The foundation

When St. Francis de Sales was a young priest, he traveled to the Chablais region in France. Located south of Geneva, it had a population of around 72,000 people, most of whom had converted to Calvinism. St. Francis had a difficult time finding people who were willing to listen to him, so he began printing up pamphlets defending the Catholic faith. He put some up on placards on the streets, but most he slid under doors in the dark of the night. At the end of four years, he left the region almost entirely re-converted back to Catholicism.

I read his collected pamphlets collected in a book called The Catholic Controversy, published by Tan books. I remembered that he had written about one of the topics in our previous comment thread, and I am reproducing that chapter here in its entirety.

Resolution of a Difficulty

But a great proof of the contrary, as our adversaries think, is that, according to S. Paul: No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus; and according to the same we are domestics of God; built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone. And in the Apocalypse [Revelation], the wall of the holy city had twelve foundations, and in these twelve foundations the names of the twelve Apostles. If then, say they, all the twelve Apostles are foundations of the Church, how do you attribute this title to S. Peter in particular? And if S. Paul says that no one can lay another foundation than Our Lord, how do you dare to say that by these words: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, S. Peter had been established as foundation of the Church? Why do you not rather say, asks Calvin, that this stone on which the Church is founded is no other than Our Lord? Why do you not rather declare, says Luther, that it is the confession of faith which Peter had made?

But in good truth it is an ill way of interpreting Scripture to overturn one passage by another, or to strain it by a forced interpretation to a strange and unbecoming sense. We must leave to it as far as possible the naturalness and sweetness of the sense which belongs to it.

In this case, then, since we see that Scripture teaches us there is no other foundation than Our Lord, and the same teaches us clearly that S. Peter is such also, yea and further that the Apostles are so, we are not to give up the first teaching for the second, the second for the third, but to leave them all three in their entirety. Which we shall easily do if we consider these passages in good faith and sincerely.

Now Our Lord is in very deed the only foundation of the Church; he is the foundation of our faith, of our hope and charity; he is the foundation of all ecclesiastical authority and order, and of all the doctrine and administration which are therein. Who ever doubted of this? But, some one will say to me, if he is the only foundation, how do you place S. Peter also as foundation?

You do us wrong; it is not we who place him as foundation. He, besides whom no other can be placed, he himself placed him. So that if Our Lord is true founder of the Church, as he is, we must believe that S. Peter is such too, since Our Lord has placed him in this rank. If any one besides Our Lord himself had given him this grade we should all cry out with you: No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid.

And then, have you well considered the words of S. Paul? He will not have us recognize any foundation besides Our Lord, but neither is S. Peter nor are the other Apostles foundations besides Our Lord, they are subordinate to Our Lord: their doctrine is not other than that of their Master, but their very Master's itself Thus the supreme charge which S. Peter had in the militant Church, by reason of which he is called foundation of the Church, as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord; as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing.

We do not indeed recognize any other secular authority than that of His Highness [of Savoy], but we recognize several under this, which are not properly other than that of His Highness, because they are only certain portions and participations of it.

In a word, let us interpret S. Paul passage by passage: do you not think he makes his meaning clear enough when he says: You are built upon the foundations of the Prophets and Apostles? But that you may know these foundations to be no other than that which he has preached, he adds: Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Our Lord then is foundation and S. Peter also, but with so notable a difference that in respect of the one the other may be said not to be it. For Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation without other foundation, foundation of the natural, Mosaic and Evangelic Church, foundation perpetual and immortal, foundation of the militant and triumphant, foundation by his own nature, foundation of our faith, hope nad charity, and of the efficacy of the Sacraments.

S. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which Our Lord; foundation of the Evangelic Church alone, foundation subject to succession, foundation of the militant not of the triumphant, foundation by participation, ministerial not absolute foundation; in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments. A difference so great as this makes the one unable, in comparison, to be called a foundation by the side of teh other, whilst, however, taken by itself, it can be called a foundation, in order to pay proper regard to the Holy Word. So, although he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd.

At the same time it is not good reasoning to say: all the Apostles in general are called foundations of the Church, therefore S. Peter is only such in the same way as the others are. On the contrary, as Our Lord has said in particular, and in particular terms, to S. Peter, what is afterwards said in general of the others, we must conclude that there is in S. Peter some particular property of foundation, and that his is in particular has been what the whole college has been together.

The whole Church has been founded on all the Apostles, and the whole on S. Peter in particular; it is then S. Peter who is its foundation taken by himself, which the others are not. For to whom has it ever been said: Thou art Peter, etc.? It would be to violate the Scripture to say that all the Apostles in general have not been the foundations of the Church. It would also be to violate the Scripture to deny that S. Peter was so in particular. It is necessary that the general word should produce its general effect, and the particular its particular, in order that nothing may remain useless and without mystery out of Scriptures so mysterious. We have only to see for what general reason all the Apostles are called foundations of the Church: namely, because it is they who by their preaching have planted the faith, and the Christian doctrine; in which if we are to give some prerogative to any one of the Apostles it will be to that one who said: I have laboured, more abundantly than all they.

And it is in this sense that is meant the passage of the Apocalypse [Revelation]. For the twelve Apostles are called foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem, because they were the first who converted the world to the Christian religion, which was as it were to lay the foundations of the glory of men, and the seeds of their happy immortality. But the passage of S. Paul seems to be understood not so much of the person of the Apostles as of their doctrine. For it is not said that we are built upon the Apostles, but upon the foundation of the Apostles--that is, upon the doctrine which they have announced.

This is easy to see, because it is not only said that we are upon the foundation of the Apostles, but also of the Prophets, and we know well that the Prophets have not otherwise been foundations of the Evangelical Church than by their doctrine. And in this matter all the Apostles seem to stand on a level, unless S. John and S. Paul go first for the excellence of their theology. It is then in this sense that all the Apostles are foundations of the Church; but in authority and government S. Peter precedes all the others as much as the head surpasses the members; for he has been appointed ordinary pastor and supreme head of teh Church, the others have been delegated pastors entrusted with as full power and authority over all the rest of the Church as S. Peter, except that S. Peter was the head of them all and their pastor as of all Christendom.

Thus they were foundations of the Church equally with him as to the conversion of souls and as to doctrine; but as to the authority of governing, they were so unequally, as S. Peter was the ordinary head not only of the rest of the whole Church but of the Apostles also. For Our Lord had built on him the whole of his Church, of which they were not only parts but the principal and noble parts.

"Although the strength of the Church," says S. Jerome, "is equally established on all the Apostles, yet amongst the twelve one is chosen that a head being appointed occasion of schism may be taken away." "There are, indeed," says S. Bernard to his Eugenius, and we can say as much of S. Peter for the same reason, "there are others who are custodians and pastors of flocks, but thou hast inherited a name as much the more glorious as it is more special."

The Primacy of Peter

A few weeks back, I said that I would put up a blog post with a Biblical argument for the primacy of Peter. We haven't covered this topic yet, so I thought it was time to check this one off of the list.

Peter is mentioned more than the other apostles. Actually, he is mentioned 155 times alone, whereas the other apostles are mentioned a combined 130 times.

When the apostles are named, Peter is almost always mentioned first. (Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3)

Peter is the first to confess the divinity of Christ. (Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69)

Only Peter walks on water. (Matt. 14:28-29)

Jesus says that Satan as sought the apostles, but He prays for Peter alone, that his faith not fail so that he could confirm his brethren. (Luke 22:31-32)

Only Peter's death is foretold by Jesus. (John 13:36; 21:18)

Only Peter is told that he has received a divine revelation. (Matt. 16:17)

The tax collector approaches Peter as the representative for Jesus to collect the temple tax. (Matt. 17:24-25)

Peter usually acts as spokesman for the apostles. (Matt. 18:21, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21 among others)

Peter is the only one who speaks at the Transfiguration, and is again mentioned first going up the mountain. (Luke 9:28;33)

Only Peter is given the keys, the sign of authority. (Matt. 16:19)

Although John arrives at the tomb first, he waits to let Peter enter first. (Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6)

Peter is confirmed as leader of the apostles when the angel says that Jesus was resurrected. (Mark 16:7)

Jesus tells Peter to feed His sheep. (John 21:15-17)

Peter is the one who says that a successor to Judas must be chosen. (Acts 1:15)

Peter gives the first preaching (Acts 2:38) of the early Church, and also performs the first healing (Acts 3:6-7). Only Peter's shadow is mentioned as healing. (Acts 5:15)

Peter is shown exercising authority in the early Church. (Acts 5:3 and Acts 8:20-23)

When the first council of Jerusalem is held to debate the issue of circumcision for the gentile, there is much disputing, however, when Peter speaks, then the multitude is silent (Acts 15:12). Barnabas and Paul speak in support of what Peter has declared (Acts 15:12). Finally, James says that he agrees with Peter and provides Scriptural support for what Peter declared (Acts 15:13-14).

Paul visits Peter before beginning his ministry. (Gal.1:18)

Paul also mentions Peter as having seen Jesus first after his Resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:4-8)

Peter is the only apostle to have his name changed. St. Francis de Sales writes:

When Our Lord imposes a name upon men he always bestows some particular grace according to the name which he gives them. If he changes the name of that great father of believer, and of Abram makes him Abraham, also of a high father he makes him father of many, giving the reason at the same time (Gen 17:5) . . . The imposition of the name in the case of Saint Peter is no small argument of the particular excellence of his charge, according to the very reason which Our ¬ord appended: Thou art Peter, etc.

But What name does he give him? A name full of majesty, not common, not trivial, but one expressive of superiority and authority, like unto that of Abraham himself. For if Abraham was thus called because he was to be the father of many nations, Saint Peter has received this name because upon him as upon a firm rock was to be founded the multitude of Christians.

Our Lord himself is by excellence called the rock, because he is the foundation of the Church, and the corner-stone, the support, and the firmness, of this spiritual edifice: and he has declared that on Saint Peter should his Church be built, and that he would establish him in the faith: Confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)

St. Frances de Sales has an excellent letter on Jesus versus Peter as the foundation of the church. Since that point was discussed extensively in a previous comments section, I am planning to type it up in its entirety and post it as a follow-up in the next day or two.

For other Pope related questions, see our previous post, Papal Ponderings.

Open Line Friday!

Ya'll seem to want to talk about whatever it is YOU want to talk about - so have at it!!

Here's a conversation starter - Scott Hahn has been instrumental in helping many convert to Catholicism.  He is also a convert to the faith.  Here is some of his work on the Papacy - an issue that divides us which seems to be what ya'll want to focus on.  Hahn's scholarship was also called into question yesterday by Paul.  Enjoy!

Papal Ponderings

Edit: I bumped this up because I expanded on two sections, taking into account some of the comments on the article.

As the Pope will soon be visiting, I thought it would be a good opportunity to answer some common questions about the papacy. Some of these questions are from Candy, some from previous discussions from Amy, and some I just made up myself.


Richard Bennett says that the Papacy is a fairly recent development, not found in early Christianity. I responded to that here with some of these quotes:

Pope Clement wrote in the 90's AD that The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."

Pope Damascus wrote in the late 300's "Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."

From Candy: The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

You guys probably recognized that one, because Elena wrote on it recently, here.


Candy also wrote: The new Pope (Vicar of Christ - the Greek roots of 'vicar' is "ante", AKA Greek Vicar of Christ = antichrist) proclaimed the other day that you are saved ONLY by being a member of the Roman Catholic church. Of course, anyone who has read his or her Bible knows that that is not true.

Elena wrote about that here:

To summarize, the Catholic Church is a Christian church, organized and run on a biblical model as indicated by Jesus Christ himself. The word "Vicar" merely means a substitute, who stands in as an earthly agent.

Candy also wrote "It is false teaching to place a man in the role of head of the church. Christ is head." which Amy explained as "So the objection is to a man filling in for Christ as head of the church, and not an objection to having authorities in general. Just as a husband doesn't use another person to communicate with his wife, most Protestants don't see Christ as using a man to communicate directly with his church."

Elena quotes Scott Hahn explaining the idea of where Jesus gives Peter/the Pope the authority to act as his agent in Scripture:

Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

I wanted to point out that Jesus uses the idea of a steward in his parables. In Luke 12, the faithful steward rules over the household until his lord returns, as the Pope rules over the Church on the Lord's behalf, until his return.

Luke 12:41Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

43Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

44Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

The steward of Luke 16, is not a just steward, but he also rules over the household until his lord's return. Notice that the steward has the power to release men from debts, on behalf of his lord:

5So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

Compare this to the language in Matthew 16:18-19:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I think they read the same. Jesus is naming Peter as his steward, and giving him the power of binding and loosing from debts.



The difference with denominations having varied intervals between communion and the Pope changing church tradition is huge to me, because the 'protestant' churches do not hold to one man being Christ incarnate with the full authority to change tradition scripture, or whatever he chooses when he sits in the seat.

We do not believe the Pope is Christ incarnate. He is Christ's representative. The Pope cannot contradict scripture or Tradition.


No one in our churches is allowed to change anything that is considered doctrinal.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "our churches." Protestant churches vary hugely on doctrine. Are there sacraments? How many? Does baptism save you, or is it just an outward sign? Once saved always saved? Are we saved by faith alone or by grace alone?

Instead of a protestant church changing doctrine, they just create a new church. In that way the doctrine is the same within a denomination. But if you put all the denominations together, you will see doctrinal change everywhere. Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli could not agree on basic doctrine.

The Catholic Church has retained the same view of Jesus' divinity and incarnation, of salvation and justification, number of sacraments, and even the same scripture canon.



If the pope(s) made decrees that no one can be saved without being under subjection to the pope, and they have the papal infallibility, then what they say has to mean what it says. Right?

Not exactly. The Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks in union with the magisterium on matters of faith and morals. This means that when the Pope upholds the Catholic teaching prohibiting birth control, for example, he is speaking infallibly.

To speak infallibly on his own, he has to use a particular formula to make it clear that that is indeed, what he is doing. This would be used to define a doctrine that has been questioned. While there is no list of infallible pronouncements, the two which are most often listed are defining the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the Assumption of Mary in 1950. That doesn't mean that Catholics didn't hold these beliefs prior to that time. Again, these were doctrines which were being questioned, and so the doctrine was formally defined by the Pope.

When he is speaking on other matters, it is possible for the Pope to err. For example, one Pope wrote a document on music in the liturgy, where he said that the piano (back when it was a new instrument) was not suitable for liturgy, and spoke about how much better the organ was. This was not a binding document because the Pope did not use the infallible formula for the document, and because liturgical music is not considered a matter of faith and morals, but what we call discipline.

More recently, Pope Benedict wrote a book about Jesus, and he stressed that the book represented his own personal views, not an infallible Papal decree:

The Pontiff indicates in the book’s foreword that this should not be considered infallible from a magisterial point of view. "This work is not an absolute act of magisterial teaching, but merely an expression of my personal research into the face of the Lord. Therefore, everyone is free to contradict me," Pope Benedict stated.

Ecumenical councils can also be considered infallible. The Council of Nicea, for example, defined the nature of Christ, as both fully human, and fully divine, at a time when that doctrine was being questioned by the Arians.

The Catholic Church actually offers more stability than other churches because, as I said, it is almost impossible to change teachings on matters of faith. The Pope would not be able to say that Jesus was just a wise teacher, or that his resurrection should be understand metaphorically, as some protestants (okay, and I admit, heretical Catholics too) teach.

The various protestant churches have an ever changing theology. If you disagree with what your church teaches, you start another one. A church might have one theological direction under one pastor, and change under a different one. Usually the change is incremental, but if you look at the many varities you have now, versus where you started at the time of the reformation, you can see how far the theology has spread.

The Catholic Church does refer to an "unfolding" of theology. When you read the Bible, you see the seeds of what was later to be understood as the Trinity, even though it isn't explicitly stated. As time goes on, we better understand certain teachings.


Why would the Pope kiss the Koran? I really would like an answer to that one.

The Pope got a lot of criticism from Catholics about that, too. Remember that the Pope is not infallible in everything that he does. It is very possible that he made a mistake in this matter, and Catholic are free to disagree with him in that decision.


Why does the Pope insist people bow to him and kiss his ring? Did Jesus Christ teach that?

The Catholic Church is kind of like your great-Aunt's attic. We keep all kinds of old things in there. The practice of showing respect for someone, or for their office, through kissing their hand is actually pretty recent. It only developed around the 17th century, and was common in through the 18th and 19th century. Still once we got into the habit, it became difficult to stop. Just as we still bow to royalty, it is still common practice to kiss the papal ring.

However, the Pope does not insist that people bow and kiss his ring. You can see a picture here of President Bush simply shaking the Pope's hand. Hey, he's a nice guy, he understands!


Why does the Pope wear a Dagon fish hat?

I'm not sure anyone but Candy has that question, but I'll refer you again to a recent article.


Want some extra reading?

Dave Armstrong has lots to to say about the papacy.
Read Scriptural evidence for the primacy of Peter at Scripture Catholic.
Catholic Answers also has a section about the papacy.

Scott Hahn on the Papacy

When I was coming back into my Catholic faith I listened endlessly to Professor Scott Hahn on tape. His logic defending the Papacy in my mind was outstanding. Here are some key excerpts. Please click and read the entire article!

• 
  

  Dr Scott Hahn on the Papacy | Catholic-Pages.com - Annotated

  
  

  tags: no_tag

  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    Let me read that passage and then I will back up and consider those three aspects. Let's drop back to verse 13, "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, 'Who do men say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets'." Rather impressive testimony because these people constitute the Old Testament Hall of Fame of Saints, here. "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'" And as is characteristic throughout Matthew's gospel, Peter steps forward, or I should say, speaks up. Peter is the only one to walk on water. Peter is the one who often speaks up, representative of the twelve disciples. Verse 16, "Peter replied, 'You are the Christ,' -- the Christos, the Anointed One in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew, 'the Son of the Living God. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven, and I tell you, you are Peter (Petra) and on this Rock (Petros), I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.'" And then He strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ.
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    But then one day, as I was working through the Gospel of Matthew, because that stresses, that gospel builds on the Old Testament more than any other and especially the idea of David's kingdom. That really seems to be the central thrust of Matthew's gospel, that Jesus is the Son of David and He is establishing the Kingdom of David. That's how Matthew introduces Jesus. He is the only one of the four gospel writers who traces His genealogy right back to David, and he says, "Jesus, the Son of David" at the very start of Matthew. That's a common and prominent theme throughout the gospel.

    
    

    So I wanted to dig deep and see what I found in this particular passage, and on the basis of that discovery, or I should say, on the basis of that study, I made some discoveries. First of all, I discovered that when you read in verse 17, "Jesus answered, 'And blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church,' " I discovered that all the evidence points to the fact that Peter is the "rock."

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    Now you might say, "That's as plain as the nose on your face. What's the excitement of that discovery?" Well, non-Catholics frequently claim that it's Peter's faith that Jesus is speaking of, or Peter's confession that Jesus is speaking of when He says, "this rock." Or other Protestants object and say, "No, Jesus says, 'And you are petros.'" You are petros, you are rock, and on this petra, the Greek word for large rock, "I will build my Church." So some Protestants object to the Catholic view and say, "What Jesus is really saying is. 'You're a little pebble and on this rock, namely Christ, the Rock, (1 Corinthians, 10:4 and so on) I will build my Church.'"

    
    

    Now the closer I studied the more I realized that those positions were untenable, simply untenable. And I'm going to share in a few minutes the fact that most conservative anti-Catholic Protestant scholars today will admit that readily and candidly. The more I dug, the more I found that the evidence pointed to the fact that Jesus was speaking of Peter. Peter is the Rock. Peter just said, "You are the Christos," so Jesus says, "You are the Petros." There is a little parallelism there. "You are the Son of the Living God" and "You are the son of Jonah, Simon Bar-Jonah; you are the Petros."

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    Now people could say, "Wait a second. There is a distinction in the Greek language between petros," Peter's name and petra. Petros can mean stone, whereas petra can often mean "big rock." The problem with that is two-fold. First of all, Jesus probably didn't speak Greek when He was with the disciples. I mean that is held by 99.9 percent of all scholars. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Jesus in His normal conversations spoke Greek. What's almost certain is that He spoke Aramaic and in the Aramaic there is only one word that could possibly be used and Kouman and other scholars have pointed to the fact that if Jesus spoke Aramaic, He only could have said, "You are Cephus, and on this Cephus I build my Church." So given our knowledge of the Aramaic language, there is no possibility for Jesus to have made the distinction between "little stone" and "big rock." The Aramaic language doesn't allow it.

    
    

    Well, somebody could say, "The Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to use two different words. Well, that's true, because "petra" is the word in Greek that is normally used for "large rock," but - I should say petra is the Greek word that means "large rock" but it's in the feminine form. In other words, the gender of this Greek word, petra, large rock, is feminine. You do not apply a feminine form of the word in order to name a male. You adopt it by giving the masculine form. In other words what Matthew was doing, guided by the Holy Spirit, is something that was rather obvious and practically necessary. That was to take the Greek from Jesus' saying and start by saying, "I will build my Church on this massive stone, this 'petra' in the feminine but then to show that Peter gets the name, "Rock" in its proper masculine form.

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    You wouldn't name him Josephine or Rockina or, you know, something like that. You give him the masculine form of the word. I should also add that there is absolutely no archeological evidence from antiquity for anybody having been named Peter before Simon. In other words, Jesus was taking a word that had never been used as far as all the many records we have are concerned, never was used to designate an individual person and Jesus gives that name, gives that word to Simon.
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    rotestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the Rock and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an office that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support whatever had happened to the Church.
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this you realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is one of the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

    
    

    This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the later Bishops of Rome." I'll overthrow that opinion in a few minutes, I think, but France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see."

    
    

    Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    
    

    Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

    
    

    By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

    
    
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I'll read the quote. Albright says, "In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying." Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it's undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, "The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." In other words, the Prime Minister's office
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, "That's clever." But he said, "You don't have to follow the Pope because of that." I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, I'm going to have to think about it." He said, "I've never heard that argument before." And I said, "It' s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you've never heard of him before?" I said, "I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people." And he said, "That's clever." Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.
    
    
  
  
  • 
    
    The only thing that Luther won't admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background