Debating about the authority of the Pope

[JRKH]

As a non-Catholic, in all honesty, I find this argument, and the argument that Jesus was speaking only of Peter’s confession as the rock, as requiring theological gymnastics.
Simon was renamed Peter. Certainly Christ is speaking about and to Peter.
The issue becomes, however, what does that mean when speaking about the Bishop of Rome. Does this and the other things already mentioned in the thread mean he has an authority of supremacy over the whole Church? As many veteran posters know, the Lutheran view is that supremacy contradicts not only Christ’s admonishment that there be no hierarchy, but also the testimony of the early Church in the Council of Nicea 325, canon 6.
Is there a unique leadership position granted to Peter by Christ? I can’t see how one can deny that. Does that mean what the post-Schism Catholic Church says it means? Therein we find the rub.

Jon

Like RC, I’ curious about your comment on Jesus admonition.
If it is what I think (Mt 20:25-26), then it is not so much a statement against hierarchy but rather a statement about what such hierarchy entails.

Jesus preached “service” and responsibility, to those who would lead His church. The one who would be first must be the servant of the others. He must not “lord it over” the others “as the gentiles do”. This is a teaching of service and not “power”

I think that in this our Sola Scriptura brothers and sisters make the same mistake that is made with “tradition”.
Just because Jesus spoke negatively about certain traditions, doesn’t mean he denounced all.
Likewise, just because Jesus issued warnings about authority doesn’t mean he denounced all authority.

Too often I think that people think “power and lording” when the look at the papal office - whereas I see “responsibility and service”

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Michael and James,
Actually I was thinking of Luke 22:25 (The Matthew quote is essentially the same), which is quoted in this section of the confessions regarding the primacy of the pope.

Christ expressly prohibits lordship among the apostles [that no apostle should have any supremacy over the rest]. For this was the very question, namely, that when Christ spake of His passion, they were disputing who should be at the head, and as it were the vicar of the absent Christ. There Christ reproves this error of the apostles and teaches that there shall not be lordship or superiority among them, but that the apostles should be sent forth as equals to the common ministry of the Gospel. Accordingly, He says: **The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. **The antithesis here shows [By holding these matters against one another, one sees] that lordship [among the apostles] is disapproved.

that’s not to say this isn’t also about being a servant. It is!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Acts 9:32
“Now as Peter went here and there among them all,…”

Jon, don’t think I find this as ‘proof’, but definitely support for Peter’s authority among the whole Church.

Also, can you provide the reference to Jesus’ admonishment that there be no hierarchy in the Church?

Michael

Michael,
For what its worth, I am not disputing a level of primacy of the Bishop of Rome. This has been clear since the early Church. I am disputing a supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. There are different types of authority.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think that in this our Sola Scriptura brothers and sisters make the same mistake that is made with “tradition”.
Just because Jesus spoke negatively about certain traditions, doesn’t mean he denounced all.
Likewise, just because Jesus issued warnings about authority doesn’t mean he denounced all authority.

Too often I think that people think “power and lording” when the look at the papal office - whereas I see “responsibility and service”

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

Thanks, James
Your thoughts and comments are always thought-provoking.
I don’t think we as Lutherans reject the idea of authority, even that authority vested in the Bishop of Rome. Again, we see this in the early Church. What we don’t see either in scripture or in the early Church, is a supremacy, a universal jurisdiction.

Too often in the past the pope was about “power and lording”, so its no wonder why some think that, even though, clearly, that has not been the approach of popes for many decades or longer.

Jon

 

[Truth_Faith13]

My friend/next door neighbor has a very good heart, and he is a very loving person, I know if he was catholic, he could be a great saint. We have been debating about certain topics, he has actually agreed with some things, but the number one thing we have been discussing is the authority of the Pope, Matthew 16:18, he keeps telling me that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock and not Peter, even though the word peter means rock. I don’t want to push him away by just trying to prove him wrong, I want to bring him into the faith, are there any good arguments I can go on? What is the origin of the word “Pope” and why did we first use that word for the Vicar of Christ? Prayers appreciated too.

Sorry I can’t help with your question directly, however I have heard another Protestant come back for that verse which may come up and hoped you guys may know the answer.

One understanding is that the term rock used to refer to Peter is masculine and then the rock used afterwards (ie upon this rock) is feminine and the same term used to refer to Jesus as the rock elsewhere in the Bible?? Thereby meaning the rock can’t mean Peter but Jesus?

 

[po18guy]

Sorry I can’t help with your question directly, however I have heard another Protestant come back for that verse which may come up and hoped you guys may know the answer.

One understanding is that the term rock used to refer to Peter is masculine and then the rock used afterwards (ie upon this rock) is feminine and the same term used to refer to Jesus as the rock elsewhere in the Bible?? Thereby meaning the rock can’t mean Peter but Jesus?

Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic. No genders for rock in Aramaic. Greek, into which Matthew was translated, requires genders to be used. In Greek, rock is feminine. Peter, who hauled a net of 153 fish onto the shore by himself, would not be called a feminine name.

 

[rcwitness]

Michael and James,
Actually I was thinking of Luke 22:25 (The Matthew quote is essentially the same), which is quoted in this section of the confessions regarding the primacy of the pope.

that’s not to say this isn’t also about being a servant. It is!

Jon

Yes, Jesus strictly Teaches the purpose of His chosen leaders is not to benefit worldly gain from their possition. It is not to be served, but to serve.

This passage of Luke 22 is interesting. Jesus explains to the Apostles the true nature of leadership, and immediately addresses Peter, revealing the desire of the devil over his faith. Yet Jesus prayed specifically that Peter’s faith be unfailling in order to strengthen all the others.

I would think our use of the word Supreme in in the vein of Prime. Vs 29,30 Jesus says, “and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom. That you may sit and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on the thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.”

…Simon, Simon

Michael

 

[calmthesea]

Jon,

Perhaps to address this issue, we should agree on this. Hellenization was extremely troublesome in Jesus’ time. Greek was that language. However, there is evidence that Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic. But, many suggest it was also it was also written in Greek at the same time. There seems to be issues with recognizing obvious translation ‘markers’ in the Greek edition. So, that may be a dead end towards agreement.

Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic. No genders for rock in Aramaic. Greek, into which Matthew was translated, requires genders to be used. In Greek, rock is feminine. Peter, who hauled a net of 153 fish onto the shore by himself, would not be called a feminine name.

And, I can understand your small rock, large rock argument. But, the small rock, large rock argument supports the Catholic view, the Papal view. While we don’t know what the writer and or translator was thinking, could we assume that the Holy Spirit navigated the process? I think that’s your point.

I already posted this but it needs a better clarification. Genders of the languages of the region use genders for nouns. In most languages in the region, at that time and now, the word ‘president’ has a male gender, and the word ‘presidency’ has a female gender. Does the word ‘president’ establish an ongoing office, or does the word ‘presidency’? Perhaps the word ‘Petros’ doesn’t establish a Papacy, but the word ‘Petras’ does. It’s the immovable rock.

There are a great many examples of this in the languages of the region. Consistently, the noun used the office holder is masculine, and the office itself, is a feminine noun. Perhaps, this occurs for the same reason we have male and female threads, and plumbing parts. Here is one of many examples: Hierateia [feminine gender] is the office of the priesthood. Hiereus [masculine gender] is the office holder; the priest.

So, I could say Simon, you a priest (masculine) and on this priesthood (feminine)…, do a word study, even in modern languages (not english) that have abundant gramatical genders of nouns.

You can come up with numerous examples in the Greek lexicon. So, even with opposing views in exegesis and disagreement on the discerning the language of the original documents, we can see that the gender argument would support the continuing office of the Chief Steward.

This revelation seems to go against entrenched arguments on both sides, hence can be brushed aside as not fitting the narrative.

The New Evangelization will require some of these paradigm shifts in thinking. So, I’ll be the first to validate the reasonableness of the small rock/large rock conclusion. However, it supports the Catholic stance.

Best, Patrick

 

[calmthesea]

Matthew was originally composed in Aramaic. No genders for rock in Aramaic. Greek, into which Matthew was translated, requires genders to be used. In Greek, rock is feminine. Peter, who hauled a net of 153 fish onto the shore by himself, would not be called a feminine name.

New Advent does not support this claim as fact. It leaves the door open to having been written in 2 languages, which would support the culture of the time. It suggests the author as having fluidity in both languages.

While there are Church fathers who seem to suggest Aramaic, linguistics supports both Greek, and the possibility of both.

newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Best, Patrick

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, James
Your thoughts and comments are always thought-provoking.

Thanks. Mostly these thoughts and comments are thought provoking for me too…which is a good thing.

I don’t think we as Lutherans reject the idea of authority, even that authority vested in the Bishop of Rome. Again, we see this in the early Church. What we don’t see either in scripture or in the early Church, is a supremacy, a universal jurisdiction.

Here I think there needs to be a discussion of what “universal jurisdiction” means. and how it is applied.

Too often in the past the pope was about “power and lording”, so its no wonder why some think that, even though, clearly, that has not been the approach of popes for many decades or longer.

Jon

And I think that is one of the things we need to work together to get past.
As mentioned before, the papal office is a very different thing than it was in the days of kings, and autocrats, and when the Pope was the head of the papal states etc.

Some people just don’t seem to get that.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

New Advent does not support this claim as fact. It leaves the door open to having been written in 2 languages, which would support the culture of the time. It suggests the author as having fluidity in both languages.

New Advent is entitled to their opinion - and that is exactly what it is. I view much “modern scholarship” with a jaundiced eye, as it often seeks to reverse-engineer history to accord with a current agenda. On principle, why is it that the farther in time we are away from an event, the more we think we know about it?

While there are Church fathers who seem to suggest Aramaic, linguistics supports both Greek, and the possibility of both.

So, no one knows and no one can know? In other words, since the rebellion in the 16th century, things have only become confused and cloudy. Question: Who is the malevolent force that sows the seeds of division, discord and doubt?

As a practical matter, it does not matter which language Matthew was originally composed in. Those who oppose Peter as being prime must remain willfully ignorant of the absolute mountain of scripture in support. As well, they must also ignore early Church history, such as the letter from Clement to the Corinthians, exercising authority over a remote dispute.

 

[Abu]

Truth_Faith13 #25
One understanding is that the term rock used to refer to Peter is masculine and then the rock used afterwards (ie upon this rock) is feminine and the same term used to refer to Jesus as the rock elsewhere in the Bible?? Thereby meaning the rock can’t mean Peter but Jesus?

Peter is the Rock on which Jesus built His Church.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “[Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].

The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
Keating, p 208-11].

Cephas is Aramaic for Rock and Petra is the Greek. When he said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the two words meant the same thing.

Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
'The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cepha” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cepha,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock. To the best of my knowledge and based upon the work of other scholars I have read, I am not aware of another instance of this name in antiquity–certainly it was not commonly known or used. So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name.

‘I highly recommend the book Pope Fiction by a convert to Catholicism, Steve Madrid, which addresses every imaginable attempt to discredit the papacy.’

 

[mardukm]

Dear gmaniq,

Can you tell me where I can read that the Catholic Church teaches the rock in Matthew 16:18 is Jesus, Peter and Peter’s faith all rolled into one? I’m a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic education and I don’t ever recall this teaching. Is it in the catechism or some Church document? I’ve never heard this.

It is taught in the premiere document of the Church - the Bible. Specifically, St. Peter himself taught that Jesus is the Rock (as far as St. Peter’s confession, you can find it in Vatican 1’s Pastor Aeternus). You have seriously, in all your years as a Catholic, never heard of the idea that Jesus is the Rock, or that St. Peter is the Rock ONLY because Jesus Himself is the Rock first and foremost? I find that very strange. When we debate the papacy, we should always be ready to witness first and foremost to its Christological focus and foundation (as with all our doctrines). I believe the problem with much of amateur Catholic apologetics about the papacy is that it forgets the foundational Christological principle behind the papacy. Much of amateur Catholic apologetics contend “Peter is the Rock” IN OPPOSITION to the statement “Jesus is the Rock” or “Peter’s confession is the Rock.” That is a HUGE mistake.

A lesson in Apologetics - you won’t get anywhere unless you try to build common ground first. As stated, admit to Protestants that Jesus IS the Rock. ONLY AFTER that admission should a Catholic proceed to explain that Peter is (also) the Rock. If you immediately launch into the argument that Peter is the Rock, you will give the wrong impression that you are denying the FOUNDATIONAL principle that Jesus is Rock and that Peter is Rock ONLY because Jesus is Rock - you will immediately put your hearer on the defensive, instead of giving him/her a reason to listen to you.

Blessings

 

[MilesVitae]

You have seriously, in all your years as a Catholic, never heard of the idea that Jesus is the Rock, or that St. Peter is the Rock ONLY because Jesus Himself is the Rock first and foremost? I find that very strange.

If I don’t know better, I’d guess you were a convert to Catholicism…

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae #34
If I don’t know better, I’d guess you were a convert to Catholicism.

Especially because of this by mardukm:

Much of amateur Catholic apologetics contend “Peter is the Rock” IN OPPOSITION to the statement “Jesus is the Rock”

Which apologists, in particular, oppose?

 

[JRKH]

Dear gmaniq,

It is taught in the premiere document of the Church - the Bible. Specifically, St. Peter himself taught that Jesus is the Rock (as far as St. Peter’s confession, you can find it in Vatican 1’s Pastor Aeternus). You have seriously, in all your years as a Catholic, never heard of the idea that Jesus is the Rock, or that St. Peter is the Rock ONLY because Jesus Himself is the Rock first and foremost? I find that very strange. When we debate the papacy, we should always be ready to witness first and foremost to its Christological focus and foundation (as with all our doctrines). I believe the problem with much of amateur Catholic apologetics about the papacy is that it forgets the foundational Christological principle behind the papacy. Much of amateur Catholic apologetics contend “Peter is the Rock” IN OPPOSITION to the statement “Jesus is the Rock” or “Peter’s confession is the Rock.” That is a HUGE mistake.

A lesson in Apologetics - you won’t get anywhere unless you try to build common ground first. As stated, admit to Protestants that Jesus IS the Rock. ONLY AFTER that admission should a Catholic proceed to explain that Peter is (also) the Rock. If you immediately launch into the argument that Peter is the Rock, you will give the wrong impression that you are denying the FOUNDATIONAL principle that Jesus is Rock and that Peter is Rock ONLY because Jesus is Rock - you will immediately put your hearer on the defensive, instead of giving him/her a reason to listen to you.

Blessings

I agree with much of this - but I don’t think it is because we “forgets the foundational principle”. Rather, I think the problem very often comes from how the subject is broached and argued by our protestant brethren.
What I mean is this…In a discussion, the protestant (forgive my broad brush here) will say something like, “how can Peter be the rock when Jesus is the rock?” At which point we are trying to defend what is written.
The focus then tends to become very narrow.
It’s not that the broader Truth is forgotten, or ignored - but we fall into the trap of becoming too fixated on this one point.

What I have found interesting in my discussions with various SS / evangelical types of Christians is their tendency to think and talk in an “either/Or” manner. Jesus is the rock, so Peter cannot be. Faith is what saves, so works are useless. The Bible is Gods word so Tradition and succession have not value.
The Catholic takes the “both/And” approach. Jesus is THE rock, but that does not mean Peter cannot be A rock. Faith is key, AND so are works, Scriptures AND Tradition work together…etc.
The Catholic approach is more holistic, where the SS / evangelical one seems (to me) to be more - - - I can’t think if the right word…but it’s about separating things out…

Now - because of these two very different approaches, we can quickly find ourselves talking past one another and frustrated because we don’t seem to be able to communicate - we think…“he just doesn’t get it”…or “he is just not listening”…when in truth - it’s a fundamental difference in approach.

So - the above is a long way of saying that, as you say, we need to build common ground. To understand this mind-set in the other person and two avoid becoming too narrowly focused.
In the case of Mt 16 - one can simply ask…“Why can’t they both be rocks?”
Why can their only be one rock and all others have to be “insignificant pebbles”?
Such questions can help to move the conversation forward.

Peace
James

 

[po18guy]

More accurately, Christ is the “stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” But, the cornerstone establishes the building and determines where the foundation is then laid, but is not the only stone used in the construction of that building.

 

[gmanlq]

Dear gmaniq,

It is taught in the premiere document of the Church - the Bible. Specifically, St. Peter himself taught that Jesus is the Rock (as far as St. Peter’s confession, you can find it in Vatican 1’s Pastor Aeternus). You have seriously, in all your years as a Catholic, never heard of the idea that Jesus is the Rock, or that St. Peter is the Rock ONLY because Jesus Himself is the Rock first and foremost? I find that very strange. When we debate the papacy, we should always be ready to witness first and foremost to its Christological focus and foundation (as with all our doctrines). I believe the problem with much of amateur Catholic apologetics about the papacy is that it forgets the foundational Christological principle behind the papacy. Much of amateur Catholic apologetics contend “Peter is the Rock” IN OPPOSITION to the statement “Jesus is the Rock” or “Peter’s confession is the Rock.” That is a HUGE mistake.

A lesson in Apologetics - you won’t get anywhere unless you try to build common ground first. As stated, admit to Protestants that Jesus IS the Rock. ONLY AFTER that admission should a Catholic proceed to explain that Peter is (also) the Rock. If you immediately launch into the argument that Peter is the Rock, you will give the wrong impression that you are denying the FOUNDATIONAL principle that Jesus is Rock and that Peter is Rock ONLY because Jesus is Rock - you will immediately put your hearer on the defensive, instead of giving him/her a reason to listen to you.

Blessings

Thanks for the Pastor Aeternus reference. That was what I was missing and what I was looking for. I’ve never heard that document referenced before when discussing papal authority in all the books I’ve studied and read.

I think common sense would tell any Christian regardless of faith that without Christ there is no Catholic Church or Christianity for that matter. I’ve always thought of him as the cornerstone as proof of this. I’ve often heard Protestants argue that the rock (male and female) references in Greek were pointing to Peter and/or his faith depending on how it was explained. I didn’t think that they would repeat Catholic teaching so it’s interesting to learn that this Pastor Aeternus document trumps the Protestant teaching. Cool beans.
I like the Memorize the Reasons book by Kevin Vost as it has helped me memorize the bible references to backup apologetic concepts regarding our Catholic faith. He didn’t mention Pastor Aeternus though. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe we should try to define what we believe the rock of Peter to be, more than insisting to others he is the rock.

I mean things like:

The rock Jesus appointed is more an office established on Peter.

This office is a pastor of the Church world wide.

This office was prophisied (sp?) about in Isaiah.

This office is to strengthen all the faithfull.

Even St Paul became subject to this office to be Confirmed.

Etc…

Michael

 

[Abu]

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament.

“Jesus’ choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman."

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”[See *And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].