Scandals and The Catholic Church

 Last week, June 29th, was the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and in the sermon for last Sunday we were reminded about the nature of the Church. Jesus Christ founded His Church to be the guide for us, but more importantly to be the dispenser of grace from Him. That is the nature of the Church! We need to not be so focused on the scandals which the secular media keep bringing up, as well as those who are haters of the Church - including Satan. Satan rejoices when he can draw our attention away from Jesus Christ, His Church and the Sacraments. The more we sow discord, the more we are doing the work of Satan. Our focus needs to be on what nourishes our souls and that which builds up His Church, not rips it apart.

Now, does that mean we just turn a blind eye to those who have been criminal in the Church? By no means, but those who have done wrong need to be turned over to the civil authorities and let the chips fall where they may. Do your duty and move on, it is not our duty to be inquisitors and go out looking for trouble. It is also not our duty to stand on the street corners and hold up signs. Sure, it lets everyone know you care - but it is also rekindling the flames of discord that many non-Catholics love to stir up - and again - Satan loves to see disharmony among God's people. Ask yourself, "Whom do I serve?"

Bring your focus back to the Eucharist, the Mystery of Faith, the Mass, Confession, and all the Sacraments. Look to Christ for His Grace and BE the example of Christ to others.

 

Rembrandt's painting of Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galilee

 Such a learning tool! Note that those in the front of the boat are focused on the storm and worried for the boat to come apart - but those in the back of the boat are focused on Christ. They are still worried, but their trust is in the Lord to get them through this - and He does. The lighting of this painting is interesting too, those being more illuminated, even attention brought to them, are not those focused on Christ. The back side of the boat is in darkness, but Jesus is the Light, and His face is the Light in that darkness. When Jesus awakes, He scolds the Apostles - "Oh ye of little faith!"

When our ship is rocked by the storm of scandals - remember Who is in control - and do not lose faith.

Primacy of Peter

We find that Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of the apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times in the New testament of our Bibles.  Peter is also always listed first except in 1 cor 3:22 and Gal 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).  In light of this maybe we should have a look at the role that Peter received from Jesus in our Bible.

In today’s Gospel reading we find that Jesus is making Peter the shepherd of all, including the other apostles.  After Peter denied Jesus 3 times at the beginning of His Passion, Jesus asked the same basic question after His Resurrection when He appeared to the twelve.  He asked Peter if he loved Him: “Do you love more than these?” (referring to the twelve apostles who were present.)  Peter answers that yes, of course he loves Him.  Jesus then tells him to “tend my lambs, “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep,” which refers to all His followers, including the other apostles themselves.  Jesus charges Peter “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.”  Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Another verse that I find clear that Jesus was gave Peter the Primacy of the twelves authority is when Jesus explained to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,^[a] that he might sift you^[b] like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

A couple of things to notice.  First, Simon was Peter’s name before Jesus changed it when He said “You are Peter and on this rock…”  Second, the ‘you’ marked with [a] is the singular ‘you’, the one marked with [b] is the plural ‘you’.  We’re losing a key distinction when translating the original Greek text into English.  The word ‘you’ in English is the same whether in singular form or plural form but this isn’t so in the Greek of the New Testament times.  An easier way of reading that won’t lose the differences could be this way: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you[,Simon],^[a] that he might sift you [all]^[b] like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you [,Simon], that your faith may not fail; and when you[, Simon] have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

We can plainly see that Jesus is showing Peter and the apostles that Peter is indeed the ‘leader’ of the twelve, the one with primacy of authority.  But let’s confirm this understanding by looking at some early Christian writings.
Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

God Bless
Nathan

Questions for Catholics - Part 4 - The Rock

For this section we will be dealing with Prasch's questions on the "Rock."

The second question I would like to ask is this one: I was always told in Catholic schools and by my mother that Peter was “the rock”. “Upon this rock I will build my church” from Matthew 16. (Mt. 16:18)  I was told that in English and, when I was a little boy, I was taught to read Latin. The Bible was the Vulgate, the only one read ritually; it was not studied. However, having learned to read the original Greek and Hebrew languages, I looked at the original meaning in the original languages. I would not call myself a Protestant, but remember Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer and every one of the reformers, every one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation was from the intelligentsia of the Roman Catholic priesthood. Everyone had been a Roman Catholic priest who went back and read the Scriptures in the original languages. I’m not defending Protestantism, I don't identify with it; I’m a Christian, but I’m just asking the question, “Is Peter the rock?”

Let us first look at the term "Protestant," what does it mean?  A Protestant is one who protests - and clearly, Mr. Prasch is protesting against the Catholic Church.  He can say he doesn't identify with it - but "it" identifies with him in his protesting. 

I lived in Israel for many years and at the base of Mt. Herman there’s a place called “Banyas”. In the Bible it was called “Caesarea Philippi” and it is there where Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build My church”. And I was told that He gave the keys and power to Peter. “Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. (Mt. 16:19)

Where one has lived really doesn't add weight, one way or the other, to the argument.

I'd like to read directly from the Greek language what it says in the New Testament. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but when Matthew wrote it down on the testimony of the apostles who’d been eyewitnesses he wrote it in Greek. Or if it was written in another language it was quickly translated into Greek. We have one historical reference that Matthew might have been in Hebrew or the Hebrew dialect of Aramaic according to Haggis Sippus, but there’s no manuscript ever found. We have the Greek. And it is the translation of the Greek which the Roman Catholic church bases its doctrine that Peter is “the rock”. Is that what it says?
Verse 18, and I’ll translate it word by word:

“Kago de” – “Also I” or “And also I”…
…”soi lego” – “to thee” or “to you say”…
…”hoti sy ei Petros” – “thou art Peter” or “you are Peter”…
…”kai” – “and”…
…”epi” – “around” or “on, but in the context it would mean “on”, with that I agree…
…”taute te petra” – “on this rock”…
…”oikodomeso… (from where we get the word “oikos” – “house”) …"mou” – “I will build of Me”…
…”ten ekklesian” – “the church”.

It would be built on Christ, not of Peter.

Even with Mr. Prasch's translation it says "I will build OF Me," not "ON" Me! That is saying that Jesus is the Builder, not the one being built upon.

At Banyas – Caesarea Philippi, there’s a cascade with millions and millions of flat chips of stone washed out of the cascade. The Greek word “petros” – “Peter”, “little Peters”. There is a big boulder on which the temple of the Greek god Pan that had been there at one time had been built and the temple to Caesar Augustus, the deified emperor, had been built that Jesus was referring to where the house would be built. That is called a “petra”. “You are one of these little chips of stone; upon this boulder I will build my church of Me.”

Mr. Prasch makes the mistake, as many Protestant apologists make, of not recognizing that the Greek language has gender specific terms.  When speaking of a man's name, in this case "Peter" - or in the Greek, "Petros," the word is masculine.  However, when speaking of an inanimate object, such as a "rock," the word would indeed be "petra" (or "petras").  The explanation of Prasch's abuse of the Greek is quite simple.  He attempts to anticipate this objection next...

When asked to explain this, Roman Catholic scholars say, “But Jesus was speaking Aramaic, or a language related to Hebrew. and because Peter was a male He had the use the masculine form 'petros', which is the word for 'a little rock' instead of 'petra' which is the word for 'a boulder’”. I went to a pretty good university and a pretty good bible college and I'm told by people who are from Greece that my Greek is not bad so far as my understanding of its meaning. But I know people who are really, really fluent in Greek, they grew up speaking it and they’re experts in reading the Old Testament, the church fathers, and so forth, they are from Greece. I know people like this in Australia particularly, and they confirm what I say is right. And so if there’s any academic or a person with a degree in Greek saying what I say is right, what I say is what I was taught. Gender in Greek does not have to do with sex in any primary sense; it has to do with the way a word is used in the context of the sentence. It is not male and female as in sex, it’s male and female as in the way the word is used in the context.

No, Mr. Prasch, gender specific terms are exactly that - gender specific.  It would be improper to call a man by a feminine gendered noun of "petras."  Regardless of your unnamed "people who are really fluent in Greek," (unnamed sources are essentially worthless), the other problem you would have here is we're not talking about the modern use of Greek, but biblical Greek.  But, without seeing what these "fluent speakers" are actually translating, you really have presented us with a lot of words, but an empty assertion.  

The above being said, you started off that paragraph stating we (Catholics) would say Jesus was speaking Aramaic, to which there is evidence to that end since in Aramaic "Peter" would be "Kephas" or "Cephas" and we see the untranslated Aramaic used in John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5 and Gal. 2:9 (KJV).  So, if we go with the Aramaic approach Matthew 16:18 would read something like, "Thou art Kephas and upon this Kephas I will build My Church."  You see, there's no variation in Aramaic, as there is in Greek.  Going to the Aramaic, which I would agree, is most likely the language Jesus was actually speaking at the time, Prasch's argument loses even more ground.

Next, Prasch goes into other contexts which use similar language, but the context is not talking about building the Church - let us us look at what he presents and look at what is actually being discussed in context.

Let us look 1 Corinthians 10:4…
and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.In Greek it says, “de he petra en ho Christos”. “Petra”. Christ Himself who was a male is referred to in the feminine. The idea that they changed the gender because Peter was a male is ridiculous. That is not how Greek grammar works. I don't believe St. Paul made a mistake, nor did the Holy Spirit when He inspired St. Paul to write Corinthians. “The rock” is Christ and it’s called “petra”. What does it say in Matthew 16? “You are ‘petros’ and upon the ‘petra’ I will build My church.” You cannot use a little chip of stone the size of your thumb as the foundation for a building; you cannot use a “petros” as the foundation for a building; you can only use a “petra”. If you’ve been to Caesarea Philippi you would see it makes no logical sense. If you know Greek you would see it makes no logical sense.

Two things here, 1) the "petra" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is not a name - it is a descriptor; 2) the context is not speaking of building the Church, but of what the Jewish forefathers in the desert did.  That manna which they partook of in the desert was from this rock which was following them (in the desert).  The analogy is the rock was Jesus Christ.  Prasch continues...

But there's more. In 1 Corinthians 3:11 we read something else.
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.If anyone – if anyone – builds on the foundation of something else – gold, silver, precious stones, etc., it’ll be manifested on the day of the Lord; it will be revealed with fire; it won't stand. The only foundation we can build on is Christ, not Peter. Was St. Paul wrong? For that matter, were the early Roman Catholic popes and councils wrong? Or were the later ones wrong who said that Peter is “the rock” instead of Christ even though the New Testament says the opposite, and even though their early popes said the opposite?

Wow!  At face value Prasch's argument sounds quite convincing!  It speaks of building on a foundation other than Jesus Christ.  Yes, it does!  However, the context is not about the building of the Church, it is about the works of men.  If the man does not build his works in the State of Grace, that is, within Christ, then when those works are tested by fire - they will be burned up and the man will suffer loss, yet he will be saved.  This has nothing to do with the building of the Church!  Just because the term "petra" or "rock" is used does not mean it is comparable to Matthew 16:18-19.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that its doctrines are not only “apostolic”, but “patristic” – they come from the church fathers. I do not believe in the doctrinal authority of the church fathers. I do not believe the “apostolic” necessarily equals the “patristic”. However, even if I did, of the church fathers the Roman Catholic church looks to as a way to define what the apostles believed, most of the church fathers said that “the rock” was Christ, not Peter. A minority of them said “the rock” was the faith of Peter. Most say “the rock” was Christ, a few said “the rock” was Peter’s faith. None – not even one of their own church fathers – not only one of your church fathers has ever said that “the rock” was Peter,

Really?  First of all, "apostolic" and "patristic" are not equivalent terms and the Church does not teach that they are - red herring.  

Secondly, Prasch claims that "not even one of (our) own church fathers" teach that Peter is the rock.  

St. Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]). 

Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).  

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).  

St. Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters, 15:2).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

So, while Prasch has asserted that not even ONE Church Father supports Peter as being "the rock" I have presented FOUR and there are more.  Prasch should be a little more careful in making absolute statements such as "not one..." for it makes it extremely easy for anyone to find even ONE to make his statement absolutely false.

Given the fact that you cannot use a chip of stone the size of your thumb – a flat chip of stone the size of your thumb – as the foundation for a building, given the fact that the original language says “You are the ‘chip of stone’ and upon ‘the boulder’ I will build My church”, given the fact as St. Paul says we can build on no foundation other than Christ Himself, and given the fact of the New Testament says that Christis “the rock” – “petra”, “the boulder”, and given the fact that none of your own church fathers of the Roman Church believed that “the rock” was Peter, why do you? Why do you believe something which is practically, historically, biblically, patristically unfounded? And in fact, having been to Caesarea Philippi so many times, I have to say asbsurd. Why, in the early centuries, did no one believe it? Popes were fired – sacked by church councils. That is the question.

Prasch's question includes an assertion which begs the question!  As we have already seen, he is wrong about the historical and patristic recording of Peter being the rock upon which Jesus would build His Church and biblically, it is still Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17.  So, why do we believe this?  Because Jesus Christ Himself established it and it IS evidenced throughout history, including patristic writings.  

At the end of that paragraph, Prasch inserts an unsubstantiated comment that "popes were fired - sacked by church councils," as if that has anything to do with Jesus naming Peter "Rock" and promising to build His Church on "this Rock."  Church councils do not have that authority!  I am aware of a pope being judged postmortem but I am wholly unaware of ANY pope being fired or "sacked" by a Church council, therefore I would challenge Prasch (or anyone else who might support his position) to document this claim, or retract it as a false statement.

My mother has the view that many people would have – Irish, Catholic, British, Protestant. I just got back from Ireland a few days ago and I‘ve studied Irish history at some length. I was astounded to discover that most of the founders of Irish Republicanism, originally called “The Home Rule Movement” – Isaac Butt, Theobold, Napper Tandy, Charles Parnell, Wolfe-Tone – every one of them was a Protestant. “The Irish patriots like Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, was a Protestant. It was only later identified with Catholicism in the times of Daniel O'Connor and so forth. But I was more astounded to learn how the “English”, quote/unquote, first got involved in Ireland. There was a non-English king, an ethnic Norman. He was not Anglo-Saxon, he was a French Viking. Henry II was threatened with excommunication by Pope Adrian IV if he would not invade Ireland and put an end to the local Celtic church in Ireland, and force them to acquiesce to Rome and the papacy. How did the English first become involved in invading and occupying Ireland? The pope sent them.

The term is “revisionism”. I’m no admirer of Voltaire’s values, but he was a talented writer. And he was right about one thing: “History is the lie everybody agrees on”. When you read what really happened you get a different picture. But the problem I have in speaking to my very Catholic mother is her Catholic identity is part and parcel of her Irish identity and can't see beyond it. There is a historical prejudice that's emotionally charged. It would be family disloyalty. Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me”. (Mt.10:37) Do I love my mother? Yes, but I love God first and I want them to know the truth.

Wow!  Where did Prasch study Irish history?  Does he realize that the history of Christendom in Ireland goes back much further than the 12th Century Pope Adrian IV?  I think not!  Prasch's view ignores the fact that St. Patrick, after first being captured as a slave in pre-Christian Ireland, returned years later to convert the people to Christ and is acknowledged to be the first Bishop or Prelate of Ireland.  When was St. Patrick in Ireland?  Born at the end of the 4th Century, St. Patrick was sent as a missionary to Ireland in 433 A.D. to convert the Druids.  Mr. Prasch, listen to your mother, she's got this right!
Prasch continues:

When I looked for the truth I found that “the rock” was and is Christ, not Peter, not only according to the New Testament but according to Roman Catholic history itself, That's my second question: Why do you believe Peter is “the rock” when the New Testament and your own church fathers and just the practical circumstances of trying to build a house on a chip of stone all dictate he could not possibly be?

We've already seen Mr. Prasch's argument here answered and his position demonstrated to be false regarding St. Peter and the Rock.  Now he asks the "little stone" or "chip of stone" v. the "large stone" or "boulder" - which again takes us back to the Greek of petros v. petra, and the reasoning for using those two words in the Greek has already been presented.  

Another point, in modern Greek there's a slight difference between petras and petros though the meanings overlap (they both can mean the same thing even in modern Greek) but in Koine Greek, the words are synonymous.  We are reminded that the Prasch brought up Aramaic as the language which Jesus was actually speaking - and again, there's only one word in the Aramaic - "Kephas" (or "Cephas").  The bottom line here, no matter how you slice it, the inflected difference in the Koine Greek really makes no difference in the meaning of the words, the only difference is the nouns being named.  An inanimate rock gets the feminine gendered "petras" but a male person would get the masculine gendered "petros." 

Popes have been warlords. They ordered nations to go to war with each other. They’ve been homosexuals, they’ve had illegitimate children. The banking families of Europe would vie to get their man into the papacy – the Borgia popes, the Medici family. Sometimes there would be two or three people claiming to be pope and the one that had the biggest military backing, usually from France, would declare the others to be antipopes. Well, I'll leave that to others to sort out. The only question I'm asking you is how can Peter be “the rock”?

Prasch's argument here is a non sequitur.  It does not follow from the previous to the conclusion.  In other words, the type or number of persons who were popes has absolutely no bearing on Peter and "the rock."  This then becomes nothing but a diversionary (red herring) argument, and the objective reader must reject it as just that.

And even if he was “the rock”, where does it say that Peter was empowered to pass that position on to others? If Peter was the first pope, why is it in the book of Acts 15 at the first council of the church that James presided, not Peter? James says, “Brethren, listen to Peter”? No, “Listen to me”. (Acts 15:13) And he does not rule by decree. He says, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us”. (Acts 15:28) It was a collective decision by all the apostles, it was not the pope speaking autocratically ex cathedra. Why was James presiding and doing all the talking if Peter was the pope? It’s a fair question.  Why did James preside if Peter was the pope?

I'll accept this as a "fair question," but an ignorant one.  The council was held in Jerusalem, and James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.  As such, the bishop of that jurisdiction should convene and conclude the council.  Note as well, when James said "listen to me" he was also assenting to the decision made by Peter to settle the dispute.  James did not make the decision, he agreed and consented to Peter's decision, see Acts 15:7.  St. Peter also was not the only one to speak out at the council - note that the whole council fell silent when Barnabas and Paul spoke about how moved the Gentiles were when they spoke among them (Acts 15:12).  Church councils also do make decisions based upon consensus of the bishops in attendance - so inadvertently, Prasch has given testimony to how Church councils work.  I would add, no council can be called "ecumenical" without the consent/approval of the Bishop of Rome.  Clearly St. Peter was in agreement with the decision at the Council of Jerusalem - as it was HIS decision.

Why did St. Paul rebuke Peter in the presence of all in the book of Galatians? (Gal. 2:11-14) When is the last time you saw a bishop or a cardinal or a priest standing up in public and face-to-face challenging the pope and telling him off for being a hypocrite or behaving hypocritically? I've seen them kneel down and kiss his ring, but I've never seen any of them tell him off. You don't talk that way to the pope. If Peter was the pope, why did Paul talk to him that way? Fair question?

Being pope does not equate to being impeccable.  Many Protestants seem to confuse the teaching of infallibility with impeccability.  No pope is perfect.  All popes make mistakes.  All popes go to confession.  Some popes have made serious errors in judgment and/or actions.  None of that affects the fact that they are successors to St. Peter's bishoprick/office.  Why did St. Paul correct St. Peter?  Because St. Peter was wrong.  St. Peter was the first pope, and he made mistakes, we should not expect that St. Peter's successors would be impeccable either.

Even in its earlier centuries the Roman Church didn’t believe that. Now of course I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist as such until the 4th Century, but we’ll put that aside. The question I'm asking is in light of the evidence – biblical, patristic, and historical and practical, how can you possibly believe Peter is “the rock” when the Bible says “the rock” is Christ and we can build on no other foundation?

Prasch is repeating himself in this question and we've already answered it, but I shall recap it briefly again.  The Scripture which Prasch quotes citing we can "build on no other foundation" is in the context of the works of men.  Works not built upon Christ, or as Catholics would call it, "in the state of grace," will be burned up and the person will "suffer loss" (1 Cor. 3:15).  That passage is NOT about building the Church, as Matt. 16:18-19 states.  

Prasch has committed so many errors in his premises, no one could or should accept his conclusions.  I say this in all charity, Mr. Prasch, listen to your mother and come back to your Holy Mother, the Church.

Questions for Catholics Index

Part Three - Purgatory

Part Five - The Eucharist and John 6

Peter the Rock

In Matthew’s parallel section of this week’s Gospel reading we find Jesus changing Peter’s name from Simon to 'Peter'.  In response to Simon’s (ie Peter) answer the Jesus the Christ, the son of the living God Jesus tells Peter that he is indeed blessed and on the Rock that is Peter His Church will be built (Matt 16:16-18).  Here’s a short exchange from an online source on how one can defend the Catholic position that Jesus made Peter the first Pope on that day and with those words...

For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.

Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.

When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-day Adventist. He asked if he could "share" with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.

He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.

Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.

Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.

I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.

"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."

"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros andpetra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it."

"Case closed," he thought.

It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.

"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."

"The what?" he asked.

"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."

"I thought Greek was."

"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

Large portions of text copied from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

God Bless
Nathan

Without Peter?

To be a Christian without full communion to the See of St. Peter is to be lacking in some manner to the fullness of the Faith in the Church which Jesus Christ built upon that Rock. Let us look objectively at some of the Early Church Fathers and then at an ecumenical dialog between Catholicism and Orthodoxy...

Clement of Alexandria

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Aghios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, September 27 - October 4, 2008

Introduction

1. In the Ravenna document, "The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church – Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority", Catholics and Orthodox acknowledge the inseparable link between conciliarity and primacy at all levels of the life of the Church: "Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy" (Ravenna document, n. 43). They also agree that "in the canonical order (taxis) witnessed by the ancient Church", which was "recognised by all in the era of the undivided Church", "Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs' (nn. 40, 41). The document refers to the active role and prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as "protos among the patriarchs', "protos of the bishops of the major Sees' (nn. 41, 42, 44), and it concludes that "the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches' must be 'studied in greater depth". "What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia?" (n. 45)

2. The topic for the next stage of the theological dialogue is therefore: "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium". The aim is to understand more deeply the role of the bishop of Rome during the period when the Churches of East and West were in communion, notwithstanding certain divergences between them, and so to respond to the above question.

3. The present text will treat the topic by considering the following four points: – The Church of Rome, prima sedes; – The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter; – The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion; – The influence of non-theological factors.

The Church of Rome, "prima sedes"

4. Catholics and Orthodox agree that, from apostolic times, the Church of Rome has been recognised as the first among the local Churches, both in the East and in the West. The writings of the apostolic fathers clearly testify to this fact. Rome, the capital of the empire, quickly gained renown in the early church as the place of martyrdom of saints Peter and Paul (cf Rev 11:3-12). It occupied a unique place among the local churches and exercised a unique influence. Late in the first century, invoking the example of the martyrs, Peter and Paul, the Church of Rome wrote a long letter to the Church of Corinth, which had ejected its elders (1 Clem. 1, 44), and urged that unity and harmony (homonoia) be restored. The letter was written by Clement, subsequently identified as bishop of Rome (cf Irenaeus, Adv.Haer., 3, 3, 2), though the exact form of leadership in Rome at that time is unclear.

5. Soon afterwards, on his way to martyrdom in Rome, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Church of Rome with high esteem, as "worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of being called blessed, worthy of success, worthy of purity". He referred to it as "presiding in the region of the Romans', and also as "presiding in charity" ("prokathemene tes agapes'; Romans, Salutation). This phrase is interpreted in various ways, but it seems to indicate that Rome had a regional role of seniority and leadership, and that it was distinguished in the essentials of Christianity, namely faith and charity. Ignatius also spoke of Peter and Paul, who preached to the Romans (Romans, 4).

6. Irenaeus emphasised that the Church of Rome was a sure reference point for apostolic teaching. With this Church, founded by Peter and Paul, it was necessary that every Church should agree (convenire), "propter potentiorem principalitatem", a phrase which can be variously understood as "because of its more imposing origin" or "because of its greater authority" (Adv.Haer., 3, 3, 2). Tertullian also praised the Church of Rome "upon which the apostles [Peter and Paul] poured their whole teaching together with their blood". Rome was foremost among the apostolic churches and none of the many heretics who went there seeking approval was ever received (cf De Praescrip. 36). The Church of Rome was thus a point of reference both for the "rule of faith" and also in the search for a peaceful resolution of difficulties either within or between certain Churches.

7. The bishop of Rome was occasionally in disagreement with other bishops. Regarding the dating of Easter, Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna failed to agree in 154 AD but maintained eucharistic communion. Forty years later, bishop Victor of Rome ordered synods to be held to settle the matter – an interesting early instance of synodality and indeed of popes encouraging synods – and excommunicated Polycrates of Ephesus and the bishops of Asia when their synod refused to adopt the Roman line. Victor was rebuked by Irenaeus for this severity and it seems that he revoked his sentence and that communion was preserved. In the mid-3rd century, a major conflict arose regarding whether those baptised by heretics should be re-baptised when received into the Church. Recalling local tradition, Cyprian of Carthage and the bishops of north Africa, supported by synods around the eastern bishop Firmilian of Caesarea, maintained that such people should be re-baptised, whereas bishop Stephen of Rome, with reference to Roman tradition and indeed to Peter and Paul (Cyprian, Ep. 75, 6, 2), said that they should not. Communion between Stephen and Cyprian was severely impaired but not formally broken. The early centuries thus show that the views and decisions of the bishops of Rome were sometimes challenged by fellow bishops. They also show the vigorous synodal life of the early Church. The many African synods at this time, for instance, and Cyprian's frequent correspondence with Stephen and especially with his predecessor, Cornelius, manifest an intense collegial spirit (cf Cyprian, Ep. 55, 6, 1-2).

8. All the Churches of East and West believed that the Church of Rome held first place (i.e. primacy) among the Churches. This primacy resulted from several factors: the foundation of this Church by Peter and Paul and the sense of their living presence there; the martyrdom in Rome of these two foremost apostles (koryphes) and the location of their tombs (tropaia) in the city; and the fact that Rome was the capital of the Empire and the centre of communication.

9. The early centuries show the fundamental and inseparable link between the primacy of the see of Rome and the primacy of its bishop: each bishop represents, personifies and expresses his see (cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnaeans 8; Cyprian, Ep. 66, 8). Indeed, it would be impossible to speak of the primacy of a bishop without referring to his see. From the second half of the second century, it was taught that the continuity of the apostolic tradition was signified and expressed by the succession of bishops in the sees founded by the apostles. Both East and West have continued to maintain that the primacy of the see precedes the primacy of its bishop and is the source of the latter.

10. Cyprian believed that the unity of the episcopate and of the Church was symbolised in the person of Peter, to whom primacy was given, and in his chair, and that all bishops held this charge in common ("in solidum"; De unit. ecc., 4-5). Peter's chair was thus to be found in every see, but especially in Rome. Those who came to Rome came "to the chair of Peter, to the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity" (Ep. 59, 14, 1).

11. The primacy of the see of Rome came to be expressed in various concepts: cathedra Petri, sedes apostolica, prima sedes. However, the saying of Pope Gelasius: “The first see is judged by no–one” ("Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur"; cf. Ep. 4, PL 58, 28B; Ep. 13, PL 59, 64A), which afterwards was applied in an ecclesial context and became contentious between East and West, originally meant simply that the Pope could not be judged by the Emperor.

12. The Eastern and Western traditions recognised a certain "honour" (timi) of the first among the patriarchal sees which was not purely honorific (Council of Nicaea, can. 6; Council of Constantinople, can. 3; and Council of Chalcedon, can. 28). It entailed an "authority" (exousia; cf Ravenna document, n. 12), which nevertheless was "without domination, without physical or moral coercion" (Ravenna document, n. 14). Although in the first millennium Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor, no council could be recognised as ecumenical without it having the consent of the pope, given either beforehand or afterwards. This can be seen as an application at the universal level of the life of the Church of the principle enunciated in Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of each province (ethnos) must recognize the one who is first (protos) amongst them, and consider him to be their head (kephale), and not do anything important without his consent (gnome); each bishop may only do what concerns his own diocese (paroikia) and its dependent territories. But the first (protos) cannot do anything without the consent of all. For in this way concord (homonoia) will prevail, and God will be praised through the Lord in the Holy Spirit" (cf Ravenna document, n. 24). At all levels in the life of the Church, primacy and conciliarity are interdependent.

13. The Emperor Justinian (527-65) fixed the rank of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, in imperial law (Novellae 131, 2; cf 109 praef.; 123, 3), thus constituting what became known as the Pentarchy. The bishop of Rome was seen as the first in the order (taxis), without however the Petrine tradition being mentioned.

14. Under Pope Gregory I (590-604), a dispute which had already started under Pope Pelagius II (579-590) over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" for the patriarch of Constantinople continued. Different understandings, in East and West, gave rise to the dispute. Gregory saw in the title an intolerable presumption and violation of the canonical rights of the other sees in the East, whereas in the East the title was understood as an expression of major rights in the patriarchate. Later, Rome accepted the title. Gregory said that he personally refused the title "universal pope", being honoured instead simply when each bishop received the honour that was his due ("my honour is the honour of my brothers', Ep. 8, 29). He called himself the 'servant of the servants of God" (servus servorum dei).

15. Charlemagne's coronation in 800 by Pope Leo III marked the beginning of a new era in the history of papal claims. A further factor leading to differences between East and West was the emergence of the False Decretals (c.850), which aimed towards strengthening Roman authority in order to protect the bishops. The Decretals played an enormous role in the following centuries, as popes gradually started to act in the spirit of the Decretals, which declared, for instance, that all major issues (causae maiores), especially the deposition of bishops and metropolitans, were the ultimate responsibility of the bishop of Rome, and that all councils and synods received their legal authority through being confirmed by the Roman see. The patriarchs of Constantinople did not accept such a view, which was contrary to the principle of synodality. Though the Decretals, in fact, did not refer to the East, at a later stage, in the second millennium, they were applied to the East by Western figures. Despite such increasing tensions, in the year 1000 Christians in both the West and the East were still conscious of belonging to a single undivided Church.

Please share your comments!

In Christ,

Scott<<<

Augustine on Peter

My thanks to Cathmom5 who has been presenting snippets from St. Augustine, here are some I've collected on St. Peter...

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51 

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51 

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298 

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76 

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223 

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251 

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513 

Power of the Keys

A friend of mine in the Catholic Debate Forum posted this article, I repost here with his permission:

Power of the Keys

"A type is a person, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something to come later in time, either later in the Old Testament itself or in the New Testament. It is like a taste or hint of something that will be fulfilled or realized. Types are like pictures that come alive in a new and exciting way when seen through the eyes of Christ's revelation." The type is always lesser than the anti-type. The anti-type (New Testament event) is always greater than its type (shadow of an event in the Old Testament). And both are independent of each other.

"Types" are explained in Rom 5:14 and Heb 9:9, as a figure, 1 Cor 10:6 and 2 Thess 3:9 and 2Pet 2:6, as examples, 1 Cor 10:11 and Heb 11:19, as a type.

The Egyptian Exodus told in Hosea 11:1 is quoted exactly in Matt 2:15 when speaking of Jesus' return to Israel from Egypt: "where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son.""

What Matthew has done here is he took an historical event and interpreted it as a shadow of something greater to come in the future, which he sees as 'fulfilled' in the person of Jesus the Messiah.

Adam and Kind David are other examples of types of Christ. By their very nature Old Testament types are imperfect since they only prefigure the ultimate reality that is made known by and through Jesus Christ. Types of Christ find their perfection in the New Testament anti-type, Jesus Christ.

So when we read the Bible, we need to read it on two levels at once. We read the Bible in a literal sense…But we read it also in a spiritual sense, searching out what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us through the words…

We do this in imitation of Jesus, because this is the way He read the scriptures. He referred to Jonah (Mt 12:39), Solomon (Mt12:42), the temple (Jn 2:19), and the brazen serpent (Jn 3:14) as "signs" that prefigured Him.

The king of Judah had a throne and this throne symbolized Yahweh's kingship over Israel (1 Chron 28:5; 29:23). The king was a consecrated and recognized as chosen by God (1 Kings 2:15, 1 Chron 28:5). As king, Saul is recognized as Yahweh's anointed, and therefore is a sacred person (1 Sam 24:7,11; 26:9,11,23 2 Sam 1:14,16).

The words "anointed" and "messiah" are synonyms being respectively the translation and the transliteration of the same Hebrew word "mashiah." The word "Christ" is the Greek translation of this word. Therefore, Hezekiah as an anointed king of Judah prefigured Jesus Christ.

This typology is also seen in several parallels in King Hezekiah's life with that of Jesus Christ. Let us consider one of the most striking parallels between Jesus Christ and the good King Hezekiah. We read in 2 Kings 20 that the King is mortally ill and that he prays to the Lord. Then the Lord speaks through his holy prophet Isaiah that the king is to go up to the temple on the third day and his life will be saved and the city will be saved as well. Thus, Christ's own resurrection on the third day was foreshadowed and how He brought His own Body back to Life and saved the city, the New Jerusalem, the Church.

A very important thing happened in the life of King Hezekiah that Jesus Christ later alludes to.

Isaiah 22:19-23

"I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family"

Compare Isaiah 22 with Matthew 16:18-19 which states:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This title, or position was also known in non-Jewish governments and we can see that the power that the holder of the keys actually has can be determined by reading Gen 41:39-40 "So Pharaoh said to Joseph: '…You shall be in charge of my palace,…Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you.'" Gen 41 seems to suggest that he ruled not by exercising his own private judgment, but rather was in charge of executing the will of the king.

We see this confirmed in Isaiah 22:22 when we read that the Master of the palace will rule such that when "he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." This passage presupposes that he will just be executing a judgment in keeping with the will of the king, or else it would have said, "what he opens, no one shall shut, except for the king." The Master of the palace is, so to speak, the agent or mouthpiece for the king.

One important point in Isaiah 22 is that it is the transfer of the keys that designates Eliakim as the new master of the palace, "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder…" King David had been dead many years when this took place. Therefore, this verse shows that the office of key holder/master of the palace, was an office with successors just as the office of king was. It was the transferring of the keys that denoted the transfer of power to the new successor of this office as the king's representative, his regent, the master of the palace.

It was God the Father who had picked Peter to be the one to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. And it was upon hearing this that Jesus alludes to that passage in Isaiah 22 above and gives the keys to Saint Peter. Matthew 16:13, 19 "'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God... , you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'"

The keys represent absolute power to rule. They are owned by the King of Israel who entrusts them to his representative the "master of the palace." Christ is the true King of Israel. Just as in Isaiah 22 above where the keys are handed down to the successors of the king's prime minister we see Christ giving His keys to his designated "master of the palace," his chief minister, his vicar, St. Peter.

That the "gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" also implies succession for Peter's office just as the holders of the keys of David had successors. Peter died. Yet, Christ's promise is true. Peter who became the Bishop of Rome has a successor. The future tense used in Matthew 16, "will build" and "will give you the keys," refers to what Christ will give to St. Peter after the Resurrection.

Since we find many instances when Jesus is comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net (Matt 13:24-52) demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish (Matt 25:1-2), further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven! Again, the "kingdom of God" is like the seed which grows and develops (Mark 4:26-32). The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church. The one Jesus Himself founded.

Let's put it all together with what we've learned today. God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth (2 Sam 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron 17:12,14) and Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus in the first line of his Gospel. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. We see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim (Isa 22:22). Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. We see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostle's offices (Acts 1:20). Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

God Bless

Nathan