Book Review: "An Economics of Justice & Charity"

I have spent the past year delving into the Epistle of James, looking at the epistle's Jewish roots as well as how its inspired author's thought has continued to unfold within the Church's meditation and subsequent teaching. James had a number of things to say about the proper relationship between capital and labor, the rich and the poor; and it left me wanting to understand the Church's social justice teaching, specifically in regards to economics. I had heard phrases such as, "a preferential option for the poor," and "just wage." I knew of the Church's opposition to communism and that Leo XIII's Rerum Novorum began a series of papal teachings on the topic of social justice; but I felt ill-prepared to dive immediately into such deep waters. I needed a trustworthy guide - ideally an orthodox, one-volume overview of the subject. Archbishop Sheen's Justice & Charity (TAN, 2016) was, of course, excellent; but Sheen penned his lectures in 1938, before John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI made their decisive contributions.

I couldn't help but feel that Providence intervened when I received Angelico Press's email blast announcing the release of Thomas Storck's An Economics of Justice & Charity: Catholic Social Teaching, Its Development and Contemporary Relevance. It was exactly what I was looking for. Storck takes readers through all of the pontificates from Leo XIII to Francis, providing historical context and explaining the key points of their social justice encyclicals and speeches.

As an already-accomplished author and contributing editor of The Distributist Review, Storck's prose and analysis is impeccable. When I finished the book I felt like I had a decent enough grasp on the salient points to begin tackling the papal encyclicals for myself. (Links to the encyclicals at the Vatican website are provided after this review.) Prior to reading An Economics of Justice & Charity, I had no idea that the Church defined a "just wage" as one that allowed a man to care for his family, without need for his wife to work outside of the home. I was amazed to find Pope Pius XI advocating for "profit sharing" in the 1930s! I appreciated the popes' analysis of socialism as a reaction to laissez-faire capitalism. Storck's analysis of John Paul II's Centesimus Annus was especially detailed, and he supported his points well. He also provides an appendix wherein he seeks to explain the Church's ongoing opposition to usury.

If you want to delve into the untapped treasure of the Church's social justice teaching, An Economics of Justice & Charity is the place to begin. Storck is an ideal guide to explore the papal magisterium on this subject.
_____________________________

Links to Papal Encyclicals:
Rerum Novarum (1891)
Quadragesimo Anno (1931)
Divini Redemptoris (1937)
Mater et Magistra (1961)
Populorum Progressio (1967)
Laborem Exercens (1981)
Centesimus Annus (1991)
Caritas In Veritate (2009)
Laudato Si (2015)

Mail from the Vatican!

Since Cardinal Ratzinger's writings figured so heavily in Through, With, and In Him, I sent a copy to both the Pope Emeritus and Pope Francis. It was pretty exciting to fish this out of the mailbox today:

Pope Francis & Cardinal Burke - A Flashback to Peter & Paul?

With all of the press coverage on the synod this past week, I had several opportunities to hear from my former shepherd here in St. Louis, Cardinal Burke. I wrote about Cardinal Burke in one of my first blog posts and how I admired his ability to take stands that were unpopular in the culture at large (even among large swathes of his flock) - but completely faithful to Christ and his duty as a shepherd.

When the release of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family's relatio post disceptationem (report after the debate) earlier this week caused tremendous confusion throughout the Catholic world, Cardinal Burke felt compelled to speak up as to how the relatio did not faithfully reflect the bulk of the conversation engaged in by synod participants. The Vatican released a new, more precise English translation days later; but it did little to allay the difficulties seen by synod participants.


In his interview with Carl Olsen, Cardinal Burke said:

"The document lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. In a matter on which the Church has a very rich and clear teaching, it gives the impression of inventing a totally new, what one Synod Father called “revolutionary,”teaching on marriage and the family. It invokes repeatedly and in a confused manner principles which are not defined, for example, the law of graduality."

The relatio was largely seen as being in agreement with Cardinal Kasper of Germany's proposal to change the Church's discipline that those who had divorced and remarried (without having their first marriage investigated and found to be sacramentally invalid) were unable to present themselves to receive Holy Communion (see Mt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 11:28-32). Over the past year, when giving interviews, Cardinal Kasper had presented his proposal as representing Pope Francis' own wishes for a change in discipline. The release of the relatio - granted, only a working document - was still taken by the mainstream media as a confirmation of this.


When Cardinal Burke was asked about how important he believed it was for Pope Francis  to make a statement reaffirming, for the faithful, the ancient, orthodox teaching of Christ and the Church on this serious matter, the Cardinal replied:

"In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue. The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position. The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church."

And I have seen how the mainstream media has pounced: "Cardinal Burke at odds with Pope Francis." No.  The Cardinal retains his complete allegiance to Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ. In his words, at every step, Pope Francis has articulated Christianity's ancient understanding of Christ's words on the indissolubility of marriage, as well as how marriage is constituted by the union of man and woman.  What Cardinal Burke has given voice to is the confusion he sees being expressed among the faithful, in response to the relatio and its coverage in the media; and how the Cardinal sees Pope Francis' silence as adding to the misunderstanding. It cannot be easy for Cardinal Burke to say that, but I believe he does so out of a sincere love for Pope Francis and the entire Church.


My mind immediately goes back to the disagreement between Paul and Peter recounted in Galatians.  Paul, who had nothing but respect for Peter, and recognized the preeminent authority entrusted to him by Christ (Gal. 1:18; 2:1-2, 7-10), took issue with Peter's behavior.  Yes, Peter who had so clearly articulated God's welcome of the Gentiles into the Church - and without need for them to follow the ceremonial portions of the Mosaic Law - was behaving as if those things were necessary...and in the process, causing confusion.  And so Paul tells us how:


"...when Cephas [Aramaic for Rock, Peter] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?' We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:11-16).


Cardinal Burke's words should be understood in this same way. And please, I hope no one is jumping to the wild conclusion that papal infallibility is being called into question!  As all of us know, papal infallibility applies only to the Pope's official teachings, (1) as the Successor of Peter, (2) addressed to the entire Church, (3) on matters of faith and morals.  Cardinal Burke is simply pointing out what he believes to be a negative effect of Pope Francis' silence on a matter of great importance. The Pope and the Cardinal are brothers, intent on serving the same Master. In their heart of hearts they both want what is best for Christ's flock. You and I should pray that the Lord remove every obstacle that might stand in the way of that goal. Pray for Pope Francis, and please pray for all who, with him, and under his authority, share the responsibility of shepherding the Lord's flock.

"When I Fast, I Fast. And When I Eat Pizza, I EAT PIZZA!"

Last night I woke up a little before 2 a.m., and decided to hit the fridge for a couple of pieces of the kids' left over pizza.  Like millions of others yesterday, I had joined Pope Francis in fasting and praying for peace throughout the world, and especially in Syria.  And I'll tell ya, after a good fast, Little Caesar's pizza had never tasted better!  As I sincerely thanked God for such delicious food, I recalled a story from Christopher West's At the Heart of the Gospel:

Teresa of Avila (one of the saints I most admire) was once caught by her sisters, in the middle of the night, scarfing down partridge.  Seeing the shocked looks on their faces their holy mother responded, "When I fast, I fast; and when I eat partridge, I eat partridge!"  It's a great lesson on why we Christians fast.  It isn't that food or our bodily appetites are "bad," or "sinful."  Rather, for a limited time, we seek the fulfillment of an even deeper hunger.  In yesterday's fast we expressed to God our hunger for peace in the world. 

I don't know how many of us practice fasting, except on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday.  I've hardly ever done it.  When I began researching the prayer life of Jesus a few years back, and His teaching on prayer, I recognized that I was called - that all of us are called - to unite fasting to our prayer for great needs.  It was Jesus' practice; and in God's providence, it is a prerequisite for His release of certain graces.  Kudos to Pope Francis for bringing it into our prayers for peace!

Just don't let anyone get the wrong impression that we Catholics frown upon the feast.  We love to feast!  We've just found that the food tastes that much better after a day of prayer and fasting! 

Today's Gospel, in a Photo

Pope Francis on Holy Thursday

But Jesus summoned them and said, 
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.
But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;
whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.
Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)

A blessed Feast of St. James the Apostle to you!

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) 

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!

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.