* Start of Catholicism - Part 1: PETER

Here we take a brief look at The Church and its very earliest beginnings...what was to become, "Catholicism." While this will run to several parts, it cannot be an in-depth study; mountains of paper and oceans of ink have been devoted to that work before me. I refer you to such resources if anything here piques your interest.
For contrast, I will also address, where relevant, many of the errors and sometimes crazy notions we hear about The Church from her opponents - and sometimes enemies - who are outside the Churchs' embrace.
It is useful to make such a comparison of contrasts, so one can get a sense of both scope and perspective. You will find these insertions scattered throughout this article.

HOW DID CATHOLICISM START ?

   When we ask how Catholicism started, indeed, which is to ask how Christianity itself began, we must not look for just a precise date, or singular historical events — it isn't documented that way. Even the dates for the birth of Jesus or His death, as crucial as they are, have not been recorded with that kind of precision. So we must not approach it with such narrowness.
   Rather, we are seeking to learn of the unfolding of God’s plan for salvation through Jesus Christ and the One Church which Our Lord set into motion. This will embrace not only the forensic details of a historical perspective, but the people involved and their actions will also come to light.
   Contrary to some oft-repeated rhetoric, Catholicism is not a man-made institution, nor is it a later invention by this guy or that guy, as we see with all other Christian churches.
   It is an institution OF men, yes, and it always has been. But it traces its roots directly back to Christ Himself through His Apostles, and to the mission He gave to them to carry forward.
Meanwhile, many who execrate The Church like to rail against her for being something different than The Church of the Apostles. To that, one can rightfully say: Yes, The Church has organically expanded and developed over the last 2,000 years. Certainly so. But what institution would not after 20 centuries of existence?
   Is The United States the same as it was in the 1700's?
   Is any other nation on earth the same as when it began?
   Does a family remain unchanged from its earliest days?
   The answer to all these, and to those who make this complaint against The Church is simple: "Of course they're not the same. Why would they be?"
If we are honest, it is deliberate blindness to imagine that The Church one sees today is anything more than a normal, natural development. It has evolved, certainly, but its humble and divine origins still form the very heart of Catholic worship and life.... and The Church stewards and holds closely to them.

+++

1. Catholicism Begins with Jesus Christ

   The foundation of Catholicism is not Rome or popes, councils or human emperors like Constantine — those things arose as developments FROM the foundation, but they are wrongly promoted by her detractors to be the start of The Church.
   So if they get that wrong, just what is the foundation of The Church?
   None other than Jesus Christ, Himself.
   Around the year 30 A.D., in the dusty towns of Galilee and Judea, Jesus began His public ministry. He preached the Kingdom of God, healed the sick, forgave sins, literally gave Himself to humanity, and ulitmately revealed Himself as the Son of God and Our Savior.
   But Jesus did not simply preach, die, and then leave after being resurrected - NO. He intentionally formed a community of followers to carry on His mission of salvation.
   He called many disciples to Him - the Bible mentions both 70, and 120 of them. But from those, He chose only twelve Apostles. He personally taught them, trained them, and gave them His self-same authority to carry on His saving mission.
- (No other non-Catholic preacher, deacon, or church leader today can rightfully claim such a connection.)
But every community needs a leader. So from among the Apostles, it was to Simon, son of Jonah, born in Bethsaida, that he assigned a special place...

Peter’s Confession About Jesus.

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he he put this question to his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 And they said, “Some say he is John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But you," he said, "who do you say that I am?”
16 Then Simon Peter spoke up, 'You are the Christ,' he said, 'the Son of the living God.'
17 Jesus replied, “Simon son of Jonah, you are a happy man! Because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.
18 So now I say to you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the netherworld cannever hold out against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: Whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. (1)

NOTES: The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is generally conceded as being drawn from Is 22:15–25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebna as master of the palace, is given “the key of the House of David,” with which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Is 22:22). Similarly. "the keys" bestow upon Peter the power and authority to lead the Church Christ is setting into motion.

Whatever you bind…loosed in heaven: this is common imagery from rabbinic literature. It appears in several places in the Old Testament, and several meanings are said to be possible - two are of special importance here:

- The giving of authoritative teaching

- The lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication, aka the forgiving of sin - or not - against Christ and the Church He intends to set up.

Some claim the image of the keys and of binding and loosing mean the same thing. If nothing else, they reinforce each other. In any case, the promise of the keys, is given to Peter alone. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between Him, The Church he is to lead and the kingdom of heaven.

+++

There it is: Peter was commisioned by Christ to become the leader and key figure among the Apostles, and it is through him - and them - that The Church which Christ started was set into motion. Like any good leader of men, Christ strategically ensured that those who would carry on his leadership, structure, and mission were made ready. And that was a crucial, and neccessary element of His mission - continuance through His Church.
   Thus, it is this episode which is seen as the "birth" of the Church — Jesus laying down the foundation stone, aka, Peter, the "rock," upon whose shoulders Catholicism began.

   If you wish, you could stop here, and go do something else because we have mission accomplished.... that's the start of Catholicism.
However, its never that simple, is it? Because, this is where it starts to go a little off the rails for the non-Catholic, "wing," of Christianity, aka, Protestatnism.

The, "start of Catholicism" on the shoulders of Peter, described above, is widely taken to mean what it says in Matthew. However, this has been disputed over the years by some Protestants. Not all, mind you - but by a vocal minority of them.
This is because a key element of Protestantism at large, besides being anti-Catholic, is the self-interpretation of the Bible at will to suit whatever beliefs the various denominations have derived for themselves. The truth is, that's how all Protestant denominations came about.
   Thus, 15-20 centuries of biblical scholarship and understanding is often tossed out the window whenever an item Scripture is up for discussion. And this matter of Peter's primacy is no different. These contrarians shout aloud, whip out their Bibles to fling verses around, and try deperately to prove that Christ meant anything but what it says in Matthew. Some Protestants, especially modern fundamentalists, revive the notion that Christ was referring to HIMSELF there.
However, if we use even a little of our God-given reasoning powers, that can hardly be accepted.
   Lets now unpack that.

First, Christ deliberately changed Simon's name, or rather, his title, to, "Cephas," the Aramaic word for, "rock." That was later rendered into Greek, as "Peter," the name by which Simon, the fisherman, is best known.
   And that is to say, a rock, as in a solid foundation stone. And we know that was how it was meant, as that concept is commonly used just that way elsewhere in the Bible...which we'll see shortly, so stick around.
Now, would you imagine that the Gospel author of Matthew went to the trouble of recording this occurrence as merely a superfluous thing; just a triviality? And to what purpose? C'mon, think about it.
   With that question, there is a simple answer: it was recorded in order to convey a sense of profound significance.

Secondly, let's take the passage in full context. Christ first says to His disciples..., "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" They fudged around with different explanations, but Simon nails it by replying, "Thou art The Christ, the Son of the Living God."
   Christ then sparks up, and acknowledges Simon's God-sent, faith-filled awareness, saying to him in the singular, "You are Peter (changes his name from Simon to Cephas/Peter, aka rock,) then goes on to say "...and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
   This exchange is clearly meant to be a leading-resolving commentary.
And Jesus changes his title on the spot, which would be a significant thing in any age, but it had a deeply covenental meaning in those times. HE calls him the rock, and then He says upon THIS rock I will build my Church.
   You simply cannot toss aside this commentary as a whole, just because you want be anti-Catholic.

Third, even from a purely grammatical point of view, the word, "this," must refer to the nearest noun in the sentence, outside the speaker... as the speaker (Jesus) is not the subject of the sentence. And that reference must be Simon/Peter.
   Think of it this way. If I were to say, "Saul's name is now Paul, who is an Apostle, and this Apostle will go to teach the Gentiles," I'm not the subject - Paul is.
Who would be so misled as to think that I was changing the reference to talk about myself?
Numerous scholarly Protestants, have, in fact, admitted over the years that this is the only really grammatical interpretation, and that other self-interpretations to the contrary are merely the result of inherited theological prejudices. (2)

At this point, though, the anti-Catholic push continues, with some Protestants saying something like, "Nope, because elsewhere, we see Christ referred to as 'the rock,' or the chief corner stone."

Excellent - this means you recognize that the term, "rock," in this usage, refers to someone who shall be the foundation, or the cornerstone. You're halfway there.
   Now, listen to Dr. Plummer, the Protestant scholar, who wrote as follows, in his commentary on St. Matthew:
   "The fact that Christ Himself elsewhere, by a different metaphor, is called the 'corner stone' (Eph. II., 20; 1 Pet. II., 4-8), must not lead us to deny that Peter is also meant to be the foundation rock, or stone.
  For example, In Eph. II., 20, the Apostles and Christian Prophets are referred to as the foundation, just as we have seen Peter so described by Christ.
Then, the first ten chapters of Acts show us just in what sense Peter actually proved to be the foundation on which the first stones of the Christian Israel, The Church which Christ set into motion, were laid.
Peter was thus acknowledged as Head of the Apostolic body, and he took the lead in admitting both Jews and Gentiles into the Christian Church. All attempts to explain the 'rock' in any other way than as referring to Peter have ignominiously failed."
   (Briggs, North Amer. Rev., Feb., 1907, p. 348). < - - (NOTE the date...way before any modern fundamentalists got the notion into their heads that Christ was talking about Himself.)
- (Also, there is nothing in the Bible that forbids the application of this term to Peter. In fact, as we've just seen, the same metahpor IS used elsewhere to describe people besides Jesus.)
- (In full view, Christ is the main foundation, and the rest - including Peter - are the other foundation stones, or rocks, upon which the Church is to be built.)

At this point, you could hear another complaint from some Protestants...
"Okay, well, yeah, Peter, may derive from the original languages as, 'rock.' But Christ was just making a play on words."

Hold on - Our Lord is making a frivolous little pun at such a profound moment?
Is that what you would have us believe? You have to work hard to twist it that way.
- (And notice how all other points made are summarily ignored)
Of all the Apostles, only St. Peter solemnly avowed - no, proclaimed - that Jesus was none other than The Christ, The Messiah, and Son of the Almighty God. In return, Jesus lavishes upon him the the similarly profound words, addressed only to him in the singular, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
The text is undoubtedly a proof of the intentions of Christ, initial and persistent, concerning a regular and lasting constitution which He foresees to continue until the end of time and his return.
- (To say that the use of Peter's name was a mere wordy jest, a little poke in the ribs, so to speak...well, that's the height of folly. And it belittles our Lord....so you ought to stop with that while your ahead)

Another error sometimes heard is that most of the early Church fathers see in the "rock" not Peter, or even Christ,... but Peter's confession of faith.

Good catch - and it is certainly that.
   Some of the early church fathers DID indeed allow that Peter's comment was his confession of faith.... which it was. We remember Thomas made a similar faith statement when he said, "My Lord, and My God!" upon seeing the wounds of the Risen Christ.
   But these Church Fathers were not trying to making exegetical interpretations, but theological ones. Because at the same time, their other writings assert that Peter is the head of the Church, subordinate only to Christ, AND that this key confession of faith by Peter is the rock foundation of the Church insofar as the Church will ever be preserved in the truth through Peter.
   The Fathers likewise declare also that all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, but under the authority of Peter.(2)
- (It's also interesting that many Protestants quote, and even claim respect for, The Church Fathers - but then ignore them if they acknowledge that St. Peter was given the primacy by Christ over the whole Church.
   They simply use the Fathers to cherry-pick what they want to hear, and then pass judgment on The Church to promote their own views.)

The bottom line is this:
Christ alone has absolute sovereignty over The Church. But St. Peter had a delegated authority from Christ, and it was subject to conditions imposed by Christ.

   St. Peter could not change the faith taught by Christ, as he might if he had absolute authority. No, he had to teach what Christ taught... and that's what he did.
   Therefore, Catholics do not accord St. Peter absolute authority. What we DO say is that the fullness of Christ's authority, within the limits imposed by Christ, was given to Peter and that all others in the Church were secondary in relation to Peter.(2)

Bishop Of Rome?
Peter is often referred to as, "The Bishop Rome." Why?
This is because as an Apostle with a direct personal link to Christ, Peter would have enjoyed enormous respect among the neophyte Christian community in Rome. He would also have been in a position to, "lay down the law," and rebuke those who broke the teachings of Christ (to bind and/or loose).
   He may have been referred to as the presbyter, or episcopoi, by the community. The 2 words seem to have been used interchangeably in early Christian times, and they mean, "overseer," or, "organizer."
   Our modern word, "bishop" is derived from episcopoi, so it is likely that during his Peter was regarded as Bishop of Rome. Given the small number of Christians living in Rome, and the very different conditions of that time, however, a bishop at this date would have been a very different type of official compared to modern bishops.
A few years after Peter arrived in Rome, there was a devastating fire, and people suspected the cause as arson. Emperor Nero quickly blamed the Christians as scapegoats, and ordered a widespread persecution against them...ordering that they be executed in "degrading" ways.
   During these persecutions, Peter was apprehended and condemned to crucifixion. As he was being led to the cross, he declared that he was unfit to die in the same manner as our Lord Jesus and so he insisted that the soldires nail him upside down.
   His body was carried to a burial spot that is now on Vatican Hill. The spot was marked by the surviving Christians with a large red stone, symbolizing the rock of Peter's name, and a few decades later it was replaced by a proper shrine - and ultimately the Basilica of St. Peter we know today was erected on the site. (3)

+++

The fact remains (like it or not) that, while the world at large agrees with the way Matthew portrays Peter, Protestantism came waaay late to this party. Sadly, many of its members subsequently use the book which Christ's own Church later made available - in an unneccessary attempt to interpret that Our Lord meant something other than what it says in Matthew!
And while that is tortuous enough, it is even more unfortunate that such mental gymnastics as these have become a default part of their theology. At times, I'm convinced they'd be lost without this activity. Because if they were to simply acknowledge that the meaning of Matthew's passage is what it says, and that Christ started His only Church with Peter, well...they could carry on with life, work on their own spiritual growth towards holiness, and inject a little more peace into the world.
We can pray that this will help them do just that.

+++

Sources

Search This Blog

Catholicity - Apologetics For Our Time