Peter's Keys or Ours?

This reflection on the keys given to Peter, written by Fr. Jose, makes me uneasy. Especially this part:

The truth is we don’t have to be offered this power of keeping the gate. We already have that power to open or close the kingdom of God to ourselves and to each other. We already have the keys to let ourselves in or to shut one another out of the kingdom or presence of God dwelling within us. We already have that power to open our hearts to life and love, hope and faith. And the power is ours as well to keep the shadows at bay.

While the writer's point about our own "power" to open and shut is a profound and insightful one, more needs to be said than what he wrote. In fact, to say that I have any power to shut someone else out of the kingdom, or let him into it, sounds as wrong as it sounds presumptuous to say of myself. While our own free will, a gracious gift from God, allows us to open to to shut out ourselves from the kingdom, those are our own decisions to cooperate with God's grace or not. While we do preach the gospel to plant seeds, it is not my "power" at work, only my participation. To God be the glory! Extolling our "power" to open and shut makes it seem as if it was sufficient in and of itself. All this talk of our "power" is discomfiting. We cannot even say "yes" to God without His grace. Of the pope, it is not his power, but Christ's power, extended to him as authority.
Why did Fr. Jose not write about the papacy, though that would be the most natural theme for this passage? Walking around the topic of authority, even with the best intentions, the essay ends up turning everyone into the ultimate authority, it seems. As Msgr. Charles Pope wrote today, if no one is pope, everyone is pope.
I believe that the authority of the Church and the papacy are not to be hushed up, but to be proclaimed! The readings today about Eliakim, and then about Peter make for an unmistakable lesson on authority. Yes, the authority to bind and to loose may be seen as power, but as you said, [s]uch power can never really be divorced from the grace of his love.. . The papacy is a gift, an expression of God's love. Such love, we should proclaim, and be thankful for!

Shea's Iron Law of Media-Reported Benedictine Growth

Made my day. :-)

I will give to you .. this box of biscuits

I don't know why, but as I was pondering my kids behind me in the car, Justin holding the box, Patrick asking him to pass the box over, Caesarea Philippi came to mind. One Peter, one set of keys, mandated rather than arrogated.

Then Justin gave the box to Francis, who sits between the two, making the box accessible to all. And I figure that it was the best situation, for the box to be given to one of them only, mandated to .. hold the box so that everyone can get a biscuit. There really was no need to pass the box around after that. I couldn't have planned it better.

Breakers of the covenant

Psalm 88 from today's Office of Readings recounts the Lord's promises of fidelity to David and his house. In it is I think prefigurement of Christ, who is the faithful son and faithful king. But the Psalm also talks about those in David's house who might break oath. There are consequences, but the Lord is faithful beyond all graciousness:

“But if his children abandon my law and walk no more in the paths of my decrees; if they profane my judgements and do not keep to my commandments, I will punish their transgressions with a rod, I will punish their wickedness with a beating. Even so, I will not turn my kindness away from him, nor will I be untrue to my word. I will not profane my covenant, I will not go against the word I have spoken. I have sworn in my sanctuary, once and for all: I will not lie to David. His seed shall remain for ever, his throne firm as the sun in my sight, just as the moon, stays firm for ever, a faithful witness in the sky”

The Lord epitomizes faithfulness. To the Lord, covenant goes beyond a contract, which can breaks on the grounds of the other party breaking faith first. The Lord cannot be anything other than faithful forever. We know that even Solomon, and certainly his descendants later, and even David himself, broke faith through grave sin: idolatry, adultery, murder -- all serious crimes against The Law. Despite the consequences to these men, the Lord remains faithful to his oath, his covenant with David's house.

Something in this speaks to me also about the Lord's new covenant. In one perspective, this covenant is particular to each and every Christian whose baptism was his or her circumcision covenant with the Lord. At another perspective, this covenant is collective to the bride, the Church. This covenant is fulfilled in Christ's consummation on the cross when he declares "it is finished!" The Lord gives his life for his bride, and this new covenant in blood gives life to the bride.

Protestants sometimes tell me that the Bridegroom's promises of unassailability to the Bride do stand. Indeed, the Holy Spirit continues to guide each and every baptized Christian as a holy people, binding them mystically as a result of their rebirth in Christ. Some also state that this is true institutionally, in a sense, with their particular denomination (e.g., Baptist) or all reformed congregations collectively, being the remnant, faithful Church kept safe from the corruption of either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Churches.

I suggest a different perspective (naturally). The Lord gave his word to Simon Peter in Caesarea Philippi. He named him Kepha (rock), a patriarchal tradition for anointing new leaders among God's people, e.g., Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel. Christ told him that he would build his Church on this rock (kepha). Christ promises that the very gates of Hades would not prevail against this Church. He promises to give Kepha the keys of the kingdom, which harkens to the Davidic monarchy's vizier, Shebna then Eliakim in Isaiah 22. With the keys, he receives authority to shut and open with the king's very authority. He is to be as a father to the household. As with Shebna and Eliakim, this is a public office, and there is an appointment of succession. This appointment is God's to make.

What I suggest is simple. God is faithful to his house. He gave oath to his Church, and his Church he already organized with a structure. He appointed the vizier, Kepha, with authority. Kepha is a first among equals who also share the authority to shut and open. But there will be occasion for Kepha to strengthen them. Kepha is to feed the flock, and the Lord's parable about the faithful steward comes to mind, who feeds the household with the right measure of food at the proper time. Now everything that can be said about stewardship and strengthening others can be said about every Christian in general. But the household needs more. It needs some structure. The Lord organizes them into Apostles and elders. After Pentecost, they organize into Apostolic bishoprics, e.g., Matthias for Judas Iscariot. The bishoprics are expanded with new bishops, e.g., Timothy and Titus, and they too have authority, and they too anoint successors with their hands. And they have Kepha, whose role was not entirely too clear, but insight into this became clearer in time, particularly when corruption tainted even most bishops, as during the Arian crisis.

We have had and continue to have sinful and erroneous bishops, including the pope. But the Lord is faithful, and will not set aside the offices he instituted. As in the case of Kepha, however, the Lord may rebuke -- and sternly so. As in the case of Shebna, the Lord may hurl down and thrust from his office. But the office remains. Papal infallibility does not mean that the particular man who is pope is infallible. It is the office that is invested with infallibility, and this is a teaching office. It is the Holy Spirit who preserves the integrity of the Church, despite the sinfulness and imperfection of the man who is pope.

It is shameful that the corruption of men who were pope, and those who were clergy or bishops around him, caused such scandal that made many fall away. But the Holy Spirit is more potent than we can imagine. Christ is more faithful than we deserve. This may sound fatalistic, but faced with a corrupt pope (as we mercifully have not been in the two popes I've known so far), the people of God can put their trust in God who saves. When Shebna sits in Rome, God will hurl him down so as to preserve his household. He will put Eliakim in his stead, and on him grant the charism of infallibility. Should Eliakim also break faith, then should he also be thrust out of office, and so on.

In this I hope, because the Word of God gave oath, and His Word never returns to him in vain.

Building on rock

From Dailygospel.org, today's gospel commentary comes from St. Augustine:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church Sermon 7 on St John’s Gospel Is it surprising that the Lord changed Simon’s name, altering it to Peter? (Jn 1,42). “Peter” means “rock”; so Peter’s name is thus symbolic of the Church. Who is safe if not he who builds on rock? And what does the Lord himself say? “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock..." Of what use is it to anyone to enter the Church who builds on sand? He hears the word of God but fails to practise it; he builds, but on sand. If he had not been listening, he would not have been building; he hears and so he builds. But on what sort of foundation? If he hears the word of God and puts it into practice, then it will be on rock; but if he hears and does not put it into practice, then it is on sand. And so someone can build in two, very different ways… If you are satisfied by listening without practising, you build a ruin… But if, on the other hand, you fail to listen, you will remain without shelter and be carried away by the torrent of tribulations… Be well assured, my brethren: whoever hears the word without acting accordingly is not building on rock. He has no connection with that great name of Peter to which the Lord attached such importance.

If Protestants were today asked as to who was the greatest among the Apostles in that age, most of them might proclaim St. Paul as the clear favorite. And indeed, St. Paul was our greatest missionary, and certainly our most prolific New Testament epistle writer. St. Peter is almost obscured by the sheer depth and breadth of St. Paul's preaching. But it was not St. Paul to whom God first revealed the identity of the messiah. It was not St. Paul who was moved to proclaim the Christ, the son of the living God. It was not St. Paul whose name was changed to 'Kepha' ('Petros' in Greek), nor was it St. Paul who was given the keys of the kingdom. That all pertains to Simon Peter, simple fisherman, unlearned, slightly uncouth, impetuous and downright simple. How can this man be the rock upon which the Lord decided to build his Church?

Because the glory belongs to the Lord, who is the builder. So down the ages, we had very human popes, as human as Simon Peter was. Some were much worse sinners, others were more saintly. When St. Augustine had a difference with the pope of his time, you can bet that he was understandably upset. But he recognized in the pope the authority that the Lord anointed the Petrine See with. It is not the pope he obeys, but the Lord, who proclaimed for all the Apostles to hear: "you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom.."

We build on this rock because the eternal Rock built his Church on this rock. We build on sand at our peril.

Bishop of Rome has primacy, but...

This is supposed to be taken as a sign of hope, that the Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople accepts papal primacy to an extent. But it remains a bit frustrating when it stops short of what, in my opinion, the reason for papal primacy is. What was the Lord thinking when he indeed named one of the twelve apostles, perhaps the most impetuous among them, their leader? Why proclaim that he would build his Church on him, Simon Peter, as the rock? Why declare that he now holds the keys of the kingdom, and that he has the authority from Heaven to bind and to loose? Why charge him, who ran away at the Lord's arrest and denied him three times hours later, to strengthen his brothers? How could he trust him, of all apostles, to feed the Lord's sheep?

We'll all be sure to ask when we finally meet the Lord face to face. Somehow I don't think it has that much to do with the impeccable character of Simon, son of John In the meantime, I tend to wonder how St. Peter would feel today if he is now told, "Oh, yes, you do have primacy over all bishops, but only in honor. You have no mandate of discipline over us. We don't have to listen to you, old boy. Collegiality and all that. After all, who needs you to arbitrate for us, when we all have the charism of truth and teaching? I mean, what function do you have, given that we always agree on all important matters of faith and morals anyway?

Uh huh.

Peter, the Rock

In today's Gospel reading (Matthew 16:13-23), I am reminded of something I wrote last year concerning the Protestant disdain and/or horror of the papacy. I just wish they could also see in it what they accept in other contexts.

• Protestants readily accept that they can be their own Scriptural interpreters (with the Holy Spirit's aid) of Scripture, but not see that the papacy and the Magisterium, with the Holy Spirit -- revealing not by flesh and blood but from the Father in Heaven -- can do the same interpreter's job. The pope and the Magisterium also act as a second witness to the Holy Spirit being the first.
• Would Christians have refused to follow Peter's decrees unless they could be convinced from Scripture (the Old Testament)? Perhaps because they would never consider a human being wielding such authority to teach? But they accept their own authority to teach themselves. What's more, doesn't this constitute a contradiction to Christ's assertion that Peter has the keys to bind and loose on earth as in Heaven?
• Further to that, is it a Scriptural precept that one is never to obey leaders of the Church unless one assents? What of the seat of Moses? What of hearing the Apostles as if one were hearing Christ?
• It is easy enough to assert that the pope cannot possibly have infallibility. What is the basis? Is it his personal frailty? But his teaching authority and papal infallibility are not of "flesh and blood". Neither the most thorough, prayerful Protestant nor the pope possess a personal infallibility. Neither possess personal impeccability. Were Christians of all stations (including the Apostles themselves) to rely on personal abilities alone, then Christianity would succumb easily to extinction by error. Christendom would also degenerate into utter chaos, for there would be absolutely no foundation of certitude. On the other hand, were Christians of all stations (including the Apostles themselves) to rely on an equal share of the Holy Spirit's gifts, and were they all to assert an equal authority to teach from the Holy Spirit's guidance, then we would still degenerate into utter chaos. Why? Because it would be one's word against another's. The only solution is for the ministry to teach to be conferred rather than asserted. And the only conferrer could be the head, Jesus Christ. There is no objective basis otherwise.
• On a recent evening, my friend maintains that doctrines in dispute among Christians are probably not important and should not be held as rock-solid truth. My response was that this measure will result in the necessary conclusion that there is no truth. Why? Because truth cannot admit contradiction. Christians of different denominations still contest the sacraments, predestnation, and even the Trinity. They also still contest the meaning of justification, salvation by faith alone that is or is not truly alone. They contest the validity of divorce, and as a result, they contest what adultery means. They even contest abortion as murder or.. not, depending on which stage of pregnancy it is carried out. In such a tableau of contested doctrines, it appears that Christendom is at an impasse.

Does the papacy and the Magisterium solve all of this? Yes, but not perfectly! In order for this to work, people must actually assent to the teaching authority of the papacy and the Magisterium of the Church. They must see that the pope and the Magisterium of councils occupy the seat of Peter (previously that of Moses). We must therefore do as they tell us -- even as we must sometimes not do as they do. Because hypocrites as they may be at times, it is not the persons of authority we follow, but the Father in Heaven who reveals His truth to these frail human beings of flesh and blood.

But why can it not be that the Father reveals truth to ALL human beings who are baptized? Because this charism is not for everyone. Some are called to be prophets. Others as teachers. One was called Cephas -- Rock -- on which the Church is built, and given the keys of the kingdom. He was told that what he opens and shuts are on earth as in Heaven. He was also given the task to feed the sheepfold. The sheepfold are still here, but Cephas died almost 2000 years ago. Quo vadis? Is it now our lot to be our own Cephas? Are we now bearer of the keys? Will what we open and shut be on earth as in Heaven?

Where does the Bible say that?

Some thoughts on infallibility

In a recent post about my having been slammed down by a Calvinist for my Romanist ranting, I quipped about him

What a horribly precarious perch when one can no longer allow the possibility of being wrong.

And then Lito made a worthy point:

"Is this not applicable to the claims of the Pope and the Magisterium to infallability?"

I would be doing a Rand if I were to dismiss this point, because it's a valid point. Where lies the difference? After all, both Rand and the Church are citing the anointing of the Holy Spirit in making pronouncements with authority. One could cite, of course, that the evidence from Scripture and Tradition are on the side of the Church, but that doesn't quite convince Rand or others who likewise consider themselves infallible when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

I think the difference is that Rand believes he is right simply because he is born again. In other words, having been born again is, for him, his guarantee of certitude. Not that his infallibility comes straight from his state, but the Holy Spirit's anointing which guarantees infallibility does.

For the pope and the bishops, the Magisterium's credibility is not by their state of justification, which is no different from everyone else. It is not by their state of holiness either, which is no different from everyone else. For the pope and the bishops, the Magisterial infallibility has nothing to do with their personal characteristics because infallibility is a gift given by the Holy Spirit *despite* their inadequacy and unworthiness. It is, truly, outside of them. Simon son of John, who was nicknamed Rock by the Lord in Ceasarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-19) does not cease to put his foot in his mouth consistently, simply because he was given the authority to bind and to loose, the certitude that his authority is ratified from above, and the keys of the kingdom. He is, in fact, the perfect example from among the Apostles (those who did not hang themselves) of how the Lord shepherds his people despite their inadequacies. Why choose such men as our leaders? Because we are earthenware jars, and what overwhelming power and gifts are given become clearly of God, not of men.

I am often confusing in my arguments, so the Historical Christian's posts on the Holy Spirit's guidance and papal infallibility are must reads on this topic.

Lito's point has also made me rethink the problem with Rand's evangelical approach. It is in not allowing the possibility that those who disagree with him have something worth hearing, or that they have something to say. As Lito had told me a few years ago when I first told him about Rand, this approach may win arguments but never hearts.

Trusting God, not Man

The Historical Christian has a good piece called "Papal Infallibility: God's, not Man's".

In Communion with Peter

This is amazing. As palliums are conferred to archbishops, Orthodox delegates are present. What a sign of hope!

[Source of link: The Catholic Report.]

What fascinating support for papal supremacy

From the saints of the East, at that. Some of them having been Popes themselves. Amazing!

[Source: Catholic and Enjoying It!]

Would YOU officially affiliate your church with an excommunicated leader of his church?

Jan. 31, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The primate of the Greek Orthodox Church has criticized the Patriarchate of Constantinople for accepting the affiliation of Orthodox bodies which, in effect, compete with established Orthodox churches in other countries. Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens made his comments in response to the decision by the Constantinople patriarchate to welcome Bishop Basil Osborn, who had been the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain. By accepting the affiliation of Bishop Basil-- who has been excommunicated by the Moscow patriarchate-- the Ecumenical Patriarchate is creating a “dangerous divisive situation,” the Greek archbishop said.

I am sympathetic to both camps. I understand the need for fraternity among Christians, even extended to those excommunicated, but on the other hand, what's the point of excommunication if it only results in a splinter church whose leader has not reconciled with the Church? Would he not lead his flock to ruin? At the same time, there is this practical problem that Christians outside the Catholic Church truly must deal with: in the absence of a single arbiter, how is excommunication of any use? Excommunication is not a consignment to hell, as people often mistake it to be, but a means of effecting repentance and reconciliation -- exactly as the Lord taught to those who go astray (Matthew 18). But excommunication is worth nothing without the concept of a bottom-level foundation for the authority to excommunicate. This authority was given, of course, to the Apostles, and the Orthodox patriarchs are certainly exercising their authority in the cited report. But what if it is a clash between patriarch and patriarch? Bishop and bishop? If an excommunicated bishop or patriarch were to up and take along with him his own flock, then who is the highest administrative arbiter?

Well, of course I was going to say the Successor of St. Peter, who was given the particular role of holding the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16, for binding and loosing on earth as in Heaven! If not the Pope, then who else? If not anyone, then what's the point in the Lord even mentioning excommunication?