Pentecost...It's All There!

Gerber baby, Ann Cook Turner at 91
https://wgntv.com/2017/11/21/the-original-gerber-baby-turns-91-years-old-today/

Pentecost is often spoken of as the "birth" of the Church. It's an apt metaphor: The Church, which had been growing en utero you could say, in the persons of Mary, the Twelve, and the small community of disciples, now emerges into the world. And when she does, we can already glimpse all of the distinguishing features by which she will be known as an adult.

The Church’s most obvious feature is that she is Charismatic – she has received the Gift, the Holy Spirit, and the manifold gifts He bestows, as evidenced by the charisms of tongues and preaching. Receiving the Holy Spirit as the common Gift of the Father and the Son (Acts 2:33-36) also immediately distinguishes her as Trinitarian. She is not a political body or social service but a living Tabernacle, making pilgrimage to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.

The Church that the Spirit rushed upon in tongues of fire is also Marian, Apostolic, and Petrine. We find her gathered in prayer with the Mother of Jesus – the Church's strong, silent backbone. Just as the Spirit overshadowed Mary and formed Christ within her womb, so He overshadowed the nascent community. birthing them as the Body of Christ into the world.

She is built upon the Twelve. The apostolic "office" left vacant by Judas' defection and death had to be filled before she began her mission to the world (Acts 1:15-26). And it was Peter, designated first among Christ’s apostles (Mt 10:2; 16:17-20), who lead the Church in this first act of apostolic succession. It was Peter who stood up “with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and address[ed]” the crowd (2:14).

And the sermon that Peter preached that first day, identifying how Jesus fulfilled the words of the Psalms and Prophets, established the Church as Scriptural – she constantly reflects upon and proclaims God’s written word. She is also Christocentric in her reading of Scripture; it all speaks of the Lord Jesus. But Peter’s preaching was not an end in itself. It led the crowd to cry out, “What shall we do?”; and Peter’s response that they must “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:37-39). The Church is not just Scriptural but Sacramental.

Even though all who received baptism that day were Jews, the fact that they had traveled to Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), intimated the acceptance of the Gentiles. It was a Catholic Church.

After almost two thousand years, the Church has grown and matured; Even though all who received baptism that day were Jews, the fact that they had traveled to Jerusalem “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), intimated the acceptance of the Gentiles. It was a Catholic Church.

After almost two thousand years, the Church has grown and matured. Her doctrine, liturgy, and works have continued to develop, to deepen; but for anyone who gazes closely at her “baby picture” –the Pentecost narrative – she is easy to recognize. The Catholic Church of today remains the Mystical Body of Christ, gestated throughout the earthly life of Mary and Jesus and born into the world on Pentecost.

Judas' Greatest Sin Was NOT His Betrayal of Christ

Love receiving emails from Daily Gospel.  I have to share the commentary it paired with the reading from Matthew, focusing on Judas' betrayal.  St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380 A.D.) recorded these words in her Dialogue, words she believed were spoken to her by God the Father:

Saint Catherine heard God say to her: This is the sin that is never forgiven, now or ever: the refusal, the scorning of my mercy. For this offends me more than all the other sins they have committed. So the despair of Judas displeased me more and was a greater insult to my Son than his betrayal had been. Therefore, such as these are reproved for this false judgment of considering their sin to be greater than my mercy... They are reproved also for their injustice in grieving more for their own plight than for having offended me. 

They are being unjust in this because they are not giving me what is mine, nor taking for themselves what belongs to them. It is their duty to offer love and bitter heartfelt contrition in my presence for the sins they have committed against me. But they have done the opposite. They have lavished such tender love on themselves and felt so sorry about the punishment they expect for their sins! So you see how unjust they are. They will be punished, therefore, on both accounts. They have scorned my mercy, so I turn them over to my justice.

Powerful words to keep in mind as we begin the Novena to Divine Mercy on Good Friday!

I remember hearing Archbishop Fulton Sheen contrast the actions of Judas and Peter.  Both betrayed the Lord.  Both wept for their sins.  But where Peter opened himself to God to receive mercy and forgiveness, Judas turned inward on himself and took his life in despair.  The great tragedy is that, had Judas turned to God as Peter did, we would know him as Saint Judas.

Next (Radio) Book Club Selection - Read the ORIGINAL St. Ignatius

No disrespect to the founder of the Jesuits, St. Ignatius of Loyola, but martyred in 110 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch is the original Saint Ignatius. 

The second bishop of Antioch after Peter's departure from that city, Ignatius provides us with tremendous insight into the life of the early Church.  The man heard the Apostle John preach the Gospel!  While being transported from Antioch to Rome, where he was to be fed to the lions, Ignatius penned seven epistles.  Dr. Kevin Vost and I invite you to read Ignatius' epistles as we pass through the holiest time in the Church's year, and then call in to share your thoughts with other listeners on Saturday, April 6th, on EWTN Radio's "St. Joseph Radio Presents ..."  Ignatius' epistles are available online free of charge (click here for text, or here to download audio files).

In Ignatius' seven epistles you will:

• Discover a saint who wanted to share the sufferings of Christ
• Find the first written reference to Christ's Church as "the Catholic Church."
• Find testimony to our belief in Jesus' full humanity and divinity
• Read of the absolute centrality of the Eucharist in Christian life
• See clear teaching on Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist
• Hear repeated testimony to the Church's ministerial structure of Bishop - Priest - Deacon
• Read historical testimony of Peter and Paul's leadership of the Roman Church
• Garner exciting testimony to the preeminent place held by the Church of Rome in the earliest days of Church

I recently ordered Dr. Kenneth Howell's Ignatius of Antioch & Polycarp of Smyrna, a brand new translation and commentary for the writings of these two early bishops and martyrs.  I can't wait to dig into it!

The Gravity of the Papal Conclave - What I Didn't Realize!

On the drive home today I caught Dr. Matthew Bunson on Kresta in the Afternoon.  He shared two details - both related to art - that I never considered in relation to the Conclave; and both speak to the gravity of the Cardinals' actions.  

First, just before entering the Sistine Chapel, the College of Cardinals will gather to hear a sermon in the Cappalena Paolina (Chapel of St. Paul).  And the Cardinals will listen to that sermon beneath Michelangelo's fresco, the Martyrdom of St. Peter.  Looking at that fresco, each of them knows what election to the Papacy entails.

Second, once the Cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel, they will engage in their deliberations under Michelangelo's Last Judgment.  They will elect Peter's Successor beneath that sobering reminder that each of them will have to answer to God for how he voted.

EVERY Christian Has a Pope (It's Simply a Question of "Who?")

Whether we are Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, "non-denominational," or a variety of Christian somewhere in between, each of us has a pope.  Each of us has someone we:

1) look to for direction in living the Christian life, and
2) appeal to as an authority in explaining why we interpret Jesus' teachings the way we do.  

It might be the founder of your denomination, a favorite author, pastor, or ... simply yourself.

Some may object, "I just go by what the Bible tells me.  I don't need someone to interpret what Jesus said to me."  But my friends, unless you are reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you are depending on someone else's interpretation of what Jesus said! And even if you are reading the Bible in its original languages, you still have interpret the meaning - the intent - of its words.  Let me give a few examples:  

• When you read the gospel accounts of Jesus' Last Supper, if you understand His words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood," to mean anything other than that the bread and wine have literally become His Body and Blood, then you are engaged in interpretation.  The same can be said of Jesus' words in John's Gospel, "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  He who eats [trogein in Greek, meaning "chews, gnaws on"] my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (Jn.6:55-56).

• Jesus told the Apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (Jn.20:23).  If you do not believe that Jesus gave the shepherds of His Church the power, in His Name, to forgive sins, then you are engaged in some type of interpretation.

• If you believe that we are saved through faith alone, and that works play absolute no part in obtaining final salvation, then you are interpreting the Epistle of James (the only place in the Bible where you find the phrase "faith alone") in some sense other than the text's face-value, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas.2:24).

Now, if you have read these verses (or the multitude of similar ones) but haven't experienced a pull toward the Catholic Church you either

a)  haven't truly wrestled with them, or 
b)  believe there is another way to interpret them

We Catholics are very comfortable with their face-value meaning.  If you understand them in a way other than at face-value however, what is your authority for that?  What is the weight of your argument?  Whose insight are you relying on, and what are their (or your) credentials?  

I glossed over or tried interpreting them other ways - for a couple of years - but the more I learned, the more I found myself humbled.  Time after time, when I really dug into Scripture and how it was understood by its earliest readers - in 70 A.D., 90 A.D., 107 A.D., 150 A.D. - those in a far better position to understand its original meaning, their interpretation always matched what was being said by the Pope today! 

I realized how I had went for years denying the Pope's gift of  infallibility, but acting as if I was infallible!  (And seriously, what credentials did I have?)  I denied that the Pope was the Successor of Peter, holding the "the keys of the Kingdom," with the power to "bind and loose" (Mt.16:19) but lived my life as if I did - as if I was the final arbiter of what Christ taught!  The thing is, when I finally buckled down and did the research, every piece of historical evidence spoke in the Popes' favor instead of mine (or anyone else's)!  Here's but one example.
 
A little unsettling to think about?  Tell me about it.  What it finally came down to for me was this:  "Jesus, I know that you didn't appoint me as an infallible authority.  I need help, I need guidance, to understand Your teaching and how to live it out.  If You appointed the Pope as a shepherd for me - and I am now convinced that You did - then I accept him."

Each of us has a pope, it's just a matter of, "Who?"

Why the New Pope will be POWERLESS

Cover of Pope Fiction

- powerless to change Church teaching, that is.  

Every time a new Pope is elected, the media begins to buzz as to whether or not this new Pope will be more "liberal," and bring Church teaching up to date with the "modern" world.  We even hear it among fellow Catholics.  
Will this new Pope:

• ease restrictions on the use of contraceptives?
• recognize same-sex "marriage"?
• allow women to be ordained to the priesthood?
• change Church "rules" on divorce and remarriage?

What these questioners fail to realize is that the Pope does not have the power to change these things.  Why not?  Because they are not his policies; they are Christ's.  

The world has shown itself to be a place of opinion, not moral conviction.  Its understanding of sexuality and the meaning of marriage has morphed in the past 50 years.  But Jesus' understanding has not.  Many, many Christian groups have slowly let go of elements of Christ's teaching in this area.  But the Successor of Peter, because Christ appointed him to share His own role of acting as a Rock to the faithful, cannot. (See here, here, and here.) Take an issue such as "same-sex marriage" - it is oxymoronic to the mind of Christ and thus, must be to the Pope's as well (and honestly, to anyone who believes that Jesus' words were not just those of a man, but God). 

The Pope's ministry is to strengthen his fellow bishops and all of the faithful in living out Christ's teachings.  He has no authority to change them. 

Please keep our new Pope in your prayers; he has a tough row to hoe - but in the end God will make his work fruitful.  A couple of verses to keep in the back of our minds as we pray:
 
"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (Jn.16:33)
 
"Whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith." (1 Jn. 5:4) 

Jesus asks, "But Who Do You Say That I Am?"

Today the Church celebrates the "Chair of St. Peter"  - Jesus' establishment of the Papacy.  (If you would like to read more, you can click here, here, or here.)  What I want to focus on today is the question Jesus asked Peter, because it's the question he asks you and me - "But you, who do you say that I am?"  

Just last week the Holy Spirit gave me opportunity to repeat that question to someone.  A friend had emailed to ask if she could run a couple of religious questions by me.  When we sat down I expected a couple of factual questions about what Catholics believe or why we do this or that, but my friend dove straight into the deep end:  "I haven't been to church in a long time; but I believe that Jesus is God, and I believe that everything the Bible says is true.  But I also have a very open mind, so on a matter like gay 'marriage,' I think that so long as two people love each other and it makes them happy, they should be able to go ahead and get married.  I am like that on other matters too.  Am I going to go to Hell for that?  I think I try to be the best person I can; could I still go to Hell for thinking differently?"

Alright, first thing I did was to ask to back up from the question of going to hell for a moment and start with what she had told me about her faith.  I reflected back, "You told me that you believe Jesus is God, believe in the Bible; but then you also want to say that certain actions, that you know directly contradict Jesus and the Bible, are alright - so long as they make a person happy.  Seems to me that you are trying to hold two contradictory statements in your mind at the same time."  She smiled and shook her head, acknowledging that she understood that was exactly what she was doing.

I continued, "When you say that you believe Jesus is God, you are saying that you believe He created this world we live in and that He understands what will and will not ultimately lead to our happiness.  Our emotional reactions to something are not the real measure of what is good or bad.  A twelve year old boy might tell you that sniffing model airplane glue makes him feel happy; but you, with a wider knowledge base, understand that it can also damage his brain.  If we believe that Jesus is God and that He understands - objectively, perfectly understands - what leads human beings to happiness; then to say that He is wrong on some point doesn't make any sense.  You can't have it both ways."

"So far as who is going to heaven and hell, no one but God can tell you that.  What I can say is that He has told us - again, objectively speaking - which actions are compatible with the lives of his children and which are not.  But what factors lessen or increase a person's culpability for those actions ... only God knows a person's history - how much of the truth they have been exposed to, their thought processes, the movements of their hearts.  I don't despair for anyone's salvation; I pray for God's grace to be at work in them, just as I pray for it to be at work in me.  Heaven is the culmination of a relationship with God.  And like all relationships, a relationship with God is dependent on our response.  If you had never responded to your boyfriend's dinner invitations, you wouldn't have much of a relationship today.  God invites us to get to know Him in many ways:  meeting Him at church on Sunday, receiving the sacraments, reading that Bible that He went to so much trouble to bring to us.  Do we live our lives in the way He has asked us; or do we tell him that we know better and go our own way?  At the moment of death, when this life ends and everything around us melts away; will we find ourselves next to God or at a distance?  If at a distance then we will experience loneliness, and that loneliness will not end.  That is Hell.  But it was us who moved away from God, not the other way around."

"Jesus asked the apostles and He is asking you, 'Who do you say that I am?'  You answered, 'God.'  Alright.  Now what are you going to do about it?"

My friend has a good head on her shoulders and love in her heart.  I am excited to see what this next year holds for her.

Who Were the Earliest Popes?

With the news of Pope Benedict's resignation at the end of February, it seemed like a good time to recall the names of our earliest popes.  There's this idea out there that the papacy didn't really come together until the 400's, and that's flat out wrong.  Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons (France), in his Against the Heresies, put forward the Bishops of Rome from Peter to the time of the work’s composition (c.189 A.D.):

Since it is too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition of the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole of the world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

The Blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the Blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles.

. . .To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us (Book III, 3:2-3).

So there you go.  Who will be the next man to act as Christ's Prime Minister?  I can't wait to see!

"We're Not Worthy!"

O.K., maybe I shouldn't have quoted Wayne's World on The Journey Home, but it is perfectly apropos with today's readings.  In the first reading we hear Isaiah's reaction to his vision of the Lord, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"  Then in the second reading St. Paul states, "I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God."  And finally in the Gospel we hear St. Peter, staring at a miraculous catch of fish, tell Jesus, "Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man."  And they're all correct.  When we approach God we should have that same realization of our unworthiness to approach such a magnificent, pure, loving King - given how many times we have failed to love Him as He deserves.

It's a far cry from the general kind of religious sentiment we see in our society.  "I'm a good person.  I've never killed anyone.  I don't cheat on my spouse.  I help out my neighbors when they need it."  That's just being a decent human being, naturally good. (And it totally ignores all the ways we daily slight one another and fail to give our all.)  To draw near to God and spend eternity with Him we need to be supernaturally good.  Jesus calls us to "be perfect" as our heavenly Father is perfect, and that it something completely above us human creatures - at least it is, if we are left to ourselves.

Supernatural goodness comes to us from God.  We hear it in Jesus' response to Peter, "Do not be afraid."  We see it in the angel flying to Isaiah and touching him with a coal from the altar, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged." It is St. Paul's "But by the grace of God I am what I am, [an apostle]."  And it is the prayer we make before going forward to receive the Lord in Communion, "I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed!"

There is the Gospel, the Good News - that Jesus came to call the sick, came to call sinners.  Until we recognize that we are sick with sin, we do not believe we need the Physician.  But once we realize how diseased we are, we do not give in to despair - God is the one who will make us clean.  He loves us right where we are - and He loves us so much that He refuses to leave us where we are.

Jesus Appoints a New Prime Minister!

In yesterday's post I wrote about Jesus' bestowal of the name Peter (Rock) upon the Apostle Simon.  I focused my comments upon the first half of Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16.  Today I want to look at the second half of His statement,  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (16:19). 

First, notice how the words “Church” and “kingdom” were interchangeable in Jesus’ mind. Second, we hear of the power of “binding and loosing.” We see Jesus bestow this authority upon the other Apostles two chapters later in Matthew’s Gospel (18:18). But something unique stands out in the way Jesus bestowed this authority upon Peter.  Jesus granted Peter alone “the keys of the kingdom.” That phrase has to be contended with if we are to understand Peter’s function in the Church, and by extension that of the popes.

The Jewish mind, hearing those words in the first century, would have immediately been transported back to the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The Lord was using a phrase, an image, from those governments. The Protestant scholars, W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, wrote “[Isaiah 22] undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and Roland DeVaux rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is spoken of as having the same authority in Isaiah.”[1] Albright and Mann contend that Jesus’ wording reflects that of Isaiah 22, where the Lord addressed the man serving as the vizier, or Master of the Palace in the Kingdom of Judah: the Lord would remove him from office and install Eliakim, a man who would exercise authority as the Lord wished:

In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father [pope in Italian] to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house… (Isaiah 22:21-23; emphasis and information within brackets added).

Fortunate for us, theologian Stanley Jaki has done the legwork in investigating what role the vizier, or Master of the Palace, played in ancient Israel:

By the time of Isaiah the office of the master of the palace was three centuries old and the highest of the royal administration which Solomon organized in full. . . Solomon set up the office in imitation of the office of the Pharaoh’s vizier. . .in Egypt as well as in Judah and Israel the master of the palace was the second in command after the king. . . the master of the palace of the king of Israel headed the list of royal officials (2 King 18:18) and he alone appears with the king (1 King 18:3). The importance of the title is particularly apparent when [Prince] Jotham assumes it in his capacity of regent of the kingdom during the final illness of his father King Azariah (2 Kings 15:5).[2]

Given this Old Testament background we are in a much better position to appreciate Jesus’ words. He, the One Who came to sit upon the throne of David and Solomon’s kingdom, revived the office of the Master of the Palace – appointing Simon-Peter to it. Peter was to be the King’s chief minister, and his authority so far-reaching that he could override the policies of other ministers, such was the symbolism of the keys of the kingdom.  It would be meaningless to speak of the authority of other ministers to bind and loose apart from their unity with Peter. The purpose was not to make Peter some type of dictator in regard to the other Apostles; they were brothers charged with the mission of representing Christ to the world. In Christ’s Kingdom the greatest serves the rest. In the Kingdom here on earth this service would involve speaking the final word when matters are in dispute, thus maintaining the unity of the Body. This service would be especially important when those disputing were fellow shepherds.

Jesus’ declaration that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” cannot mean that God was bound to rearrange spiritual and temporal realities to coincide with whatever Peter arbitrarily decided.  God is not manipulated.  Peter was but the servant in Another’s Kingdom; he spoke to the Church and the world on behalf of the King.  Jesus’ declaration only makes sense if we recognize a corresponding action on God’s part – that should Peter ever attempt to teach something false, God would intervene to prevent him from doing so.

The last piece we need to consider is also implicit in Jesus’ statement to Peter. Jesus revived the office of the vizier and placed Simon in it. Yet, Peter’s sojourn on earth would come to an end; the Kingdom (or Church’s) survival on earth, on the other hand, was guaranteed by our Lord until the end of time. Because of that fact we should expect there to be successors to Peter, others to hold the much needed keys of service.

For a list of those early successors (composed in 189 A.D.), click here.

---

[1] Albright, William F., & C.S. Mann (Eds.), Matthew (Anchor Bible). (New York: Doubleday, 1971), p.196.  Cited by Scott Hahn in his audiocassette, The Pope: Holy Father, St. Joseph Communications.

[2] Jaki, Stanley, The Keys of the Kingdom: A Tools Witness to Truth (Franciscan Hearld Press, 1987), p.27-28.

"Cephas / Peter" - What's in a Name?

I was honored to pen today's LIFE Runners devotion.  I chose to reflect upon how John's Gospel relates Jesus’ first meeting with Peter, “Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas,’ which is translated Peter” (Jn.1:32).

When I was in college I had a conversation with an evangelist visiting the Baptist Student Union.  (I attended a Bible study sponsored by the BSU.)  This evangelist shared with me how Catholics such as myself had misunderstood Jesus’ words to the Apostle Simon (Peter) in Matthew 16; Jesus was not, as Catholics believed, making Simon the head of His Church on earth (the first Pope).  

He assured me that if I were to study Jesus’ words in Greek, the language of the New Testament, I would be forced to abandon the Catholic position. He elaborated: After Simon had confessed Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus said, “you are Peter [Petros in Greek, meaning “pebble”], and on this rock [petra, Greek for “massive stone”] I will build my church” (Matthew 16:17-18; NIV). The gentleman explained that Simon-Peter was not designated by Jesus as “the Rock” on which the Church would be built; the truth was exactly the opposite! Simon the man was a Petros, an insignificant little pebble. His confession that Jesus was “the Messiah, the Son of the Living God,” on the other hand, was the Petra, or “Rock” upon which the Church would rise. He challenged me to study the Greek for myself.

I eventually did, and it turns out that he was greatly mistaken. [1] The reason that Matthew’s Gospel, in Greek, uses two different words (Petros and petra) is surprisingly simple. Anyone who studied French or Spanish in high school will undoubtedly remember that these languages have masculine and feminine nouns; you can tell which gender a given word is by checking the word ending. The same holds true in Greek. “Petra,” or “massive rock,” is a feminine noun and thus has a feminine ending. It would have been improper to give the name to Simon; when applied to him the ending had to be changed, and thus we see “Petros” instead of “petra.”  Now “Petros” just happened to be an already existing word, which in ancient Greek poetry was used to denote “pebble.” By the time of Jesus, however, “Petros” had lost this restrictive meaning and could be used interchangeably with “petra” to denote a “massive rock.”[2]

Thus far I have been discussing Jesus’ words as found in the Greek of Matthew’s Gospel. We have to remember, though, that Jesus would not have spoken those words in Greek. The everyday speech of a Palestinian Jew was Aramaic. (Hebrew was spoken but reserved for religious ceremony.) Jesus’ use of Aramaic is attested to in the gospels. We hear it in the Our Father – “Abba” is Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek. Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ cry from the cross in Aramaic, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” (Matthew 27:46). So when Jesus made His statement to Simon He would not have used the Greek word “Petros,” but the Aramaic “Kepha;” and “Kepha” can only mean “massive stone.”

This is the word we saw Jesus use in the verse from today’s Gospel with which I started this post, “'you will be called Cephas,’ which is translated Peter” (Jn.1:32). Cephas is simply the Greek spelling of the Aramaic word Kepha.[3]  Paul always referred to Simon as “Cephas” (see 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, and Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). 

Now all these linguistic gymnastics are only meant to bring out the true meaning of Jesus’ words to Simon. He promised a weak, rash man that he would be transformed by grace into the unique foundation of His Church. Some believers still have difficulty accepting this, objecting that Christ is the true Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4). And to this objection Simon-Peter, the current pope, and the Catholic Church would all answer “Amen!” Simon could become the rock on whom the Church is built only because Christ is the Rock on whom Simon-Peter stands. Simon being allowed to share in Christ’s “Rock-ness” is not without precedent: We human beings are allowed to share in God’s act of creating new lives; our participation does not mean that we supplant Him as the Creator. If I am a good teacher it is only because of the One Teacher (Matthew 23:10); if someone is wise it is because of the One Who is Wisdom. And if Simon became a Rock (Kepha/ Cephas/ Peter) for the Church, it is only because Christ made him so. To recognize someone as a parent, or wise, or a good teacher, is not a denial of God the Father or Christ’s fullness and neither is calling Peter the Rock. We are only echoing the Lord; He was the One Who renamed Simon! 

You can read my next post on the papacy, where I look at the passage of Peter's office to others, here.

---

[1]Scott Hahn presents the findings of Herman Ridderbos, R.T. France, W.F. Albright, Gerhard Maier, and Donald Carson in his audiocassette Holy Father: The Pope (St. Joseph’s Communications), the transcript of which is available at <http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/ ~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html>.

A more in-depth look at the scholarship on Jesus’ words to Simon, can be found in Butler, Scott; Norman Dalgren, & David Hess (Eds.), Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Santa Barbara, California: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997) For example:

Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) is cited, “Petros himself is the petra, not just his faith or his confession…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable” (p.31);

Craig Blomberg, a Baptist scholar and Professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary says, “Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” (p.32);

R.T. France, a renowned Anglican scholar, in his The Gospel According to Matthew (1985) wrote that, “The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)…it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied. And it is of course a matter of historic fact that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the group of disciples, and of the developing church in its early years” (p.36).

[2] James Akin in Surprised By Truth. Patrick Madrid ed. Basilica Press, San Diego. p.68

[3] The technical term for this is transliteration.