|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Papal Post! (or what's up with the Pope?) |
|
| |
Shane asks: I have a problem in my thinking concerning the Pope. I don't understand how the direction of the church can be determined by one man, when the early church was run by councils, and James being the leader of that, not Peter according to Acts 15. Do you have any information you can offer to help with my dilemmas with the Pope?
Awesome! Amazing and fun!! Let’s tackle this one J
But first, if you haven’t read the first “Papal” post you gotta read it... HERE
And, if you already read that one I recommend you read Acts 15 … HERE
Ok, did you read it? Really? Ok, then we are good to go. (sorry for the reading material! But if not we are gonna get really confused!)
Shane pointed out that that the main decisions of the early Church were taken in Councils according to Acts 15… and “ta da!” guess what?!
In the Catholic Church the councils are still going on! The last big fat Ecumenical (meaning world-wide) Council took place on 1962 and is called Vatican II. So, big decisions, in the Catholic Church, are still taken by bringing all the leaders of the individual regions together and having a long chat… but all this under the primacy of Peter. That last bit we’ll explain later. J
Now Shane also points out that in Acts 15 it is James who is the leader of the Council..mmm…well… I am not sure that the fact that James spoke at the end means that he is the leader of the Council…just as Peter’s presence and the fact that he spoke first does not prove his Primacy either… I mean, I could even say that there was a council before that, the one in which they chose a substitute for Judas in Acts 1:12-26…and in that one the only one who spoke was Peter…but this doesn’t really prove nothing in either side.
It is a basic rule of Bible interpretation to read the Bible as a whole, in context… so we gotta read the whole New Testament Scripture to see if we can find a consistent indication of the Primacy of Peter…and…well….err… There are a lot of indications…and I mean…a whole bunch! One of the main ones is Matthew 16:17
“ Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." ”
Catholics get real happy with the part that I put on Bold… now, we all know that the bit of “whatever you bind….” was later on promised to all of the apostles, not just Peter in Mt. 18:18…bbbuuuuttt….the part of “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”…was only said to Peter. Jesus gave the Keys only to Peter… This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22)
In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself… the Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, the King would only give the Keys to his closest, most trusted servant, his “Prime Minister.”
Jesus knew he would have to leave. His Kingdom was established, but now he needed a Prime Minister…guess who, according to Catholics, that is…Pedrooo!!
So the Pope is not the “king” of the Church, he is simply the Prime Minister, taking care of the kingdom until the King returns. (Oh…and yeah…the Church ain’t a democracy… it is a monarchy, Christ is the King, and the Pope his prime minister and bishops His councils and laity His people..)
Anyway, but this is just one little tiny itty verse….are there more? Yep…
In John 21:15-19 Jesus and Peter are having a chat after the Resurrection. Peter had denied Christ three times, so Jesus gives him a chance to repent and reconcile with Him by asking Peter if he loves Him…. But after each “I do love you Lord” Jesus calls him to be the Shepherd of his people… “feed my lambs.. take care of my sheep...feed my sheep.” Jesus did not give this command to any of the other apostles.
In Luke 22: 31-32 “ Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Him… but that afterwards, when Peter turns back from his sin, he will have the duty to strengthen his brothers… again, He did not give this command to any of the other apostles…
This is the stuff Jesus explicitly said about Peter…his role as Prime Minister, Shepherd and Leader that the other apostles do not have… but there are other parts of Scripture that point at Peter’s special role…and they are a bunch! Take a deep breath and let’s plunge in!:
Because of his authority:
- Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles ( Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69)
- On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40)
- It was Peter who worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).
- He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26),
- He received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
- He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
- He excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
- Whenever the apostles were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
- Sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
- It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
- Peter does seem to be a much more relevant apostle simply by the number of times his name is mentioned in the NT. He is mentioned 191 times…John, the one who is next is mentioned 48 times.
Gasp! Gasp!* wow!! that’s a whole lot of info!!
Ok..ok…but all this started with us talking about Acts 15 and the Council…
Notice that the council that is described in Acts 15 is done under the authority of the apostles. Paul and Barnabas traveled all the way to Jerusalem so the apostles and elders would come to a decision regarding circumcision. Another interesting issue is that it is implied that any teaching given without the authorization of the leaders was not cool... “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you…” Acts 15:24
So the early Church took the authority of the apostles pretty seriously. Their authority was binding. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Mt 18:18.
In the Catholic Church today, the Bishops are the successors of the apostles and they have a whole lot of authority, but there is one thing that unites them, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
882. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.
The bishops have real authority but the Pope, plus his teaching authority as bishop, has the Primacy to have…mm…let say “veto power”
But together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for "teacher"). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. After all, Jesus promised that the Spirit of Truth would guide His Church (John 16:13) and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. (Mt 16:18)
So anywho… this was a looooooooooonnnnnnnngggggg post…. And I’m sure there are still questions, don’t doubt to ask them in “Ask the Mexican Catholic.”… but I gotta stop now…I’m kindoff tired of typing… ha ha!
|
|
| To leave a comment or start your own blog: |
 |
or |
 |
Already a member? Login |
|
|
|
|
shane |
 |
August 21, 2007 at 12:39pm |
|
I am referring to passages like Gal. 2 where Paul stood opposed to Peter's views on Jews and Gentiles. He mentions there in v. 9 James, Peter and John which typically was historians say was a typical order according to leadership. He mentions James again in verse 12 as giving direction to others as their leader. Also Acts 21:18 tells how Paul and others came to see "James and all of the elders." And when Peter was freed from jail in Acts 12 he told one of the house churches to let "James and the others" know about his deliverance. To me it seems odd that Peter and Paul would point out James specifically if he wasn't the leader or at least a co-leader with Peter. And the other thing is how Paul rebuked Peter for his way of preferring the Jews to the Gentiles. It just doesn't appear that simple to me.
I believe God gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, but did it mean he was looked at as the head-dog, I dont know. He spoke all the time because he was an extrovert not necessarily a leader.
I'm not trying to debate you on this, I'm just sharing my problems I have getting over the Pope hump.
Shane | |
|
|
|
ali |
|
August 21, 2007 at 1:59pm |
|
( I liked what you called it "Pope hump" ha! )
as for James being a leader I would totally agree with you! he was definitly a very important leader, being one of the Eleven. In fact, I would say them three, John, James and Peter seem to have been in the very "inner circle" with Jesus (after all they were the only ones that witnessed the Transfiguration (Mt. 17). After all, The Twelve (Matthias replacing Judas) are the founding leaders...
21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
So I agree with you totally in that James was a very important leader.
Now, whether who was had more authority, James or Peter, I would look at what Jesus said about them. After all, any real authority should have been given from Jesus. I find at least three instances in which Jesus himself gives authority, individually to Peter...
but anywho...
of course we would have to get on the issue of whether having someone with "Primacy" is even needed...but that's a whole different enchilada.
but anyway, as for Gal. 2 , the fact that Paul rebuked Peter does not seem to me something that would exclude the posibility of Peter having Primacy... after all, leaders need to be rebuked from time to time too!
Popes being rebuked has happened many times, many people have rebuked the Popes. One of them was St. Catherine of Siena who is known for sending letters advising and rebuking the Popes that she met during her lifetime. In one of them she told the Pope "Be a man!" wow, now those are women!! ha!
After all, the Catholic Church does not claim that the Popes are not capable of personal error or sin.
But anyway, I am sorry if I was not able to give a clear explanation. I know this last post was kinoff long and dry. Thanks for reading though and putting up with it :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
back to top
