Gospel For Today: 21st Sunday of Ordinary Time

TWENTY-FIRST SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (A)

click here for readings

Tu est Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificábo Ecclésiam meam...  This is the first part of the antiphon we hear at Mass today before the gospel reading.  It quotes from the gospel itself (Mt 16:13-20), which in English says, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."  This iconic passage takes place at Caesarea Philippi, a place the gospel writer mentions specifically.  If you do a Google image search on line you can see this place.  There is a huge stone outcropping with a temple built upon it to the pagan god Pan.  It is by this backdrop that Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter (which means "rock") and says, "upon this rock I will build my Church."

This is obviously a very key moment in the gospels, and so it is important to consider just what is happening here.  This passage is foundational to our understanding of the Church, for Christ tells us not only that He intends to found His Church upon a person (Peter), but also what sort of authority that person will have.  "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The Church also gives us today an Old Testament reading from Isaiah 22:19-23 which speaks of keys being given to convey authority.  "I will place the key of the House of David on Eliakim's 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..."  There is obvious similarity between this and our gospel reading.  What is the significance?

In the history of Israel, there developed the office of prime minister.  This person had the authority to rule over the kingdom in the absence of the king.  It was an office that could be passed on from one generation to the next, symbolized by keys.  What we read in our passage from Isaiah today is God passing on the authority of the prime minister of the Davidic kingdom from Shebna to Eliakim.  It is no coincidence that Jesus uses the same symbol of keys, and nearly the same phraseology, to establish the prime ministerial office of His Kingdom upon Peter, an office which can be passed on from one generation to the next.  The enduring nature of this office is implied when Christ promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Instead of "opening" and "shutting" as we hear in Isaiah, Jesus speaks of the power to "bind" and "loose."  This phraseology would also have been familiar to the Jewish people.  It signified to them the authority to teach and render binding decisions on the law, and the authority to include or exclude people from the community.  It also signifies the forgiveness of sins.  This is why even to this day we speak of the authority of the Church to teach, govern and sanctify (Catechism of the Catholic Church 888-896).

There is something about this passage, however, which can easily be overlooked in English translation.  Many languages have different words for the second person pronoun depending on whether it is singular or plural.  English uses "you" for both.  If we were reading this passage in Spanish, or more to the point, the original Greek, we would see that Jesus uses the singular "you" when He tells Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven."  But Jesus uses the plural "you" when He says, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  In other words, Peter alone possesses the keys of the kingdom (symbolizing the prime ministerial authority), but the Apostles together with Peter possess the power to bind and loose (CCC 881).  

What does all this mean for us in the Church today?  How does this authority granted to the Church by Christ play out in history?  We can give one very prominent example dealing with the scriptures themselves.  From the very beginning, the liturgies of the early Church included readings from sacred scripture.  These included readings from the Hebrew Bible, what we call the Old Testament, but very quickly also included readings about Jesus and the teachings of the new Christian Church.  These would include gospel accounts of Jesus' life and mission.  These would also include letters written by the Apostles to various people and Christian communities.  However, there was no set "New Testament."  There was no authoritative list of which books were inspired by God and which were not.

This led to some variation in what texts were read from during the liturgies.  To ensure unity in worship, local bishops, utilizing their authority as chief shepherds of their particular churches, began to keep lists of books which were approved for liturgical use in their church (what we would call a diocese today). The earliest such lists that we know of date to the end of the second century.  But still, this meant that different texts were considered canonical in one region but not in another.  This became problematic for the universal Church as different heresies arose, especially Gnosticism.  The Gnostics would write their own gospels, containing teachings rather contrary to the Apostolic faith, which would circulate and lead to confusion among the faithful.  (If you watch the Discovery Channel or the History Channel around Christmas and Easter you often see documentaries on "The Lost Gospel of Judas," or "The Lost Gospel of Thomas."  These are Gnostic gospels, not lost Christian gospels  The Church has known about them for about 1700 years, so no one should have their faith shaken by their existence.)

And so regional councils of bishops together met and discussed which books should officially be included in the canon of the Bible.  Two councils, at Hippo in 393 AD and Carthage in 397 AD, would approve the list of 73 books which are still contained in the Catholic Bible today.  These were local councils (not full ecumenical councils of the Church), and so their decrees are not binding on the universal Church.  So in the year 405, Pope Innocent I, successor of St. Peter, affirmed the same list of 73 books.  The case was closed, so to speak, from that point forward until the Protestant Reformation when Martin Luther and his followers questioned the legitimacy of certain Old Testament books (what Catholics call the deuterocanon and Protestants call the apocrypha) and removed them.  The Council of Trent (1545-63), a full Ecumenical Council of the Church, exercising the teaching authority of all the bishops united with the pope, reaffirmed the canon of 73 books in the face of this controversy.  

And so the very reason we have the scriptures that we do today, and the faith that they contain the inspired Word of God, is due to the exercise of the teaching authority to bind and loose that Christ gave to Peter, His "prime minister," and to the Apostles.  This is why St. Augustine could say, "I would not believe in the gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (397 AD).  

In the end we all submit ourselves to some authority, even if only the authority of popular opinion.  To be true to ourselves and who we were made to be, we should submit ourselves only to the authority of God, the author of all Creation.  That authority exists in Christ, His Son, who not only became man but saw fit to allow man to share in that divine authority.  That authority has been transmitted from Peter and the Apostles down through the ages right to today with Pope Francis and all the bishops of the Church, including our Bishop of Charlotte, Peter Jugis.  It is the same Church that Christ founded upon Peter, teaching the same Apostolic faith, and possessing the same authority from God to lead her people to salvation.  

--

WCU Catholic Campus Ministry

Matthew Newsome, MTh, campus minister

www.WCUCatholic.org

  

(828)293-9374  |   POB 2766, Cullowhee NC 28723

Join our FACEBOOK Group!

Gospel For Today (Early Edition) - St. Peter & St. Paul

NOTE:  As I will be away on retreat all weekend and without internet access, I am sending this week's Sunday reflection out early.  Please enjoy!

THE SOLEMNITY OF SAINTS PETER & PAUL, APOSTLES

click here for readings

A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of being invited to speak to a group of young adults at a Theology on Tap session.  The topic of the series they were currently running was "Why Catholic?" and I was invited to give my response to that topic.  There are certainly many answers to the question, "Why Catholic?"  G. K. Chesterton famously answered, "To have my sins forgiven."   St. Peter, as I mentioned last week, said, "To whom would we go?  We have come to know and believe that you have the words of eternal life."  Though he gave his answer in a different context, I think it's a good and honest reply to the "Why Catholic" question, as well.

While Chesterton often has his short, quippy remarks quoted (as I just did above), he also wrote more extensively on the question, "Why I Am a Catholic," in an essay which you can read online.  He begins that essay by saying there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true.

I answered my question in a similar manner.  In my talk I addressed the fact that Catholicism is real.  What do I mean by "real"?  You can take that to mean any number of things, all of which are true when it comes to the Catholic Church.  In my talk I focused on the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and how they are based on our human nature.  This means that the code of conduct which the Church expects us to live by is ontologically based on who we are as human beings, rather than being an arbitrary code of rules enforced from the outside which have nothing to do with who we are as persons.  In other words, in her moral teachings, the Catholic Church looks at reality as it truly is, looks at us as we truly are.  It's "real" in that way.

But there are many other ways in which the Catholic Church can be said to be "real."  You could take that to mean that her teachings are true, as Chesteron did.  You could take that as applying to the sacraments, that they are really and truly efficacious.  The Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ.  Baptism really does wash away our sins.  Confession & Penance really does convey God's forgiveness.  They are real.

But the other way to speak of the reality of the Catholic Church is her historical reality.  This is a vitally important point.  Rather than being a devised body of teachings, an invented philosophy, or a made-up moral code, the Catholic religion is founded upon a real historic person.  I speak, of course, of Jesus Christ.  

Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, born in a specific place at a specific time.  He did specific things.  He walked the roads of Palestine, he spoke with people, ate with people, and at the end of His earthly life He was arrested, tried, executed, buried, and rose again from the dead.  These are real historic events we speak of, not fairy tales.  The historical events of our faith are supported not only in the New Testament writings but by the entire historic record, including Jewish and Roman accounts from the time.  

Jesus is not a made up figure.  If He were, our faith would be based on nothing.  But we know He is a real Person because of the testimony of other real people.  I speak of the saints.  The people that Jesus Christ encountered, taught, healed, ate with, and loved are real people, too.  We celebrate two of them today.  

St. Peter was a fisherman from Galilee.  He was at one point married (the scriptures speak of his mother-in-law).  So he had a family, and a trade.  By all accounts he was not an exceptional man, but he was a real man.  St. Paul was a Pharisee and a zealot.  He was a Roman citizen, born in Tarsus and descended from the tribe of Benjamin.  He was a major persecutor of the Christian faith until a powerful and personal encounter with the Risen Christ led to a radical conversion, after which he became the Apostles to the Gentiles and author of most of the New Testament.  

Both of these figures we celebrate today were real flesh and blood human beings.  They had failings, like you and I.  Peter denied Christ three times on the night of the crucifixion.  Paul stood by as St. Stephen, the first martyr, was stoned to death.  Both of them came to faith in Christ but through very different experiences, just like we today each come to faith in different ways.  You can read about their actions in the gospels and in the book of Acts.  You can read them express themselves in their own words in the letters they wrote and which are preserved for us in the New Testament.   And you can even go and venerate their tombs in Rome, where they both are buried.  

The Catholic practice of venerating relics may seem a bit morbid to some, but relics are reminders that our faith is a real historic faith.  The saints that we revere, the heroes of our past that helped to build the Church, are real historic figures.  They are more like George Washington and John Adams than Hercules and Perseus.  Our faith is not based on mythology, but on history.  And venerating the physical remains of the saints reminds us of this important fact.

These two real men were also martyrs for the faith, each joyfully meeting death for their belief in another real man, Jesus Christ.  We read some of their persecution in our first reading from Acts this morning.  We hear St. Paul speak of his impending death in his own words in the second reading.  Paul says that even though the time of his departure is at hand, that he "has competed well," and now "the crown of righteousness awaits" him.  He is confident of these things because of his faith in Christ.  No sane person is willing to die for a myth.  But people are willing to die for a friend.  These men were true friends of Christ.  

Our gospel reading today recounts the scene at Cesarea Philipi when Christ asks the Apostles who they say He is.  Cesarea Philipi is a real geographical location.  There is a giant stone cliff there with a temple to the pagan god Pan built atop it.  You can go visit this place today.  It was to this location that Christ brought the Apostles.  It was with this in the background that Christ said, "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."  

Imagine the scene, with Jesus, Peter and the other Apostles gathered in the shadow of this giant stone outcropping.  Here is a giant rock with a false church to a false god built upon it.  By contrast, Jesus, the true God, will build His true Church upon the Rock of Peter.  And the gates of hell still have not prevailed against it.  It's still here.  It is the Catholic Church.  And it's for real.

• Read more about Sts. Peter and Paul here.
• Watch a short video of Pope Francis venerating the bones of St. Peter here.
  

--

WCU Catholic Campus Ministry

Matthew Newsome, MTh, campus minister

www.WCUCatholic.org

  

(828)293-9374  |   POB 2766, Cullowhee NC 28723

Join our FACEBOOK Group!

Answering 8 questions about the papacy

I was challenged once by a rather fundamentalist Baptist to “prove from Scripture” eight different facts about the papacy.  I don’t know if my answers satisfied him, but I certainly surprised him by not being as stumped as he expected me to be.  Here, edited for brevity, are his questions and my replies.

1. Prove from scripture that the alleged authority given in Matthew 16:18-20 is given personally to Peter alone, in distinction from the rest of the Apostles and the rest of the corporate Church. 

This one is easy enough to do. The verse in question reads, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In English, we are handicapped. Our word “you” can either be plural or singular, depending upon the context. But in most other languages, including Greek, in which this was written, and Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, there are different forms of the word “you” for plural and singular.

In this instance, all of the “yous” in the phrase above are singular except for the last two. What does this mean? It means that for most of His statement, Christ was speaking to only one person, until He shifted His subject towards the end. Who is this one person? Peter, whom Christ directly addresses.

Peter alone had his name changed to "Rock." Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And Peter, together with the rest of the Apostles, received the power to loose and bind.

2. Prove from scripture that all the rest of the Apostles and the early church acknowledged Peter as their spiritual head. 
3. Prove from scripture that Peter viewed himself as the spiritual head of the Church. 

These two questions are related, and so we will address them together. But before we see if the other Apostles saw Peter as the head of the Church, let’s first demonstrate that God did.

Christ was the one who said He would build His Church upon Peter (Mt 16:18). Christ also gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 16:19), a direct reference to Is 22:22 where the servant Eliakim is granted, via the symbol of the keys, the authority of his master to become the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom. Here in Matthew we have Christ using the same language and the same symbol of the keys to grant His authority to His servant Peter, making Peter the Prime Minister of His Kingdom. Christ also prayed that Peter's faith would strengthen his brethren (Lk 22:32). Christ named Peter as the chief shepherd of His flock (Jn 21:17).

Now, did the other Apostles, and Peter himself, see him in this leadership position? The book of Acts tells us volumes. Peter headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26). Peter led the Apostles in preaching after Pentecost (Acts 2:14). Peter received the first converts into the Church (Acts 2:41). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7). Peter inflicted the first punishment in the Church on Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11). Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon (Acts 8:21). Peter received the revelation from God to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:44-46). Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision of the Church (Acts 15:17). Looking beyond the Acts, we see in Gal 1:8 that, after his conversion, the first person Paul seeks out is Peter.

Whenever the Apostles’ names are listed, Peter’s name is always listed first (see Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Often the Apostles are simply called “Peter and his companions” as in Lk 9:32; 8:46; Mk 16:7. Peter spoke for the Apostles on many occasions (Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). Peter’s name is mentioned in the Bible 195 times -- more than all the other Apostles added together.
Was he head of the Apostles? A fair and unbiased reading of the text would lead one to conclude so.

4. Prove from scripture that Peter was given the ability to make infallible proclamations. 

What did Christ promise to the Church through the Apostles? He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them “into all truth” (Jn 16:13). He gave the Apostles the ability to speak with His own voice (Lk 10:16). And He promised to be with us always (Mt 28:20). Furthermore the Church is said in the scriptures to be the pillar and foundation (“bulwark” in some translations) of truth (1 Tim 3:15).  We therefore believe that Christ's Church is incapable of teaching error.

Now, do Peter and his successors have this infallibility in a special way? We believe yes. Where can this be found in scripture? One obvious but often overlooked place is 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Obviously Peter had the ability to make infallible statements at least twice -- when he composed these two books of the Bible, which Protestants and Catholics both accept as inerrant.

But there are other places. In Lk 22:32, Christ tells Peter Satan has demanded to have him, but that He has prayed for him “that your faith may not fail.” We have to accept that what Christ prayed for was achieved.  This would lead Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in 256 to proclaim, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” This extra-biblical source illustrates the idea that Christ’s promises to Peter carry on through his successors.

In fact, if these things could not be passed on from generation to generation, how would Christ fulfill His promise to be with us always? Which leads us to the next question.

5. Prove from scripture that Peter’s personal authority could be  passed on through an unbroken line of successors. 

We see the idea of Apostolic Succession carried out with the selection of the first successor of an Apostle, Matthias, who was chosen to succeed Judas in Acts 1:25-26.  Furthermore, we read in several places of the Apostles ordaining bishops and priests to serve particular churches and carry on their ministry: 1 Tim 4:14, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5, to name a few. They saw nothing questionable about passing their authority on to others. There are more examples of this kind if you need me to cite them all.

6. Prove from scripture that Peter used his authority to add extra-Biblical, but infallible and binding decrees upon the rest of the Church. 

This is impossible to answer, for the following reason. Any teaching of Peter that is recorded in scripture would, by definition, be scriptural. Therefore it is impossible to prove anything extra-Biblical from scripture. The question is a logical fallacy. Furthermore what we know as “the Bible” did not exist in Apostolic times.  They used the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the Old Testament, but the New Testament was still being written, and would not be formally canonized until 405 AD.

7. Prove from scripture that extra-Biblical traditions would be required in order for the Church to remain pure and apostolic. 

We have the same problem with this question. Any tradition named in the Bible would not be “extra-Biblical.” But, if you’ll see it, there is an answer of sorts contained in your very question. You ask if anything outside of scripture would be needed for the Church to be apostolic. “Apostolic” means “based on the Apostles.” The Church, according to the Nicene Creed, is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. It is united, it is sanctified, it is universal, and it is based on the teachings of the Apostles.

If the Nicene Fathers thought like Protestants, the Nicene Creed would identify the Church as one, holy, catholic, and scriptural. But it doesn’t. This is because the teachings of the Church are based ultimately on what Christ and the Holy Spirit revealed to the Apostles. The Scriptures are valued because their teaching is Apostolic. The Apostles are not valued because their teaching is Scriptural.

8. Prove from scripture that not one of Peter’s personal successors could ever be in error. 

I can’t. But this is not Catholic theology. The Catholic Church has never taught, never suggested, that the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter, would never hold erroneous or even heretical views. What the Church does teach is that the successor of Peter would never teach heresy as a matter of the faith.

Why refuse to believe that God would grant the Church a special charism to prevent all of the faithful from being led astray? Surely He has performed greater miracles. Why is this one so hard to accept?

It seems to me that the anti-Catholics are preaching that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church, and I just don’t buy it. Why? Because my Bible tells me otherwise, and I am a Bible-believing Christian!