that "the rock" was "Peter's faith" has some merit in a circuitous way, and of course, Cephas the rock derives his authority from and must never contradict the Rock Who is Christ, but in addition to the exegesis above, it simply can't be ignored that Peter exercised authority among the apostles: he was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32); he was the apostles' spokesman (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69, Acts 4:1-13, Acts 2:37-41, Acts 5:15); he exhorted the other bishops (1 Peter 5:1); he was there at the most important moments (Matthew 14:28-32, Matthew 17:24, Mark 10:28); he was the first to proclaim Christ's divinity (Matthew 16:16); he was the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), thus starting the whole "Church era"; he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7); he had the revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48); he alone was told by Christ after His resurrection to "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17) and strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32).

But where is the word "pope" in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father,"because that's what "Pope" means ("pope" means "papa") . But you won't find the English word "pope" there any more than you'd find the word "Trinity." The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning. The ecclesiastical offices of Bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which is derived the word "priest"), and deacons (diakonos) were already in place in the New Testament (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:25, Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Timothy 5:17). The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church.

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his "Church History" who succeeded him:

Ch. 2

"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle".

Ch. 13

"After [Emperor] Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years [Note: it was actually 9 years], delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months."

Ch. 15

"In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: 'With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.'"

And so forth. (read what that 4th Pope, Clement, wrote about apostolic succession here)

St. Peter was martyred in Rome in A.D. 67 by crucifixion, asking to be crucified upside-down 2 because he felt unworthy to be crucified in the same way as our Lord. His body was buried on Vatican Hill, at the present site of St. Peter's Basilica. You can read about his (and Paul's) martyrdom in Rome in Book II, Chapter 25 of "Church History" written by the above-mentioned Eusebius of Caesaria.

The evidence of post-New Testament Church history is just as convincing. Read what the early Eastern Church fathers wrote about Peter and his successors.

Footnotes

1 One Protestant argument revolves around the idea that there are two words for "Rock" in the Greek language: petra and petros, and that the former refers to a big boulder while the latter refers to a small pebble. They claim that because the Greek rendering of Matthew's Gospel uses the word "petros," that Jesus was playing down Peter's significance. Petros and petra meant exactly the same thing at the time Matthew was translated into or written in Greek, as Greek literature attests. Petros was chosen because it's a masculine noun and Peter was a man. If you had High School French, here's an analogy for you: even if petros and petra had different meanings in the Koine Greek spoken at the time of Christ (which isn't so), the use of the masculine form, petros, by the Greek translator of Matthew would have made sense anyway. Say you were wanting to refer to a man metaphorically as "a portal" and were wanting to give him a nickname that reflected that. In French, you could call him "la porte," a feminine noun meaning door, or "le portail," a masculine noun meaning gate. It'd make sense to use the masculine noun even though "gate" is a smaller thing than "door." At any rate, "big rock" or "little rock," rock is rock and Christ said THOU art "Rock" -- and Jesus was not speaking Greek, but Aramaic and used the word "Kepha"; this is why Simon Peter is most often called "Cephas."

That Peter was originally named Kepha is clear when we see that that is the name used to refer to him in Corinthians and Galatians (see, for example, I Corinthians 1:11-13, 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, 1 Corinthians 9:4-6, 1 Corinthians 15:4-6, Galatians 2:8-10, depending on Bible versions. Go to the Bible Gateway and search for "Cephas").

2 The inverted Latin Cross is known as "St. Peter's Cross." Sadly, some Satanists have co-opted it for their demonic rituals. Also sad is that some ignorant Protestants see the Pope standing in front of a Peter's Cross and then accuse the Holy Father of Satanism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevant Scripture

Isaiah 22:22

And the KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isaiah 51:1-2

Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, You who seek the LORD: Look to THE ROCK [Abraham] from which you were hewn, And to the hole of the pit from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father, And to Sarah who bore you; For I called him alone, And blessed him and increased him.

Matthew 16:18-19

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That THOU art Peter, and upon this ROCK [Kepha, Cephas] I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto THEE the KEYS OF THE KINDGOM of heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever THOU shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 1:42

And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: THOU shalt be called Cephas...

John 21:15-19

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish." This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading

Who is the Rock?

Peter the Rock: A Biblical Analysis

Dave Armstrong's Papacy Page

Books on this topic

Footnote Because Stephen II was elected but never consecrated (he died 3 days after his election), he is often not counted in official lists of Popes. The Vatican's official list does not include him, listing the names of 264 Pontiffs

from Apologia

[cmotherofpirl]

Papal Supremacy in the Bible and Church Fathers

Referring to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy the Catechism notes in paragraph 882, “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." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'” (This is to be distinguished from the Infallibility, which is a supernatural gift whereby the recipient is shielded from teaching error as it pertains to the faith handed down to us by Christ). Before we examine some of the Biblical texts that reveal this supremacy, we need to point out that the Church, the family of God, is among other things a divinely ordained society and as in all societies there must be an authority whose word is final if chaos is to be avoided. The Jews, for example, had patriarchs, judges and the then kings as well as prophets. Other societies have authorities that govern have prime ministers, kings and presidents. Thus, ordinary human experience shows that the need for authority is primary, which is demonstrated by the fact that the “justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly [for the authorities are sinners like us] or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule, ‘no authority, no society.’”

In the present age so often wandering without a moral compass, Catholics might be so bold as to ask, who but the Pope, as Christ's representative, has the moral authority to restore morality to society at large? Since Christ stands at the center of human history and all humans will stand before Him as He judges them at the end of time, it seems reasonable and Catholics believe He has provided His Church with a supreme pastor to rule in concert with bishops. When Simon was first introduced to Jesus, Jesus said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (Aramaic for Peter). Underscore this please, Shimon Kephas literally means “Hear the Rock.” This pun is hardly accidental. Old Testament men being given a divine commission by God were given a new name beginning with Jacob and Abram, who became Israel and Abraham, respectively. Jesus spoke these words after Simon, first among the disciples, acknowledged Christ as the “Son of the living God” in sight of the great temple atop the huge rock at Caesarea Philippi on which stood a temple dedicated to Augustus.

With this backdrop, Jesus responds to Peter’s faith by saying: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:17-19]

Those who try to claim that Jesus was referring only to Himself or to Peter’s confession of faith manipulate the words and ignore the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which has only one word for rock, Kepha. This is the word used by John in 1:42 and by Paul in 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:15 and 15:5 as well as throughout Galatians (e.g., Gal 1:18; 2:9; 2:11; and 2:14). Many prominent Protestant scholars agree today (e.g., R.T. France and D. A. Carson). Of course, the Old Testament is full of instances where God is referred to as “the Rock” (e.g., Ps 18:2) and St. Paul informs us that the Rock that followed the Israelites in their desert wanderings was Christ (1 Cor 10:4). Christ is of course the foundation (though in Ephesians 2:20 the apostles and martyrs are also referred to as part of the foundation with Christ), but here Christ appears as the architect not the foundation, declaring, “On this rock will I build.” A great apologist of the Counter- Reformation, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) explains:

By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell [see Mt 16:18] can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .

St. Francis also notes:

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of the Master, but it is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of the hierarchy besides Our Lord, but rather in our Lord: as we call him the most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . .

Peter and his successors as Bishops of Rome are the vicars of Christ [a "vicar" is one who stands-in for Christ] because Christ so ordained it. The keys are the symbol of the royal dynasty of David founded on a covenant with God about 1000 B.C., from which Christ the Messiah is descended (Mt 1) and which He holds as the rightful King (Rev 3: 7), but He entrusted them to Peter, whom He had, alone among his disciples, prayed that he be strengthen so that he might in turn “strengthen his brethren” (Lk 22:32). Although Christ is the rightful king, he entrusted these symbols of divine authority to Peter as his representative on earth. There is a Biblical analogy for just as King Hezekiah (715-686 B.C.) gave authority to his Prime Minister Eliakim (Isa 22: 20-21), so too did Jesus invest Peter. It is worth noting that Eliakim, not only exercised the King’s authority in the King’s name but was referred to in the scripture as a “father” to the people–-the word “pope” in Italian means “father.” Thus, Christ the King of the New Israel, the Church, appoints a Prime Minister to govern His household, which St. Paul says is "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Furthermore, the power to bind and loose refers to a power of jurisdiction in ancient Israel which only the King can override. These are also rabbinic terms which describe the legislative and judicial authority of the office of rabbi. They could literally bind men to their teaching with authority from God. Christ Himself said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Mt 23:2-3). Thus, just as Moses had an authoritative office, so Christ assigned a similar office to Peter. To the objection that the power to bind and loose was also given to the other Apostles (Mt 18: 17-18), we respond their power is similar but pertains only to their local jurisdiction, whereas Peter’s commission applies to the universal Church. It should be clear how important these keys are also from the Rev 1: 17-18, where Jesus says, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died and behold I am alive for evermore, I have the keys of Death and Hades. Rev 3: 7, refers to “The words of the holy one, who has the keys of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.” These are the royal keys Christ presented to Peter.

In the 21st chapter of John’s Gospel, Peter is challenged three times to express his love for Jesus. Jesus’ response to Peter’s three professions of love are in succession “feed my sheep,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” These are commands to exercise authority over Christ’s flock, under the authority of Christ. Earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep? Now, clearly, Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that’s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still “my sheep.” Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ’s “stand-in” after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock. And we can see this more clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is “boskein” --a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is actually the Greek “poimanao” --the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 7:17; 12:5, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. We see this “rule” in Rev 19:15, “From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.” Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the supreme pastor of the Church in Christ’s physical absence” [This term is also used to describe the rule of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Pet 5:2].

The primacy of Peter is underlined by Scripture. In the Gospels and the first half of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter is the dominant personality. He is spoken of 191 times, while according to Archbishop Fulton Sheen, all the other apostles together are spoken of only 130 times (John is second to Peter with 48 mentions). Peter is always listed first when a list of the Apostles is given (e.g., Mt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 16:14) and even the angel tells Mary Magdalene to go and tell “His disciples and Peter” that He is risen. Paul informs us in 1 Cor 15:5 that Jesus appeared first to Kephas, then to the twelve. In Acts 1, it is Peter who calls for the filling of the office [episkopos], or as the King James versions translates it, the “bishopric” of Judas. In Acts 2, Peter exercises primacy again on Pentecost when he becomes the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church age, explaining the speaking in tongues as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2. In Acts 3, he performs the first miracle of the Church age when he heals the lame man and in Acts 4, after being arrested with John for preaching the Resurrection, Peter “filled with the Holy Spirit” speaks boldly in front of the Sanhedrin. In Act 5, Peter’s very shadow produces miracle after miracle for faith filled persons. Later in Acts 5, Peter prophesies, in turn, the immediate deaths of converts Ananias and his wife Sapphira, for holding back some of the proceeds from their property, which they alleged to have given entirely to the Church. Peter said they lied, not to him, but “to the Holy Spirit.” This was the first anathema. Peter is the first to refute heresy, when Simon Magus proposes the power to give the Holy Spirit be given him in Acts 8 and the first after Christ to raise a man from the dead in Acts 9:40.

In Acts 10, Peter exercises the power to bind and to loose by admitting the first Gentiles into the Church (Cornelius) after receiving a vision from Jesus to do so. Although some objections were raised at the thought of admitting the unclean Gentiles, Peter’s explanation was accepted by the other Apostles in Acts 11–-the Church was now Catholic (which means "universal"). In Acts 15, Peter annunciates another dogma, declaring that Jewish Christians need not follow the Law of Moses as regards circumcision, which is accepted by the first Church Council at Jerusalem "in silence" and without debate and sent out by letter to the Churches as the “decision of the Holy Spirit.” Other examples could be cited but I think the point is made that the papacy is biblically based and derived from the primacy of St. Peter. Subsequent expressions of humility by Peter (e.g., 1 Pet 5:1-3 where he refers to himself as a "fellow elder") do not negate the primacy he was given by the Lord Jesus, but rather are a reflection of divine injunction, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you."

In the Great Commission of Mt 28: 16-20, Jesus told the Apostles to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, to the close of the age.'" The office of the bishops and primacy of the Bishop of Rome or Pope, as he was later called, were to continue. This is evident in the writings of the early Church Fathers. St. Clement, the third Pope, writing to the Corinthians about 80 A.D. concerning a dispute over removing some of the clergy, noted, “"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appoint[ed] those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Tertullian, a Church Father writing about 200 A.D. in his work, "The Prescription Against the Heretics" notes, "Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles [Titus 1: 7; 1 Tim 3: 1-2] or the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Symrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles."

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. inDouche, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. inDouche, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. inDouche this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).

*If you have questions or comments, please e-mail us at lcchristianword@earthlink.net. For a good new book on the papacy, we recommend Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray or Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook of the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and Rev. Mr. David Hess.

from CAtholic faith and reason

[cmotherofpirl]

DID JESUS REALLY MAKE PETER POPE?

Fr. William Saunders

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Protestant friend of mine and I recently had a debate over whether Jesus actually made St. Peter the first pope. Although I cited Matthew 16, my friend had some other interpretation of it. What is a good answer to this question?—A reader.

In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is inDouche found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here, Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"

St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."

Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.

The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some anti-papal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immovable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."

"The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest war-making power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing—the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.

Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of "first among equals."

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down.

As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to St. Peter did not end with his life but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus in his <Adversus Haereses> described how the Church at Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul and traced the handing on of the office of St. Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus), and so on, through 12 successors to his own present day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian in <De Praescriptione Haereticorum> asserted the same point as did Origen in his <Commentaries on John>, St. Cyprian of Carthage in his <The Unity of the Catholic Church> and many others.

Granted, the expression of papal authority becomes magnified after the legalization of Christianity and especially after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing political chaos. Nevertheless, our Church boasts of an unbroken line of legitimate successors of St. Peter who stand in the stead of Christ We must always remember that one of the official titles of the pope, first taken by Pope Gregory the Great is "Servant of the Servants of God."

As we think of this answer, may we be mindful of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and pray for his intentions.

Fr. Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.

This article appeared in the October 20, 1994 issue of "The Arlington Catholic Herald." Courtesy of the "Arlington Catholic Herald" diocesan newspaper of the Arlington (VA) diocese. For subscription information, call 1-800-377-0511 or write 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22203.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from ewtn

[cmotherofpirl]

The following is the transcripts of Scott Hahn's audio and video

tape presentation, "The Pope: Holy Father" as it appears in the

"Catholic Adult Education on Video Program" with Scott and Kimberly

Hahn. Other transcripts are available for download as well. For more

information on this program, download (OVERVIEW.TXT) from the St.

Joseph Communications file library. This program is also available

for purchase either as a whole (20 Video tapes with study guides) or

individual programs (1 Video tape with accompanying study guide) from

the St. Joseph Communications Marketplace. Other tapes and books are

available as well.

This program deals with one of the most misunderstood and often

attacked aspects of the Church: the Pope. Scott shows from Scripture

and tradition how the Pope is not an authoritarian overseer but rather

a spiritual father appointed by Christ to care for the Family of God

on earth.

A CLOSER LOOK AT CHRIST'S CHURCH

Answering Common Objections

The Pope, Holy Father

Program 14 Transcripts

Scott Hahn

This is the first in a series of five presentations that we are

going to be giving on Answering Common Objections to the Catholic

Faith. Now, this morning's presentation is going to be dealing with

the Pope. I have subtitled it Holy Father because I hope that this

week will give you a chance to integrate in your own heart a vision of

the church that Christ has established as the Family of God. This is

a theme that Vatican II really emphasized.

Introduction

Many people think that Vatican II's primary vision of the Church

as a communion was summarized in the phrase, "The People of God," but

the Old Testament roots for that phrase, "People of God," "am' Yahweh"

actually has as its primary meaning, "Family of God." That term

"people," am' literally denotes kinship, so it could be translated

"kinsmen" or "Family of God," and that's how most Old Testament

scholars translate it. So when we look at the Pope, as we will this

morning, we are going to be looking at him, not as some tyrant, not as

some authoritarian "know-it-all" and not as some magician who can just

kind of concoct a new revelation to satisfy all parties, or anything

like that. We are going to be looking at a father figure that Christ

has established over the family that He has purchased with His own

blood.

Now, there are many misconceptions that people have. They

sometimes think that the teaching of the Church is that the Pope is

infallible; therefore, he can't sin. That's nonsense, although the

present Pontiff goes to confession, I understand, at least once a

week. He's got to have something to confess for it to be a valid

sacrament administered to him. Others think that he always says the

best thing at the right time. No, the Church has never insisted upon

the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right

time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope

perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says

the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that

includes an ambiguity.

So we are responsible as Catholics to understand, not only what

the Church teaches, but what the Church doesn't teach to help clear up

these misconceptions. The Church teaches in a simple summary that the

Holy Father, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to Peter

and the Vicar of Christ, when he speaks as the universal teacher from

the Chair of Peter in defining faith and morals does so with an

infallible charism or an infallible gift through the Holy Spirit so

that we can give to him the full assent of our intellect and our will,

and we can hear the voice of Christ coming to us through the voice of

the Pope when he is speaking in this capacity.

Now we are going to flush off on the meanings of this as time goes

on, but there are three basic issues or problems. First of all, can we

prove Papal Primacy, that is, that the Pope is not just the first

among equals but that he has a certain primacy, a unique supremacy in

relation to all of the Bishops. We have to begin by showing that Jesus

conferred this gift upon Peter. Then secondly, we have to establish

the doctrine of Papal succession. If we can prove from the Bible that

Peter was granted by Jesus a certain primacy, that doesn't go far

enough. We then have to go on to establish Papal succession; that is,

Peter had successors to whom would be entrusted the same gift or

charism. Then thirdly, we have to establish evidence for Papal

infallibility, that is that God grants a gift to the successors of

Peter for them, not to give new revelations. The Church insists that

no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and

for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of

the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in

a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining

and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that

third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they

transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a

charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error.

Infallibility, in a sense, is a negative gift. It doesn't mean he

always says the right thing, it's always the right time; but that when

he speaks with the authority that Christ gives to him, we have this

Divine guarantee, because Christ promises that "I will build my

Church." The Church of Christ is not a human institution first and

foremost. Jesus identifies it as His own. "My church" and the

institution and edification and up-building of the Church Jesus claims

for himself, "I will build my Church." So, whatever instruments that

Jesus chooses to use, ultimately are going to be under His control and

He is going to be using them with this ultimate intention in mind, of

building His Church, of governing His family and thus bringing about

the guarantee that He imparts in Matthew 16, as we will see, that the

gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and will not

prevail against the Rock which is Peter and the Popes who are in the

line of succession with Peter.

Now, I have just given to you a very quick, bird's-eye view of all

that we have to do. Now I have to confess from the bottom of my heart

and with total sincerity that we are not going to be able to do an

adequate job this morning. This is just too much! If I talk as

rapidly as I possibly could and try to get everything across and go

through all the others and everything else, I still couldn't get

through 20 percent of it. So I'm not going to talk your ears off. I'm

not going to try to plow through all of this and take three or four

hours. Instead I'm going to try to focus upon the mountain peaks, the

real highlights, so that you can see from scripture and from history

and from the Church, the key ideas that we need to use and present and

share as evidence and support for our belief and our practice as

Catholics.

We are going to first and primarily look at scripture. We are also

going to look at the historical development of the Church's

understanding and then, finally, we are going to focus on some of the

Church's teachings relative to the Pope and his authority. Before I go

on, having given you this qualification, I think I need to recommend

some sources for your study over, above and beyond our time this

morning.

First of all, I would like to recommend a book entitled,

Catholicism and Fundamentalism and the Attack on Romanism by Bible

Christians. It's written by Karl Keating, the founder and director of

"Catholic Answers" in San Diego. You may also wish to write him for a

catalog of other materials that Catholic Answers publishes, but this

book is a very adequate treatment of all of the common objections

against the Catholic faith, many of them we are not going to be able

to cover this week, and how, from scripture and also Church history,

we can answer these in a very convincing and persuasive way.

The second book that I recommend is by Dr. Alan Schreck. It's

entitled, Catholic and Christian, an Explanation of Commonly

Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs. This is a very positive and

constructive, I'd say, pastoral presentation of the Biblical evidence

and historical reasons for the Catholic beliefs. This is not directed

as much against Fundamentalists as perhaps Evangelical Protestants and

it really helps them a great deal.

There are two other books written by one of the greatest

philosophers of our century, Stanley Jaki. The first one is on my

right, And on This Rock, the Witness of One Land and Two Covenants.

He shows the geographical, historical and Biblical background for what

Jesus intended to say when He renamed Simon, "Rock" or Peter. A very

interesting book. Then, this other book of his, The Keys of the

Kingdom, a Tool's Witness to Truth focuses upon, not the Rock so much,

but the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter and his

successors. These two are full of some of the most valuable information,

interesting data, that you will come across.

At a more popular level and something you can read in ten or

fifteen minutes, Catholic Answers puts out two little brochures, two

little tracts or pamphlets. One is entitled, Papal Infallibility and

the other one is entitled, Peter and the Papacy, and you could write

Catholic Answers for that. And lastly, if you will permit me, I'll

recommend a tape that I made sitting at a desk about a year ago, up in

my study in Jolliet, Illinois, before we moved to Steubenville. It's

entitled, "Peter and the Papacy" and in this tape I focus primarily on

Matthew 16, verses 17 through 19. I focus upon three aspects that we

are going to begin with this morning: the Rock, the keys and the

guarantee of Jesus that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Papal Primacy and Succession

Now that's going to be our starting point and I'm going to take

the liberty here, if you will permit me, of summarizing what I've said

on that tape - not because I assume you have listened to the tape or

you will, but because you can, if you are so interested. And I don't

want to go into an hour's worth of detail just on one passage when

there are other important passages to cover as well. But those three

ideas are closely associated with the very important passage that we

find in the first gospel, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16, verses 17

through 19.

Let me read that passage and then I will back up and consider

those three aspects. Let's drop back to verse 13, "Now when Jesus

came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples,

'Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say

John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the

prophets'." Rather impressive testimony because these people

constitute the Old Testament Hall of Fame of Saints, here. "He said to

them, 'But who do you say that I am?'" And as is characteristic

throughout Matthew's gospel, Peter steps forward, or I should say,

speaks up. Peter is the only one to walk on water. Peter is the one

who often speaks up, representative of the twelve disciples. Verse

16, "Peter replied, 'You are the Christ,' -- the Christos, the

Anointed One in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew, 'the Son of the Living

God. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus

answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has

not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell

you, you are Peter (Petra) and on this Rock (Petros), I will build my

Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will

give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on

earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth

will have been loosed in heaven.'" And then He strictly charged the

disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ.

Now, let me just get a little personal here. Six or seven years

ago, a couple years before I became a Catholic, I had been studying

the doctrine of the Covenant. I came to an understanding of the

Covenant as a family, and with this insight I began to discover all

kinds of exciting truths, novel innovations, new discoveries that I

thought were really undiscovered before. Then as I began to dig deeper

into these libraries, I noticed that time and time again, Catholic

scholars -- I mean not just recently but going all the way back to the

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Centuries, in the Middle Ages -- the saints

and the Doctors of the Church were consistently coming up with all of

my brand new discoveries and teaching them with a kind of ho-hum

attitude like, "You all know such and such."

That really, at first it provoked me. Then it scared me and then

it led me to dig deeper and deeper into Catholic sources to see how

many of my discoveries they may have found in practically every one of

them, except the ones that were false. The Pope, though, was a different

matter. For me, the idea of a Pope who claims primacy and succession

and infallibility was a presumption, an arrogant presumption that no

man should make.

But then one day, as I was working through the Gospel of Matthew,

because that stresses, that gospel builds on the Old Testament more

than any other and especially the idea of David's kingdom. That really

seems to be the central thrust of Matthew's gospel, that Jesus is the

Son of David and He is establishing the Kingdom of David. That's how

Matthew introduces Jesus. He is the only one of the four gospel

writers who traces His genealogy right back to David, and he says,

"Jesus, the Son of David" at the very start of Matthew. That's a

common and prominent theme throughout the gospel.

So I wanted to dig deep and see what I found in this particular

passage, and on the basis of that discovery, or I should say, on the

basis of that study, I made some discoveries. First of all, I

discovered that when you read in verse 17, "Jesus answered, 'And

blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed

this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are

Peter and on this rock I will build my Church,' " I discovered that

all the evidence points to the fact that Peter is the "rock."

Now you might say, "That's as plain as the nose on your face.

What's the excitement of that discovery?" Well, non-Catholics

frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or

Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this

rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you

are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the

Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some

Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really

saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ,

the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"

Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions

were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few

minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant

scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug,

the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was

speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the

Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little

parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are

the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."

Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in

the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros

can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem

with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak

Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9

percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in

His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that

He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could

possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the

fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are

Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge

of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have

made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The

Aramaic language doesn't allow it.

Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use

two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word

in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but - I should say

petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the

feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra,

large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in

order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In

other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is

something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to

take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my

Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to

show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.

You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something

like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also

add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity

for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words,

Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the

many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an

individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.

Again, I suggest the fact that Simon is the Rock. I should say a

few things along these lines because I mentioned that I have these

Protestant quotes. I have note cards that I actually put together when

I was preparing a paper for a graduate seminar on the subject. I was

still a Protestant minister, and I was taking a graduate seminar on

the Gospel of Matthew and the professor was a Protestant. He was a

Lutheran and he knew what I wanted to do for my project and so I

presented this paper, "Peter and the Keys" and I worked at it because

I knew that he might not be open to my conclusions, that I knew what

my conclusions were going to be at the end of my research. They were

rather Catholic, neither Presbyterian nor Lutheran.

So, I worked and worked and I put these notecards together and

when I made the presentation -- I should add, this was a very

interesting experience because all the other students who presented

papers, the professor encouraged the rest of the students to interact

with the presenter. And he seldom, if ever asked questions in

interacting. He wanted the students to get involved. But when it came

to presenting a 30-page paper presenting the evidence that Peter is

the Rock and that the keys denote succession and that the Catholic

position is right, not one student spoke up for the entire two and

one-half hour seminar. He did all the talking and we even went over.

I ended up leaving the classroom like forty-five minutes after the

seminar was supposed to end. It was the most grueling cross-

examination I'd ever undergone, and I might add, I had intestinal

digestive problems for about a week afterwards because of how nerve-

wracking it was.

But at the end of the whole ordeal he said, "I think your paper is

flawless. The only fault that I found is that you have the middle

initial on one person's name in one of your footnotes wrong!" He

said, "I think your arguments are persuasive, too. I'm just grateful

that I don't think that Matthew is historically reliable, so I don't

have to follow the conclusions." I'm glad you said that, you know,

and not me.

Protestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the

Rock and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an

office that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top

evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this

in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to

Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an

early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they

give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition

to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic

or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a

relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France

saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have

given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original

saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the

building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus

concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support whatever

had happened to the Church.

Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this

you realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is

one of the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus'

beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The

other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter,

characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's

place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the

pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is

referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's

character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms

of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points

to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has

absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says,

"The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because

he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the

foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He

says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic

claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is

here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In

other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the

later Bishops of Rome." I'll overthrow that opinion in a few minutes,

I think, but France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because

we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are

not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He

is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the

Church."

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century

supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on

Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock

will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here

uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His

purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as

confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith

or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is

admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-

Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock

point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent

position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the

early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in

Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-

eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his

behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because

Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that

his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never

correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will

see."

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the

kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah

22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys

are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here

the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the

chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22

Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I

think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter

not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the

kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse

in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was

the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of

all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He

entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the

faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the

point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of

the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of,

but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and

interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In

Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very

interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to

cite this passage.

What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust

you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and

on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I

will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and

will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to

the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will

place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon.

It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom,

the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for

hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, "I will give

you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut,

and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of

honor to his father's house." Look at all of the symbols of dynastic

authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an

office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of

the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I'll just summarize it in rather

simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was

the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in

the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now

all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these

days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret

Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the

Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister

before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was

expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic

succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the

Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office

that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being

granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is

given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom,

the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority

entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because

it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I'll read

the quote. Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus

giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following

undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non-

Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22,

"The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the

same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house,

the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other

words, the Prime Minister's office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to

Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's

office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the

King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic

succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off.

Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant

theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic

Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a

Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only

comment was, "That's clever." But he said, "You don't have to follow

the Pope because of that." I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, I'm

going to have to think about it." He said, "I've never heard that

argument before." And I said, "It' s one of the basic arguments that

Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was

one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you've

never heard of him before?" I said, "I had never heard of it before

until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other

people." And he said, "That's clever." Clever, perhaps. True,

definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

He goes on to say some other things. "It is of considerable

importance," Albright says, "that in other contexts, when the

disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the

keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider

circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further

explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the

case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles

are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In

Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter

got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That

fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the

ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the

keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He

has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of

the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.

In fact, I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years

after he had left the Church, "Why are you searching heavenward in

search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to

Peter. They are inDouche the keys of heaven, but they are not found in

heaven for I left them on earth.'" This is Jesus talking, "'Peter's

mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys.

They are an office.'" Luther even saw it, "'They are a power, a

command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the

retaining and remitting of the sins of men.'" The only thing that

Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died,

which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament

background.

One of the greatest reformed Biblical scholars of this century,

Herman Liderboss, a European scholar, in his Matthew commentary says,

this is going back. I should have read this a few minutes ago. But he

says, "The slight difference between these two words, petra and

petros, has no special importance. The most likely explanation for the

change from petros, Peter, masculine, to petra is that petra was the

normal word for rock, because the feminine ending of this noun made it

unsuitable as a man's name; however, Simon was not called Petra but

Petros. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from

petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but

of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words "on this

rock," petra, inDouche, refer to Peter. Because of the revelation he had

received and the confession it had motivated in him, Peter was

appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future Church."

One of the top Evangelical, non-Catholic scholars in America,

Professor Donald Carson of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in

his book, God With Us, Themes from Matthew says, "Jesus was simply using

a pun to say that Peter is the rock on which Jesus would build His

Church." Now Dr. Carson is no Catholic Apologist. He would try to set

up arguments against the Catholic faith, I'm sure; but he's sincere and,

I think, also respectable as a scholar in insisting upon the obvious

evidence in the conclusions.

This has led an Evangelical Protestant German scholar, Gerhardt

Meier, who wrote a famous book that conservative Protestants

frequently refer to, "The End of the Historical Critical Method". In

his article, "The Church and the Gospel of Matthew," Gerhardt Meier

says on pages 58 through 60, "Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged

which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to

Peter as a person." This is a Protestant speaking now. "On this point

liberal and conservative theologians agree," and he names several

Protestant theologians from the liberal to the conservative side.

"Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The

church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of

God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning

the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to

discipline, including even to absolve sins." Professor Gerhardt

Meier is a Protestant with no interest in supporting the Catholic

claim but, as an honest scholar, admits that Peter is the one that

Jesus is giving His power to. "Peter is the rock and the keys signify,

not only disciplinary power to teach, but even to absolve sins. With

all due respect to the Protestant Reformers, we must admit that the

promise in Matthew 16-18 is directed to Peter and not to a Peter-like

faith. As Evangelical theologians, especially, we ought to look at

ourselves dispassionately and acknowledge that we often tend

unjustifiably toward an individualistic conception of faith. To

recognize the authenticity of Matthew 16:17 and following demands that

we develop a Biblically based ecclesiology or doctrine of the church."

Gerhardt Meier is showing, as an honest scholar, that the church

which Jesus speaks of is a universal church, not just a local

congregation, another favorite ploy of anti-Catholic apologists. He

says, "No, the church He's talking about is the one, holy, Catholic

Church, the universal church and the rock on which it will be built is

Peter, not Peter's confession and the keys that Jesus gives to Peter

are keys not only to teach but even to absolve sins." He's not

saying, "We all should become Catholics, but what we should honestly

do is to grant the Catholics the point. Because if we are honest in

interpreting the Bible, we have to admit these conclusions."

Another Lutheran professor, a professor of scripture and theology

at Concordia Seminary in Hong Kong, Torg Forberg wrote an article

entitled, "Peter, High Priest of the New Covenant." Forberg insists

that Jesus is the ultimate High Priest in the New Testament, but he

says, "Peter is presented as some kind of successor to the High Priest

in tradition used by the final redactorate, Matthew 16:13-19. Peter

stands out as a kind of chief Rabbi who binds and looses in the sense

of declaring something to be forbidden or permitted. Peter is looked

upon as a counterpart to the High Priest. He is the highest

representative for the people of God." This is Protestant testimony.

Elsewhere I found in The Interpreter's Bible, "The keys of the

kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household

and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post-

apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the

prerogatives of Jesus." The person who wrote this section in the

Interpreter's Bible is saying, "I don't think personally that Jesus

ever said these words. How could Jesus give to the Apostles

prerogatives that are His own?" Well, the Church has always said that

Jesus said this and what Jesus is giving is His own grace, His own

power and His own authority to His Apostles.

Now Bultmann, one of the most notorious and well-known Protestant

Biblical scholars of the century argues that it is impossible to regard

Matthew 16 as an authentic saying of Jesus. He said, "How could He have

envisioned the future development of an organized congregation of

followers and appointed for them Peter as possessor of the power to

teach and to discipline?" I have several other quotations here. I

won't go through them all, but let me just summarize with a quotation

from an English Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford

Dictionary of the Popes. He says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all

Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years."

We are reaching a point these days in the scholarly dialogue that

is exciting, where some of the most essential points are now being

admitted and acknowledged by both sides. But I must say, as I listen

to tapes that are made of debates that are held across the country

through these last few years, there are still many Protestants, or I

should say non-Catholics, out there who are so vehemently opposed to

the Catholic Church, they will still go back to the over-reaction of

the Protestants, the anti-Catholic misinterpretations and use them.

A good friend of mine was in a recent debate with a Protestant

minister who was using it right and left, even after the debates. My

friend went up to him and said, "Do you think, even though you are

arguing that Peter isn't the Rock because you were quoting this and

that and the other thing, do you think that Peter is the Rock?" And

the anti-Catholic debater said, "Of course I do!" Although he had

argued against that position, he held it himself. He just wanted to

undermine the Catholic teaching. There is a broad consensus emerging,

and it's a strong and sure foundation that we can build on in

discussions and dialogues. I don't want to overdo it, but I think it

is a very, very important point.

Common Objections to Papal Infallibility

Now, what I would like to do at this point is to move beyond

Matthew 16 and consider some other factors that play into this as

well. First, let me just throw out some objections that may come into

your mind. How could a human be infallible? Isn't infallibility a

prerogative of God alone? Then as Catholics I think we should admit

Mary who never sinned, although we never say that the infallible Popes

never sin. They sin. They are not impeccable; they are infallible As

persons, they sin. As persons, they make mistakes. As persons, they

might hold the wrong opinion inside their own minds; but Christ

prevents them, through the Holy Spirit in His omnipotent love, from

ever sitting down in the Chair of Peter and teaching the wrong

opinions as Catholic beliefs.

It's ultimately the infallibility of Christ that is the foundation

for whatever we ascribe to the Popes. Now somebody could say,

"Infallible? Teaching nothing but truth? To err is human, to forgive

divine. You know we don't need infallibility. We can't have it. It

isn't human." Well, I would say this; two things. First of all, if I

were to sit down and write a textbook in say Algebra, and we got a

thousand proof readers from across the world and they all went

through it with a fine tooth comb, and after years they didn't find a

single mistake, would you have to conclude this was not written by a

man but by God? There are no mistakes. No, of course not. I mean to

err is human, but to be human is not to err only and always,

continually. We can make mistakes, but we don't have to! And God can

prevent us from doing so.

You hear Protestants says sometimes, like I always used to say,

"You know this idea of infallibility just doesn't belong to humans.

But then you think about it another minute. Non-Catholic Christians

rarely admit that the Bible is infallible because the Biblical authors

were given the gift of infallibility: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter,

Paul, James, Jude -- all of them wrote infallible truth. In fact, the

Bible Christians insist that the Bible alone is our authority because

the Bible is infallible.

Well, ask them. If God was capable of using thousands of sinners

to infallibly communicate infallible truth, then, so that the Church

could see it as the truth, which is the Bread of Life, which is Christ

himself and all the teachings, if God could do it then, with fallible

sinners, like Peter and Paul and John and Matthew, couldn't He still

do it? In other words, certainly God is capable; and if you look

around at how the Church spreads throughout the world, and how the

Church encounters all kinds of crazies down through the ages, do you

suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this

infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible

interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with

the infallible Bible."

Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and

thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous

continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the

fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible

book, don't we. I mean, can you imagine the fathers of our country

putting together the U.S. Constitution and mailing it out to every

citizen and saying, "Fend for yourselves. Go it alone; with the spirit

of Washington you will be guided to your proper interpretation." What

do you call that? Anarchy. We wouldn't have lasted a month as a

nation. The Constitution established a governmental structure with a

court of final appeal, the Supreme Court, that is final in all

matters of constitutional interpretation.

Now that's in the human sphere. If the constitutional founders had

sufficient wisdom to see the need for one little nation in 200 years

to have a court of final appeal, how much more would Christ see the

need to establish and constitute in the Church and putting in His

constitution not only the truth but the official organs for

interpreting and enforcing and explaining and preaching and

proclaiming that truth. It's just common sense. It's not

unprecedented either.

Somebody could say, "Well, this idea of Peter speaking ex-

cathedra, that's bogus, that's novel, that's unheard of'." I would

say, "No, it's not." When the Church teaches about how, the Pope when

he speaks from the Chair of Peter, Ex Cathedra, "from the seat or from

the cathedra" (we get the word cathedral from the fact that's where

the bishop's cathedra is) the Church isn't inventing something new.

It's building, rather, on the teachings of Jesus.

Turn to Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, "Then said Jesus to the crowds

and to His disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses'

seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what

they do, for they preach but they don't practice.'" They preach, but

they don't practice what they preach. What's he saying? Jesus says,

"The scribes and the Pharisees." Now, what does Jesus think of the

scribes and the Pharisees? Well, read the rest of Matthew 23 and you

will discover it. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and

the Pharisees "geniuses, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed

tombs." He doesn't think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees,

does He?

But what does He say here? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on

Moses' seat." Therefore, "you have to," it's in the imperative tense,

"You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you." "Whatever

they tell you," you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they

sit on Moses' cathedras. The Greek word is "cathedra". The Church,

when it speaks of Peter's authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra

are simply borrowing from Jesus' teaching.

Now, I would challenge anybody to go back into the Old Testament

and find some explicit text in the Old Testament where we find Moses

establishing a chair, some endowed seat, that will always have

successors. You don't find a text explicitly saying that. So why does

Jesus refer to it. Because there is also oral tradition, even in the Old

Testament, which was used by God to transmit certain essential terms

that the covenant family of God requires and depends upon for its life.

Jesus doesn't quote a text. He appeals to a well-known oral tradition

that He assumes the scribes and the Pharisees know about as well as His

listeners. He doesn't just assume they know it, He assumes they are

going to submit to it, and that they have been submitting to it. It's

just that they have been experiencing problems because Old Testament

priests and bishops are sometimes just as troublesome as New Testament

priests and bishops are. But why do we follow, because they have so

much charm and charisma? No, because Jesus Christ has established in

the Old Testament a seat of Moses which is replaced in the New

Testament with the seat of Peter.

In the Old Testament we don't have the full disclosure of all

final revelation, but in the New Testament Jesus tells us that He

will guide us in all truth. We don't say that Moses and his successors

were infallible; because the fullness of the truth had not yet been

given. But once it is given to the Apostles and their successors, we

can see why Jesus guarantees that the gates of Hades will not prevail

against the Church. Why? Because of what Jesus has entrusted to this

cathedra, this Petrine seat, the sea of Peter in Rome.

This is such assurance for us that whether John XI or John XII,

two of the most sinful Popes in all of history or Alexander VI; I mean

these guys were scoundrels. We have had scoundrels for Popes. Out of

the hundreds of Popes, it's amazing to think that there were really

only three or four scoundrels, but that should bother you. But should

it cause you to overthrow your confidence in listening to the

successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope? No, of course not.

For one thing, you can be grateful that these scoundrels were too busy

sinning to even attempt teaching from the seat of Peter. They didn't,

and they brought great confusion upon the Church so it is a deplorable

condition.

But let's consider one fact. Jesus chose twelve Apostles, didn't

He? And what about those twelve Apostles? One of them was Judas. Did

Jesus know it beforehand? You bet He did. Why did He choose him?

Maybe to get us ready for Judas priests in all generations.

Peter's Place in the Early Church

But what does the Church do after Jesus is ascended into heaven,

after Judas has committed suicide? Turn to Acts 1 to see what the

Church does in response to Judas' death and Jesus' departure. It's

very interesting and important because Peter stands up with the eleven

in the Upper Room, verse 15, and He speaks about Judas' death and He

says, "It was known beforehand and had even been prophesied in the Old

Testament" and so what should we do now?

Notice that Peter -- and by the way, notice that it is Peter who

stands up. He's not just contributing an opinion. When Peter declares

an opinion it is binding and immediately following, exactly what he

advises. And what is it he advises? He quotes the Psalms, "Let his

habitation become desolate and let there be no one to live in it."

But then he doesn't say, "Hey, guys, we're from twelve down to eleven.

We better hang together now or we might end up hanging separately. No

we're just down to eleven and it's going to be us from now on." He

doesn't say that.

He says, "His office, let another take." Or as the King James

version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is

episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the

word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is

now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously,

automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with

this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in

God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his

successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty

offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this

Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his

office, take."

And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no

novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about,

Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they

submit. There's no debate, no discussion.

Notice also in Acts 2, Peter's responsibility, not just over the

ten, but over all of Jerusalem. He is the one who preaches the first

sermon, that Pentecost, verse 14. He is the spokesman for the Church

to the world at Pentecost.

Then you go on in chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon. We

also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing

miracle occurs, the lame man in the temple in Jerusalem in the portico

called Solomon, I should say.

Then in chapter 4, we see Peter's pre-eminence emerging even

further as he exercises his teaching authority over the Jewish senate,

the Sanhedrin. He's put on trial, so you think he's going to be

defensive. He's going to come to His own defense saying, "Oh gosh,

guys, you know, please don't do these things." But no. He puts the

Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord. He exercises supreme

authority over the Jewish senate. It left them flabbergasted! Who

does this fisherman think he is? The vicar of Christ over the family

of God. And so they're set free. They are astounded at his boldness.

Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the

Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to

the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says,

"Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the

Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But

no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the

Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes

along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this

amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of

the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She

drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in

verse 5.

No wonder. Petrine promise was rather apparent here. I mean

Peter's pre-eminence was on display for the whole Church and the whole

world and all the Jews to see and to behold. And it goes on and on

and on. We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before

that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are

brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem

that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the

Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John. They go

down there and what do they do? Well, a Confirmation action, here.

"They lay the hand," verse 14, "When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard

that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to

them. When they arrived, they prayed they might receive the Holy

Spirit." They were baptized but they hadn't received this additional

grace that we often associate with Confirmation. Then the laying on of

hands; they received the Holy Spirit and then Simon Magus tried to buy

the gift and Peter rebukes him.

"May your money," verse 20, "May your money perish with you

because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have

no part to share in this ministry because your heart is not right

before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord and perhaps

He will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart, for I see

that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." At this point

Simon, who probably had heard of Ananias and Sapphira was trembling, you

know. "Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen

to me." I mean, even if some don't see Peter's promise, at least Simon

Magus, the first heretic in the Church did. He said, "Please pray for me

that I won't become the next Ananias and Sapphira."

Acts 11, now we're not talking about half-breeds; now we are

talking about just plain outsiders, the Goene, the Gentiles, the

swine, those that the Jews had often considered to be mere beasts.

Cornelius, the first Gentile believer is going to be let into the

Church? This is going to cause scandal. What's the Holy Spirit going

to do? Have Peter be the first to authorize and admit the first

Gentile Christian.

So Peter has this vision and in Acts 10 and 11, I should say, he

has this vision: he's being commanded by God in this vision to kill

and to eat these unclean animals that symbolize the Gentiles. He says,

"I've never done it." Three times later he says, "Okay, okay, I'll do

it." And then these people come and say, "We're being sent from

Cornelius, the Gentile Centurion." In a dream, in a vision, the Lord

had said to Cornelius, "Send for a guy named Peter." So Peter comes

and what happens? Well, Peter goes up to his house and he perceives,

verse 34, he says after he's baptizing Cornelius, "I now realize how

true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from

every nation who fear him and do what is right."

So then he goes ahead, preaches the gospel, baptizes these

Gentiles and admits the first non-Jewish believers into the Church.

And I mean, this could have been the greatest crisis of all, but there

isn't even a fizzle, practically. But look at chapter 11, verse 2,

"When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized

him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate

with them.'" And he explained exactly what happened and said, "Hey,

God told me." It's Peter and they stopped.

But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have

the famous Council of Jerusalem where there's a huge debate tearing

apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or

not? Well you might say, "How important is that?" Well, gentlemen,

if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were

considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get

circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than

if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic

purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all

of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, "The Apostles and elders

met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them,"

and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through

Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing

that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of

qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in

Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate

ended. Peter had spoken.

Now you might say, "Well, this is just Peter." No, the keys

symbolize succession, an office which is left vacant must be filled.

This is something that the Church understood. This is something that

was well-known to the early Church. I hardly have time to get into

this, but I have all these note cards about the early Church, after

the death of the last Apostles, recognizing that the Bishop of Rome

had Peter's authority and that was final and absolute.

Early Church Fathers Recognized Papal Primacy and Succession

Clement of Rome, about 96, writing to Corinth about this disunity,

"But if any disobey the word spoken by him, Peter, through us."

Remember Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus? Those were the first Popes.

Irenaeus, writing in the 2nd Century says, "Anyone who w

[cmotherofpirl]

The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy!

This is a more concise version of my list of quotes from Eastern Fathers supporting the Papacy. I'd suggest using this version, as it's more to the point and relatively short, and thus it's more likely that the quotes will actually be read. These quotes seem to have been taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess. Thanks to Deacon David Hess for permission to use these quotes on my site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. John Cassian, Monk:

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem:

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius,

, Mansi, x., 893)

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine:

[addressed to Pope Martin I]

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair [the Chair of Peter at Rome] which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine. (Mansi, x., 893)

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus:

[ Writing to Pope Theodore ]

O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

St. Maximos the Confessor:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? ... And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if inDouche he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople:

Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople:

[ Writing to Pope Leo III ]

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

[ Writing to Pope Paschal ]

Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. 43:23/44:23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

[ Writing to Emperor Michael ]

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here [Constantinople], for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, inDouche the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please email any comments to: Antoine Valentim

Suggestions, comments, or submissions would be appreciated!

Return to Ecclesia Triumphans Catholic Apologetics

[cmotherofpirl]

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock

by Gary Hoge

One day, when Jesus was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). The disciples gave a variety of answers before Peter finally said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). What happened next is the subject of some controversy:

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:17-19).

To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen

Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier

Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III

Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange

German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus

Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin

Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg

Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill

Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich

Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner

Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

from catholic outlook

[cmotherofpirl]

articles by Patrick Madrid

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPEAPOL.HTM

[cmotherofpirl]

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".1

In answer to the Holy Father's invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996. Its Proceedings have recently been published.2

2. In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter".3 In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy. In preparing the present text, which appears in the Appendix of the above-mentioned Proceedings,4 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has used the contributions of the scholars who took part in the symposium, but without intending to offer a synthesis of them or to go into questions requiring further study. These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.

I. Origin, Purpose and Nature of the Primacy

3. "First Simon, who is called Peter".5 With this significant emphasis on the primacy of Simon Peter, St Matthew inserts in his Gospel the list of the Twelve Apostles, which also begins with the name of Simon in the other two synoptic Gospels and in Acts.6 This list, which has great evidential force, and other Gospel passages7 show clearly and simply that the New Testament canon received what Christ said about Peter and his role in the group of the Twelve.8 Thus, in the early Christian communities, as later throughout the Church, the image of Peter remained fixed as that of the Apostle who, despite his human weakness, was expressly assigned by Christ to the first place among the Twelve and was called to exercise a distinctive, specific task in the Church. He is the rock on which Christ will build his Church;9 he is the one, after he has been converted, whose faith will not fail and who will strengthen his brethren;10 lastly, he is the Shepherd who will lead the whole community of the Lord's disciples. 11

In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.

4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors",15 we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" 16 of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" 17 and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. 18

5. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power. The Second Vatican Council, in turn, reaffirmed and completed the teaching of Vatican I,19 addressing primarily the theme of its purpose, with particular attention to the mystery of the Church as Corpus Ecclesiarum.20 This consideration allowed for a clearer exposition of how the primatial office of the Bishop of Rome and the office of the other Bishops are not in opposition but in fundamental and essential harmony.21

Therefore, "when the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also 'vicars and ambassadors of Christ' (Lumen gentium, n. 27). The Bishop of Rome is a member of the 'College', and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry".22 It should also be said, reciprocally, that episcopal collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it.

6. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum23 as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them.24 In the case of the Bishop of Rome - Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops25 - the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church:26 a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful.27 The ministry of Peter's Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which "the Church of Christ is truly present and active",28 and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome's ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.29

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.30

II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms

7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency"31 - on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:32 it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy.

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.

8. The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is "one and undivided"34 the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and "is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life";35 on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church - Bishops and the other faithful - owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West.

9. Given its episcopal nature, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is first of all expressed in transmitting the Word of God; thus it includes a specific, particular responsibility for the mission of evangelization,36 since ecclesial communion is something essentially meant to be expanded: "Evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity".37

The Roman Pontiff's episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office;38 it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit's special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves., in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.39 Just as "all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ",40 in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.41

10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter's Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur".42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.

11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it",43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See.

12. "The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing".44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter's Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world.

The concrete contents of its exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.

Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff, and, vice versa, the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

13. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ.45

15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith".46 The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly "that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is -- in God's plan -- an essential requisite of full and visible communion".47 Human errors and even serious failings can be found in the history of the papacy: Peter himself acknowledged he was a sinner.48 Peter, a weak man, was chosen as the rock precisely so that everyone could see that victory belongs to Christ alone and is not the result of human efforts. Down the ages the Lord has wished to put his treasure in fragile vessels:49 human frailty has thus become a sign of the truth of God's promises.

When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic".50 We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter.

NOTES:

1. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, n. 95.

2. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998.

3. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in ibid., p. 20.

4. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Considerazioni della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in ibid., Appendix, pp. 493-503. The text was also published as a booklet by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

5. Mt 10:2.

6. Cf. Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1: 13.

7. Cf. Mt 14:28-31; 16:16-23 and par.; 19:27-29 and par.; 26:33-35 and par.; Lk 22:32; Jn 1:42; 6:67-70; 13:36-38; 21:15-19.

8. Evidence for the Petrine ministry is found in all the expressions, however different, of the New Testament tradition, both in the Synoptics - here with different features in Matthew and Luke, as well as in St Mark - and in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine tradition, always with original elements, differing in their narrative aspects but in profound agreement about their essential meaning. This is a sign that the Petrine reality was regarded as a constitutive given of the Church.

9. Cf. Mt 16:18.

10. Cf. Lk 22:32.

11. Cf. Jn 21:15-17. Regarding the New Testament evidence on the primacy, cf. also John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, nn. 90ff.

12. St Ambrose of Milan, Enarr. in Ps., 40, 30: PL 14, 1134.

13. Cf. for example St Siricius I, Let. Directa ad decessorem, 10 February 385: Denz-Hun, n. 181; Second Council of Lyons, Professio fidei of Michael Palaeologus, 6 July 1274: Denz-Hun, n. 861; Clement VI, Let. Super quibusdam, 29 November 1351: Denz-Hun, n. 1053; Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307; Pius IX, Encyc. Let. Qui pluribus, 9 November 1846: Denz-Hun, n. 2781; First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 2: Denz-Hun, nn. 3056-3058; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, Chap. 111, nn. 21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882; etc.

14. Cf. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Introd.: SChr 10, 106-107; St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33.

15. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 20.

16. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19.

17. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051; John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 88. Cf. Pius IX, Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 16 November 1864: Denz-Hun, n. 2888; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, nn. 3305-3310.

18. Cf. Jn 17:21-23; Second Vatican Council, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1; Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, n. 77: AAS 68 (1976) 69; John Paul Il, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 98.

19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n 18.

20. Cf. ibid., n. 23.

21. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3061; cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, nn. 3112-3113; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, n. 3310; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 27. As Pius IX explained in his Address after the promulgation of the Constitution Pastor aeternus: "Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adiuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in caritate, et Fratrum, scificet Episcoporum, iura firmat atque tuetur" (Mansi 52, 1336 A/B).

22. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 95.

23. Cor 11:28.

24. The ontological priority that the universal Church has, in her essential mystery, over every individual particular Church (cf Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, 28 May 1992, n. 9) also emphasizes the importance of the universal dimension of every Bishop's ministry.

25.Bull Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3059; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22; cf. Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307.

26. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, nn. 3060, 3064.

27. Cf. ibid.; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22.

28. Second Vatican Council, Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 1l.

29. Cf. Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 13.

30. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

31. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 93.

32. Cf. ibid., n. 94.

33. Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114.

34. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz.-Hun, n. 3051.

35. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

36. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Grande munus, 30 November 1880: ASS 13 (1880) 145; CIC, can. 782, §1.

37. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 14. Cf. CIC, can. 781.

38. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068.

39. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1.

40. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

41. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25.

42. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063.

43. Congr. for the Doctrine of the, Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 14. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1369.

44. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 48.

45. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const., Lumen gentium, n. 15.

46. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 97.

47. Ibid.

48. Cf. Lk 5:8.

49. Cf. 2 Cor 4:7.

50. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 102.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from:

L'Osservatore Romano

Weekly Edition in English

18 November 1998, page 5-6

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.

The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation

L'Osservatore Romano English Edition

P.O. Box 777

Baltimore, MD 21201

Subscriptions: (410) 547-5380

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

[cmotherofpirl]

THE CHURCH AND THE ROCK

Our Lord made Simon Peter alone the rock and keybearer of the Church, and

appointed him shepherd of the whole flock. - Vatican II, <Dogmatic Constitution on the

Church>, No. 22.

Jesus was here with revolutionary ideas. Love your enemies . .Blessed are the meek . . .

Fast in secret . . . Jesus meant these teachings for everyone, not merely for those who

listened to Him. Yet, He himself wrote nothing. How was He to accomplish his

purpose? He established a society, an organization to carry on his work.

Henry Ford and Thomas Edison knew that they were going to die. Before that time

came, each had a well-organized corporation to carry on the work that he had started.

The telephone company was not to be disbanded after Alexander Graham Bell died.

No. A head and a vice-president, and other officers stepped into place. The function

and authority of each department was determined.

Christ did a somewhat similar thing. He knew that He was going to die. Before that

time He made plans for an organization to carry on his work in the world after his

death. Without even going further, this seems to be the natural course of action.

Christ, when speaking of his society, referred to it as "the kingdom of God" or "the

kingdom of heaven" because of its religious nature.

In establishing a society there are several points which require attention.

First of all, members would have to be recruited. Whether you are establishing a

recreational group, or a charitable society to help the poor, or a literary group, you

would begin by speaking of it and promoting it among those with whom you came in

contact. Christ did the same thing for his society, the Church which He founded. He

proclaimed it in towns, with friends, in the temple.

The next step would be to tell your associates of the object of your society. If it did not

have a specific purpose, it would be a society in name only. Christ made clear to his

little group what the purpose of his society, his Church, was. Just as Henry Ford and

Thomas Edison organized corporations to carry on their work after them, Christ's

society was to have a specific purpose. It was to carry on the work He had been doing:

"As the Father has sent Me, so I send you" (Jn. 20:21).

The next logical step would be to choose a small group who would be reliable enough

to form the backbone of the society: a committee, or, in the case of a corporation, a

board of directors. Christ gathered such a group (Mt. 10:1-4), and trained them for over

two years. They became the backbone of his society. Instead of calling them a board of

directors, He called them his "flock." They were to have authority in the group: "If

anyone does not receive you or listen to what you have to say, leave that house or town,

and once outside it shake its dust from your feet. I assure you, it will go easier for the

region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than it will for that town" (Mt.

10:14-15).

Just as a society has a president to make decisions and to see that things run smoothly,

Christ appointed Peter as head of his Church: "I will entrust to you the keys of the

kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 16: 19).

Christ established a religious society, a Church, and only one Church. He always spoke

of his Church, not churches-"I will build my Church" (Mt. 16:18); He compared it to a

sheepfold, a kingdom, a city-words which imply unity of rule or administration.

Since we know that Christ founded a Church, and Christ was sent as a messenger from

God, then the one Church which He founded is the one with which we ought to

become associated. The question is to find which church is the one founded by Christ,

since many today claim this distinction. The thing to do is look at some of the essential

qualities of Christ's Church and to see if today some church still has those qualities. If

so, that is the same Church which was founded by Christ.

The book called the New Testament is a reliable history book and it is as such that we

shall use it in discussing the subject at hand.

We know from the New Testament that Christ established an organization, a Church.

This, He said, was going to continue after He was gone. If we want to find out which is

his organization in the world today, among all those that claim to be such, we will have

to see first what the characteristics of the Church were as Christ established it. We will

have to look for the Church with those characteristics today. When this Church is

found, we will have an unmistakable indication of the Church of Christ.

First we are going to look at one main feature of the Church which Christ established,

namely, the fact that Christ determined that there was to be one supreme head in his

organization.

Every properly operating organization has a head. The United States, for instance, has a

president. If there were no such head to govern with authority, the nation would

become an unwieldy mob, and confusion would be inevitable. Such a simple thing as a

family, if it is to be well ordered, requires that someone preside. Children may not all

do as they please. There must be someone to keep things in order.

Christ's Church is a society composed of human beings. It has a spiritual purpose, to be

sure, but, being composed of men, it must have some leader, just as any well-ordered

society. Can we attribute any less common sense to Christ than to human leaders,

saying that He left his society, his Church, to be governed without a head?

"But," some may say, "I do not deny that the Church has a head. God himself is its

ruler." This is merely side-stepping the true issue. Is not God the ruler of all

governments? "By me kings reign, and lawgivers establish justice; by me princes

govern, and nobles; all the rulers of earth" (Pry. 8:15-16).

God is the head of each country, and of every Christian family in it; but, nevertheless,

there must always be in the country a visible head who represents God in the civil

sphere. So also the Church, besides having an invisible head in heaven, must have a

visible head on earth. The members of the Church are visible; why not also the head?

The Church without a supreme ruler would be like an army without a general, a

corporation without a president, a sheepfold without a shepherd, or like a human body

without a head.

From the fact that a supreme head is necessary in any government, in any family, in

any corporation, in any society composed of human beings we might expect likewise to

find a head in the society which Christ founded. This would be true even if other

evidence were lacking. But such evidence is not lacking. There is hardly a truth clearer

in the New Testament than that Peter was made the supreme head of Christ's

organization, the Church, and that Christ willed to have a supreme headship continue

in the successors of Peter.

Christ was with his followers one day in northern Palestine, near the city of Caesarea

Philippi. The distinguishing feature of the area was the temple of Augustus, which sat

on a majestic rock and towered over the city. They were in sight of this rock when

Jesus, aware that there had been much discussion about who He was among the people

of the countryside, said to the Apostles: "And you, who do you say that I am?" Peter

spoke up: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!" Christ turned to Peter and

addressed himself to him alone: "Blest are you, Simon, son of John! No mere man has

revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are

'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my Church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail

against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you

declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth

shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16:15-20).

In this address of Christ to Peter there is no doubt that Peter was made supreme head

of Christ's Church. There is, first of all, no doubt that it was Peter who was addressed.

The account (by a very reliable eyewitness) says that it was. Christ leaves no doubt

when He calls him Simon, son of John. Christ gives Peter's full name.

In the sentence "you are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my Church," strange as it

may seem to us, there is a pun involved. In Aramaic, which was the language used, the

word "peter" means "rock." This, incidentally, marked a change of name for Peter. Up

to now he had been called Simon. In Biblical usage a change of name usually indicates

a significant event; and so we might expect something of significance here. Actually

that is the case.

"You are 'Rock' (Peter), and on this rock I will build my Church." Christ, standing

before the foundation rock of the temple, promised to build his Church on Peter. Peter

will be the foundation of his society.

Look at the next sentence: "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

These words mean in our language: "I will give you supreme authority over my

Church." "Kingdom of heaven" simply means Church here. We know this because often

Christ referred to his Church as the "kingdom of heaven." It may seem to us like a

roundabout way of saying things, but to the oriental mind there is no difficulty; it was

easily understood. To give one "the keys" to a house or a city has always symbolized

the granting of authority. Thus, a man is presented with the keys of a city. If a

proprietor of a house, when leaving for the summer, says to a friend, "Here are the keys

of my house," this would really mean, "You have full charge of my house. You may

invite or exclude whom you wish. Until I come back, you take my place." In the time of

Christ, particularly among the Hebrew people with whom we are dealing, keys were

definitely an emblem of jurisdiction. To say that a man had received the keys of a city

was equivalent to saying that he was placed in charge of the city. In the Bible,

whenever the expression is used, it means just that. Therefore the meaning is: "I will

give you complete authority over my Church."

What about the sentence "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in

heaven . . ."? Peter is promised the supreme power to bind his subjects by laws and

precepts, and to free their souls from spiritual ties such as sins or censures. True, the

power of binding and loosing was given to the other Apostles, but it is here promised

to Peter individually to show that Peter possesses it in a special way. Peter's precepts

and prohibitions (for that is the meaning in common language of binding and loosing)

are to be laws divinely sanctioned. In view of the previous two sentences we have seen,

there is no doubt that Peter alone was to have the supreme authority in Christ's Church.

In light of all we have said, the address to Peter in our modern everyday language

would run something like this:

"You are a rock, a foundation stone, Peter, and upon this foundation I will build my

Church . . . I will give you supreme authority over my Church, and your precepts and

prohibitions I myself will back up."

In reading the passage slowly and thoughtfully, there is no doubt that the supreme

authority of Christ's Church is in Peter's hands. It is noteworthy that many modern

Protestant theologians frankly admit the same interpretation, as do Catholic

theologians.

There is another event in which we can see also that Peter is given the supreme

authority in Christ's organization. To understand this incident, it will be well to glance

for a moment at the background of the setting and at the kind of people involved. The

event has to do with Christ, Peter, and some of the other followers of Christ. All lived

in Palestine, most of which was rural territory, and sheep-raising was one of the main

occupations. Much of the Middle East is the same to a great extent even today. In that

land sheep can often be seen scattered over the bare hills, and at night the shepherd

gathers them into enclosures, opening the door in the morning to let them out. At night

he even sleeps with them in a hut or cave in the mountain. If one strays, he brings it

back. Day and night the shepherd takes care of all the needs of the sheep; he feeds them

and knows them all; he alone is their master. It is his duty to govern his flock, watch

over it and protect it, and punish the obstinate sheep.

With all this in mind we can better appreciate this incident of Christ and Peter. It is by

the Sea of Tiberias; there are seven of Christ's friends on the shore, and He comes to

them, picks out Peter and asks him: "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than

these?" Peter answers that he does, and Christ says to him, "Feed my lambs." To the

question again: "Simon . . . do you love Me?" Peter again replies in the affirmative, and

Christ repeats, "Tend my sheep." Christ a third time asks the question of Peter (perhaps

because Peter had denied Him three times): "Do you love Me?" and, after being

answered by Peter, says to him: "Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21 :15-17).

To us the incident seems to be hidden in strange language, but we must remember that

it was a pastoral country; the shepherd and his sheep were a common sight. Remember,

too, that Christ frequently made use of his surroundings in his conversation. He used

this language before when He said He was the shepherd and his followers were his

flock, his sheep. He was understood, for the image was from the people's everyday

lives. Today in America we should rather understand a man telling his friend, "You are

to be the head of this corporation." Put yourself in the country and time of Christ, and

there the most natural thing would be to speak not of a "head of my concern" but a

"shepherd of my flock."

The meaning, then, is that Peter is to do everything with reference to Christ's flock that

a shepherd did for his sheep. In other words, he is a complete master, watches over it,

protects it, rules it.

This picturesque way of expressing the meaning "to direct," "to rule," "to govern," by

the expression "to be a shepherd over" is not strange, for it is often found not only in

the New Testament but in secular literature of the time.

Peter was to be all this to Christ's lambs and sheep, Christ's flock. And we know that by

Christ's "flock" is meant his followers, the members of his Church, for He often refers to

his Church in this way.

Christ has before called himself the Good Shepherd, and He also referred to his

followers, his Church, as his sheep or his flock. Now He says to Peter: "Feed my lambs,

feed my sheep."

Peter is to do all for Christ's flock that a shepherd was known to do for his sheep. Peter

is to take the place of Christ with reference to his flock. He is to be the head of Christ's

spiritual flock, in a word, to be the Vicar of Christ. The figurative language was

understood well: "You, Peter, are to be the supreme head of my organization."

The fact that Peter was to be head of Christ's Church is borne out when we read of his

place in the early Church after he was given the position. The Acts of the Apostles is a

book of the New Testament relating events of the early days of the Church. As we have

seen, it is thoroughly reliable history. Here we see a picture of Peter acting as supreme

head of the Church. In the question of choosing a successor to Judas, Peter alone speaks

(Acts 1:15-26); Peter pronounces judgment on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10); and

Peter presides over the Council of Jerusalem. The latter incident is significant because

great dissension and controversy had arisen over whether Gentile Christians should be

compelled to undergo the Mosaic practice of circumcision. After much debate, Peter

took the floor and said: "Brothers, you know well enough that from the early days God

selected me from your number to be the one from whose lips the Gentiles would hear

the message of the gospel and believe." Having reminded his fellow Christians of his

supreme authority, Peter said that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to undergo

circumcision, and "at that the whole assembly fell silent" (Acts 15:1-12). Thus was Peter

recognized as the supreme head of the early Church by his contemporaries.

The Church which Christ organized was to last to the end of time, as He himself said,

and so certainly whatever is essential to it in teaching or organization must likewise last

for all time.

The supreme headship of Peter was clearly an essential part of Christ's plan. This we

see from the fact that Peter alone was the "foundation" of the Church, the "key-bearer,"

the supreme teacher, the one shepherd of the flock. Certainly the foundation is to last as

long as the building; the key-bearer must last while there is a kingdom; a supreme

teacher as long as there are people to be taught; a supreme shepherd as long as there is

a flock. The mission which Christ gave to Peter and his fellow Apostles was concerned

with all nations and all mankind. But Peter and his associates were to die; they were

destined to pass away with their generation, while their mission was to continue. The

only conclusion is that this office of supreme headship was to last as long as Christ's

Church.

Christ promised and actually appointed a supreme head over his Church, and that

position was to last to the end of time, that is, there were to be successors to this

position.

What church today fulfills this requirement? Only one-the Catholic Church.

Down through the ages no person ever claimed to be the successor in Peter's office, nor

was anyone ever acknowledged as the successor in Peter's office, except the Bishop of

Rome, the head of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, today there is only one

Church in the whole world which claims to have a successor in the function of Peter.

That is the Catholic Church. The Pope alone claims this position.[1] No other religions

claim it, nor did their founders. Men have claimed themselves prophets; some have

claimed to be God. But no one claims the function of Peter's successor except the Pope.

If the Pope is not in fact the successor to Peter's office, our only conclusion must be that

there is no successor in the office of Peter. No one else even claims it. But this is

impossible for, as we have seen, Christ determined that there should always be one

supreme head in his Church, Peter and his successors.

To a sincere inquirer one conclusion presents itself: only the Catholic Church satisfies

the requirements with respect to this essential characteristic of Christ's Church.

ENDNOTES

1 Pope Paul VI stated this position very clearly when he told a meeting of the World

Council of Churches in Geneva on June 10, 1969, that "our name is Peter." See the full

text of the Pope's address in the <1970 Catholic Almanac>, p. 114.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in

defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as extends the deposit of divine

revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. This is the

infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue

of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who

confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of

faith or morals.- Vatican II, <Dogmatic Constitution on the Church>, No. 25.

Perhaps the one thing which is most misunderstood, and which is the occasion for the

most opposition is the authority of the Church. The idea that there should be an

infallible teaching body is rarely accepted by those outside the Catholic Church.

However, it is usually the case that what they really are opposed to is not the teaching

of infallibility as held by the Church but a distorted caricature of this teaching.

In presenting our arguments for the truthfulness of infallibility and its reasonableness

we shall appeal to the words of the founder of the true religion, Jesus Christ, and to our

own common sense.

It might be well to begin by giving a few notions of what the Catholic teaching of

infallibility <does not> mean:

It does not mean that the Pope is impeccable, that is, in any way incapable of moral

wrong. There is often heard a line of argument such as this: "There was one Pope who

was guilty of a serious sin. That proves that he was not infallible." The argument does

not hold. We are speaking in two different spheres; infallibility does not mean freedom

from moral guilt. As a matter of fact, we might point out that the Popes have been, with

few exceptions, men of amazingly virtuous lives. The first thirty-two pontiffs died

martyrs for the Faith. Over 260 men have sat in the throne of Peter, and yet only four or

five have even been charged by enemies with serious moral lapses. Even if we admit

the truth of all accusations, the proportion is strikingly small, especially when we recall

that one out of the twelve chosen by Christ himself was a Judas Iscariot.

A judge is given certain legal authority in court. If, in his private life, he were guilty of

sin, this would in no way affect the validity of his decisions. His authority in court is

not dependent upon the character of his private life; it is conferred on him by virtue of

his office. So it is with the Pope; his infallibility exists, not for his own sake, but for

ours. It does not, therefore, make the salvation of his soul any easier. It is simply a way

in which God uses him for the preservation of truth. And, as it does not affect his

character, so it does not arise from it. If by chance, a questionable man should become

Pope, it is just as necessary for us that he should be prevented from teaching error, and

just as easy for God to prevent him!

Remember, the Holy Father confesses his sins. At the beginning of Mass he says, "I

confess to Almighty God . . . that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts

and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do." At the washing

of the hands he prays, "Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin." In the

light of this, then, it is clear that infallibility by no means implies freedom from sin.

Nor does infallibility mean that the Pope is infallible in discussing matters not

involving revealed truths, such as science; nor in political matters, as some would have

us believe. Infallibility does not mean that a pontiff is free from error in any field at all

when speaking as a private individual.

What, then, does infallibility mean?

When the Pope, in his official capacity, with the fullness of his authority as successor of

Saint Peter and Head of the Church on earth proclaims a doctrine on faith or morals

binding on the whole Church he is preserved from error.

There are four conditions that the Pope must fulfill in order to teach infallibly: (1) He

must speak on a matter involving faith and morals. (2) He must speak in his official

capacity as Peter's successor and the Supreme Shepherd of the Church on earth. (3) He

must clearly indicate that he is making a solemn, definitive, and final pronouncement

on the doctrine at issue. (4) He must declare his intention to bind all members of the

Catholic Church to accept the new teaching.

Let us examine one of the Church's rare infallible pronouncements and see if all of

these conditions are fulfilled. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the

dogma of the Assumption:

Wherefore, having offered to God constant prayers of supplication and invoked the

light of the Spirit of truth, to the glory of Almighty God who has lavished on the Virgin

Mary his especial favor, to the honor of his Son, the immortal king of the ages and the

victor over sin and death; to the increased glory of the same august Mother; and to the

joy and exultation of the universal Church, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of

the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare,

and define it to be a dogma divinely revealed: that the immaculate Mother of God,

Mary ever virgin on the completion of her earthly life, was taken up to heavenly glory

both in body and soul. Wherefore if anyone presume (which God forbid) willfully to

deny or call into doubt what has been defined by us, let him know that he has fallen

away entirely from the divine and Catholic faith.

Note: (1) The Holy Father is speaking on a matter of faith: the bodily assumption of the

Blessed Mother into heaven. (2) He is speaking in his official capacity: "by the authority

of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own

authority." (3) He is indicating by the use of such words as "pronounce, declare, and

define" that he is handing down an irrevocable decision. settling the question of the

Assumption for all time. You will not find such authoritative language in any other

papal pronouncements. (4) He is binding all Catholics to accept his decision or fall

away "entirely from the divine and Catholic faith."

Considering the solemn, unchanging, and permanent nature of an infallible decree, and

the fact that a Catholic who denies or questions it jeopardizes his eternal salvation, it is

obvious that the Pope must be preserved from delivering an erroneous judgment.

In a word, the Pope is to the Church, though in a more eminent degree, what the

Supreme Court is to the United States. The people of the United States have an

instrument called the Constitution which is the charter of their civil rights and liberties.

If a controversy arises regarding a constitutional clause, the question is referred to the

Supreme Court in Washington The Chief Justice of the United States, with his associate

judges, examines the case and then pronounces judgment upon it.

If there were no such court to settle constitutional questions, the Constitution itself

would soon become a dead letter. Every litigant would conscientiously decide the

dispute in his own favor. Anarchy and civil war would soon follow. But, by means of

the Supreme Court, constitutional questions can be resolved and domestic tranquillity

preserved.

The revealed Word of God is the constitution of the Church. It is the Magna Charta of

our Christian liberties. The Pope is the official guardian of our religious constitution,

just as the Supreme Court is the guardian of the United States Constitution.

One may protest, "In the case of the Supreme Court it is not infallible. It may be wrong.

But Catholics hold that the decision of the Pope is not only binding but infallible."

The decisions of the Supreme Court are final. Why is it not infallible? Simply because

the founding fathers who conferred its powers <could not> give it actual inerrancy.

Suppose the founding fathers had it in their power to keep the Supreme Court from

errors in its decisions. We would say that they were poor Americans if they had the

power and yet did not confer it on the Court. And therein lies the difference. <God has

the power> to protect his Church from error. Should we not expect that He would grant

it to his Church just as the founding fathers would have granted it to the Supreme

Court if they could?

Americans have set up the Supreme Court of the United States to tell them finally what

is the law. If an American had the power to prevent the Court from making mistakes,

would he not use that power? He would, inDouche. Not to use it would be a grave wrong

to every one of his fellow citizens. So with the Church. Christ set up an organization,

which we know as the Church, to carry on his teaching. Has he the power to prevent

the Church from misleading us? He has of course. Does He use that power? Most

certainly He does.

inDouche, we must say that the only possible course was to grant this power to his

Church.

Let us now see if the conclusion of our reason and common sense is supported by

history. Is the conferring of inerrancy a historical fact? Did Christ grant it to Peter, the

first Pontiff?

A study of the New Testament reveals several pertinent passages spoken to Peter:

1. "I for my part declare to you, you are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my church,

and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). This was addressed

exclusively to Peter. In effect Christ says, "I will establish a Church which will last until

the end of time. I will lay the foundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock

of truth that the winds and storms of error shall not prevail against it."

2. Also spoken to Peter, the first Pontiff, directly: "Whatever you declare bound on

earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in

heaven" (Mt. 16:19). "The decisions which you make," says Christ in effect, "will be

ratified in heaven." Surely God is incapable of sanctioning an untruthful judgment.

3. "Simon, Simon! Remember that Satan has asked for you, to sift you all like wheat. But

I have prayed for you that your faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your

brothers" (Lk, 22:31-32). It is worthy of note that Jesus prays only for Peter. And why

for Peter in particular? Because on his shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church.

Our Lord prays that the faith of Peter and of his successors might not fail. Christ utters

a prayer and then says, "With the faith I have gained for you, shield the faith of your

brothers from the assaults of Satan."

4. "Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:15-17). Peter is appointed by our Lord the

universal shepherd of his flock. The Pope must feed the flock not with the poison of

error but with the healthy food of sound doctrine; for he is not a hireling, who

administers questionable food to his flock, but, rather, a good shepherd.

"Yes," comes the remark, "I can see that the evidence is clear enough for the fact that

Christ guaranteed to Peter a guidance that would safeguard him from error. But there

is quite a gap from Peter to the Church of the twentieth century."

Remember that the mission which Christ gave to Peter and the Apostles was to cover

all nations and all mankind. But Peter and his associates were mortal men, destined to

pass away with their generation while their mission was to continue. The guidance of

Christ was, therefore, to continue with their successors. That is clearly disclosed by the

words of Christ: "And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world!"

(Mt. 28:20). Since the Apostles were not to live until the end of the world, Christ

promised to be with them in the person of their successors until the end of time.

The logic of this conclusion can be denied only by those who believe that Christ was

interested in saving only the souls of those who lived in his day, and was totally

indifferent about all posterity.

In connection with this subject we hear at times a remark such as, "For my part I have

an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require." While this may seem

plausible at first view, it does not stand the test of further investigation. Either such a

person is infallibly certain that his particular interpretation of the Bible is the correct

one, or he is not. If he maintains that he is infallibly certain, then he claims for himself a

personal infallibility. Furthermore, he cannot logically deny his personal infallibility to

every other reader of the Bible. He denies it only to the Pope. We claim it only for the

Pope. According to this view, each of the hundreds of millions of readers of the Bible

becomes a pope while the only one who is not a pope is the Pope himself. You avoid

admitting the infallibility of one man by multiplying infallibility by the number of

readers of the Bible. If one who holds this theory does not claim to be infallibly certain

that his interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an

infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case the statement crumbles.

The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is largely

futile.

If a church is not infallible, it is liable to err; for there is no medium between

infallibility and liability to error. If a church and her ministers are fallible in their

doctrinal teaching, as they admit, they may be preaching falsehood to you instead of

truth. If so, you are in doubt whether you are listening to truth or falsehood. If you are

in doubt, you can have no faith, for faith excludes doubt, and in that state you displease

God, for "without faith, it is impossible to please him" (Heb. 11:6). Faith and infallibility

go hand in hand.

You admit infallible certainty in the physical sciences, such as an astronomer's

prediction of an eclipse; that certain insects have 8,000 eyes; that a drop of water

sometimes contains more atomic bodies than there are inhabitants on our planet. If we

accept these and countless other inconceivable statements as correct, it is evident that

the vast majority of us do so on faith, depending solely on the assertions of a very few

individuals, most of whom we have never seen. We are all disciples of someone, and

many of us accept the declarations of the "popes of science" quite as submissively as

Catholics receive an <ex cathedra> utterance of the Holy See.

It has been said, too, that the Catholic Church in the course of ages ceased to teach the

pure truths of Christ, introduced error, and so today cannot be regarded as the true

Church.

Remember these words spoken by Christ of his Church:

a) "I for my part declare to you, you are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my Church,

and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).

b) "I will ask the Father and He will give you another Paraclete- to be with you always:

the Spirit of truth" (Jn. 14: 16-17).

c) "And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world!" (Mt. 28:20).

So spoke Christ of his Church. Either the Catholic Church never was the true Church;

or it once was the true Church and went into error; or it was and still is the true

Church. There is no other choice.

As for the first possibility (it never was the true Church), where was Christ's Church for

1,600 years? As for the second point, if it were the true Church and went into error,

then Christ lied when He said the jaws of death would not prevail against it, and that

the Spirit of truth would always be with it, and that He would be with it to the end of

the world; for if it fell into error, then the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, has not been

with it all days.

The only conclusion is the third possibility: the Catholic Church was, and still is, the

Church of Christ.

It is a marvelous fact, worthy of record, that in the entire history of the Church, from

the first century to the twentieth, no example can be produced to show that any Pope or

general council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding

Pontiff or council.[1] Her record of the past nineteen centuries ought to be an assurance

that there will be no change in the future. Pope John XXIII affirmed this fact on October

11, 1962, in his speech opening the Second Vatican Council:

The Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and

important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences,

wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or

distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and

contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well

received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will. Our duty is

not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity,

but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our

era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty

centuries.[2]

The infallibility which Christ promised to his Church, it should be noted, "resides also

in the body of bishops when that body exercises supreme teaching authority with the

successor of Peter," said the Fathers of Vatican II. This is true, they explained, only

when the bishops are "gathered together in an ecumenical council," or "when they are

dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among

themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of

faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held

conclusively" (<Dogmatic Constitution on the Church>, No. 25). In both cases, the

bishops must act in conjunction with the Pope. In other words, the successor of Peter

must be involved in any infallible pronouncement. He does not need the approval of

the bishops to teach infallibly, but they cannot do so without his approval.

We should not leave this question of papal authority and infallibility without saying

something about the duty of Catholics to give positive assent to the Pope's non-

infallible teachings, such as the encyclicals which are frequently issued by the Pontiffs.

There are three good reasons why Catholics should accept these authentic, but not

infallible, pronouncements: (1) They can be considered informed because the Pope

seeks the advice of experts on the religious or moral issue to be treated. (2) They can be

considered important because the Holy Father and his advisers are unlikely to use the

power of the Papacy to influence the times in which they live needlessly or unwisely.

(3) They can be considered reliable because the Pope still receives assistance from the

Holy Spirit, even when he is not speaking <ex cathedra>.

The Second Vatican Council emphasized the importance of the non-infallible teaching

of the Vicar of Christ when it declared that "religious submission of will and of mind

must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman

Pontiff, even when he is not speaking <ex cathedra>. That is, it must be shown in such

a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments

made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His

mind and will in the matter may be known chiefly either from the character of the

documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of

speaking" (<Dogmatic Constitution on the Church>, No. 25).

The concepts of authority and infallibility are not only reasonable, but are necessary

safeguards for the transmission of God's truths to men.

ENDNOTES

1 Non-Catholics ordinarily mention four Popes as having erred, viz., Paul V and Urban

VIII, who condemned Galileo; and Liberius and Honorius, who are said to have fallen

into heresy. The conditions required for an infallible decision were not present in any

of these cases. For further discussion, cf. Most Rev. M. Sheehan, <Apologetics and

Catholic Doctrine>, Dublin: M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., 1944, pp. 191 ff.

2 Pope John's Opening Speech to the Council, <The Documents of Vatican II>, ed.

Walter M. Abbott, S.J., New York: The America Press, 1966, p. 715.

(Chapters of 9 and 12 of "Catholicism and Reason" by Rev. Edward J. Hayes, Rev. Msgr.

Paul J. Hayes and James J. Drummey.)

Copyright © 1996 EWTN

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

PO Box 3610

Manassas, VA 22110

Voice: 703-791-2576

Fax: 703-791-4250

Data: 703-791-4336

FTP: EWTN.COM

Telnet: EWTN.COM

Email address: SYSOP@ EWTN.COM