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?"

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!

"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.

Catholic - the Toughest Way to be Christian

My post is simply to pass along a great insight from Kevin Lowry over at his Grateful Convert blog.  I highly encourage you to check out his "The Toughest Way to Be a Christian."  It, in absolutely no way, belittles other Christian groups.  Rather, it witnesses to Kevin's experience as a convert that Catholicism - with its insistence on an objective body of Truth, the Pope's final authority in teaching doctrine and morals, and the ongoing insistence that Jesus calls us to change, to become perfect reflections of Him (Mt.5:48) - demanded that he renounce more of himself than did any other Christian community.  And from my own experience of progressively embracing more and more of the Catholic Faith, I respond with a fat "Amen."  

When I was in my early teens it was tempting to find a church I felt comfortable in, that appealed to my personal tastes.  What a mistake!  This God we are seeking tells us that His thoughts are not our thoughts, nor His ways our ways (Is.55:8).  It can be tempting to "create" our own worship routine (I put "create" in quotes because we're really just isolating elements that already exist in the Mass, to the exclusion of others.); but the truth is, Jesus asked us to worship in one specific way, "This is My Body . . . This is My Blood . . .Do THIS as a remembrance of Me."  Before I start going on let me come back to my original point - click the link above and read a good post.