It's Iimi!: Christian

Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts

Saturday, August 4, 2012

And WE'RE The Bigots?

There seems to be a popular internet picture going around Facebook at this time in response to the Chick-Fil-A events of this past week:

[EDIT: Picture removed. It was a picture of Jesus saying he hated FIGS—a play on words with the vulgar term for people with same sex attraction. Because that picture was somewhat blasphemous and because the picture it was posted in opposition to no longer exists, it makes no sense to keep it here.]

The point is to argue Christians who support traditional marriage share the same views as the Westboro Baptists who post reprehensible signs like this:

[EDIT: Sometime between 2012 and 2017, this hot-linked picture was removed. It was of the Westboro Baptists offering offensive slogans against people with same sex attraction]

But the Catholic teaching is:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.) (566). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. (Emphasis added)

So, what we have is actually an act of bigotry – but not by Christians. What we see is gross stereotyping that presumes all Christians think the same way as the Westboro Baptists, when in fact most Christians condemn their grossly unchristian behavior. It's basically like assuming all Muslims are terrorists because a few groups are, or that all Hispanics are illegal aliens because some are. It's grossly intolerant to assume from the behavior of some that all are this way.
One of the main problems I see is the Either-Or fallacy (sometimes called the Black or White fallacy). The argument runs in this case:

Either you [support "gay marriage"] or you [are homophobic]. (Either A or B)
You Do not [support "gay marriage."] (Not A)
Therefore you [are homophobic.] (Therefore B)

The reason this is a fallacy is because the main premise assumes [A] and [B] are not only in opposition to each other (which they are), but are the only two options – which they are NOT. If there is any option [C] out there (opposes "gay marriage" but not out of hatred), then the argument is invalid and the claim is not proven true.
Many people seem incapable of recognizing that third option exists, so let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Either you [Support Traditional Marriage] or you are an [Anti-Catholic bigot]. (Either A or B).
You don't [Support Traditional Marriage] (Not A)
Therefore you are an [Anti-Catholic bigot] (Therefore B).

I suspect most people who disagree with Traditional definitions of marriage would object to this. "Hey! Just because I think they are wrong doesn't mean we hate Catholics!"
Right, and that's my answer to you. Just because we consider a certain behavior to be wrong does not mean we believe God hates people struggling with homosexual tendencies – or even people who are committing homosexual acts. All people have struggles with sin, and all of us are to call on God to give us the grace to overcome our sins. We may fall at times, but we need to continue to persevere.
If a person fails to distinguish between this and the view of the Westboro Baptists, perhaps the problem with intolerance isn't with those who believe in the Christian understanding of Marriage.

And WE'RE The Bigots?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347)

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.) (566). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. (Emphasis added)

Either you [support "gay marriage"] or you [are homophobic]. (Either A or B)
You Do not [support "gay marriage."] (Not A)
Therefore you [are homophobic.] (Therefore B)

Either you [Support Traditional Marriage] or you are an [Anti-Catholic bigot]. (Either A or B).
You don't [Support Traditional Marriage] (Not A)
Therefore you are an [Anti-Catholic bigot] (Therefore B).

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Propaganda and Lies: You Homophobe!

Introduction

The term homophobia is a popular one to use when confronting people who believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong (wrong by their very nature). Whether the confrontation is with the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, or with an individual, the response is the same: “You’re a Homophobe!”

Since the term is used so broadly, I thought it would be helpful to study what the term means. Since the term is based on “phobia” (an extreme or irrational fear of something that causes someone to want to avoid it at all costs) it is clear that it must have a medical definition, like claustrophobia or agoraphobia, which we can look up, to see whether it is applied accurately.

No Medical Definition

The problem is, it doesn’t have a medical definition. “Homophobia” is not any sort of a medical term to be found in a medical dictionary. It is nothing more than a pejorative label which covers any person or group which rejects homosexual acts as wrong.

In other words, the Westboro Baptist Church, with their reprehensible “God Hates F*gs” signs (I think this kid had the right response) is classified in the same way as Catholic teaching, which holds:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358)

So the term “homophobia” is so broad that it lumps together people who have actual irrational hatred with those who condemn such hatred.

That sounds fishy, doesn’t it?

The Assumed Principles of the “Homophobia” Label

It should sound fishy. It indicates that the label of “homophobia” is based on certain assumptions that cannot be questioned.

First of all, it assumes that there are no moral problems with homosexual acts. Either they are morally neutral or just as morally acceptable as heterosexual acts.

Second, it assumes that any person or group who does have a moral problem with certain sexual acts is doing so out of bigotry – even if the person or group deny such a motive or condemn such motives.

In other words, the term argues: If you don’t agree with us, you’re a bigot!

That’s nothing more than propaganda and an ad hominem attack. It demonstrates a mindset which is fixated on a certain point of view with the inability to consider any other points of view or motives for that point of view.

The Sinister Tactic

What we have is a label which is used to vilify all persons who disagrees with any other view. Such behavior has happened many times in American history by one faction to attempt to shame or otherwise silence people who think differently. The right winger who called a liberal a “Communist;” the Southern racist who labels a supporter of civil rights as “a N*gger Lover” and so on, are examples of this tactic. Today, these terms seem archaic and offensive. But back in those days, they were seen as acceptable – or at least by those who used the terms.

It argues, “Either you agree with us or you are a vile person!” It tries to make people accept their view as right, and the opposing view as being held out of malice. Actually, it is the person who is using this tactic is doing nothing more than name calling.

The Term is a Lie and a Stereotype

The term homophobia is not a phobia as recognized by any credible medical source. It merely assumes all opposition is irrational, refusing to hear any arguments. It points to a group of extremists and tries to paint all who believe homosexuality is wrong as if they shared the extremist view.

That’s remarkably similar to assuming all Muslims are terrorists, just because some are. Or similar to those who assume all Blacks or Hispanics must be criminals just because some are.

We call that a stereotype, assuming the whole must be this way based on the behavior of a few.

It is certainly a lie to label all people as having a hatred of homosexual persons simply on the grounds that they believe that certain sexual acts are always wrong and that people who have an inclination towards such acts need to practice chastity.

The Dilemma: Who’s Really Intolerant?

Let’s look at the two views – the Catholic view that says homosexual acts are wrong and the pro-homosexual view which says people morally opposed to homophobia are “homophobes.”

The Catholic view says that even though the homosexual act and inclination is disordered, persons with this affliction must be treated with love and respect on account of the fact that they are still persons. Any Catholic who does not treat the homosexual person with love and compassion, while opposing such acts against what the Church requires of the faithful.

Now let’s assume that homophobia is a real phobia. That would make those who display hostility to those with homophobia as reprehensible as those who display hostility to other phobias.

The late comedian, Mitch Hedberg, once said:

“Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right.”

It’s a good point. If alcoholism is a disease, then to abuse people for having the disease is wrong. Likewise, if “homophobia” is truly a “an intense aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals” (according to the OED), then to abuse people for having the “condition” would also be wrong.

I think we can rephrase it this way to demonstrate the point.

If Homophobia is a mental illness, it’s the only one they can hate you for having. “You claustrophobics disgust me.” “You homophobes disgust me!” Something doesn’t sound right.

The problem is, if homophobia was truly a mental illness (as opposed to a derogatory term) like other phobias then the person who was abusive to the “homophobic” would be just as reprehensible as the person who was abusive to the claustrophobic – it would be discrimination.

That leads us to the dilemma. If “homophobia” is a real illness, then the person who is hostile to the “homophobic” is a bigot. If “homophobia” is nothing more than a label used to attack people who think differently, then the person who labels his opponents “homophobic” is a bigot.

The only way to avoid the bigot label is not to behave in a bigoted manner. That means ending the abuse and hatred towards those who believe homosexuality is wrong. Yes, there are people who do wrong in their opposition (violence, verbal abuse) and they can be opposed civilly and in a law abiding manner because of the wrong behavior, and they should be opposed – especially by Christians who recognize homosexuality is wrong.

However, to abuse and harass people simply because they recognize homosexual acts are always wrong is not a defense of tolerance. It is the practice of intolerance.

Conclusion

Really, it is time for people to recognize that this term is nothing more than a slur, and shows intolerance for those with a different point of view. People of good will, even if they should disagree with the Catholic teachings on the subject should not use such terms, but rather engage in civil dialogue with those they disagree.

We should recognize that the term “homophobic” is as repugnant as the term “f*g” or “n*gger” or any other intolerant slur. It should no longer be used, and we should recognize that the person who uses it is intolerant, behaving hypocritically – using intolerance while claiming to champion tolerance.

(edited 7/6/12 to make a point more clear)

Propaganda and Lies: You Homophobe!

Introduction

No Medical Definition

So the term “homophobia” is so broad that it lumps together people who have actual irrational hatred with those who condemn such hatred.

That sounds fishy, doesn’t it?

The Assumed Principles of the “Homophobia” Label

It should sound fishy. It indicates that the label of “homophobia” is based on certain assumptions that cannot be questioned.

First of all, it assumes that there are no moral problems with homosexual acts. Either they are morally neutral or just as morally acceptable as heterosexual acts.

In other words, the term argues: If you don’t agree with us, you’re a bigot!

The Sinister Tactic

The Term is a Lie and a Stereotype

That’s remarkably similar to assuming all Muslims are terrorists, just because some are. Or similar to those who assume all Blacks or Hispanics must be criminals just because some are.

We call that a stereotype, assuming the whole must be this way based on the behavior of a few.

The Dilemma: Who’s Really Intolerant?

Let’s look at the two views – the Catholic view that says homosexual acts are wrong and the pro-homosexual view which says people morally opposed to homophobia are “homophobes.”

Now let’s assume that homophobia is a real phobia. That would make those who display hostility to those with homophobia as reprehensible as those who display hostility to other phobias.

The late comedian, Mitch Hedberg, once said:

I think we can rephrase it this way to demonstrate the point.

If Homophobia is a mental illness, it’s the only one they can hate you for having. “You claustrophobics disgust me.” “You homophobes disgust me!” Something doesn’t sound right.

However, to abuse and harass people simply because they recognize homosexual acts are always wrong is not a defense of tolerance. It is the practice of intolerance.

Conclusion

(edited 7/6/12 to make a point more clear)

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings. Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true. Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith. However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians. Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles. The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid. We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute. I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible, Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true. Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct. No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge). Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief. Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing. One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic. For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X]. Therefore it is false." Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations. What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not. However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties. If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing. This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists. Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here. On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?" (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired. We do believe this to be true. The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture. If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject. Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church. The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise. In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe. Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

Preliminary Notes

Introduction

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Conclusion

Monday, August 2, 2010

Reflections on Scripture Disputes Between Christians

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

(I think this article needs to be written before going on with my Infallibility series, based on certain accusations that Catholics "ignore" Scripture)

Introduction

There is an old joke which runs as follows:

Two ministers of rival denominations found it necessary to share a cab, and as they travelled, they began to converse. Both were surprised to learn they shared mutual interests and they had a pleasant conversation.

Arriving at the first destination, the first minister said, "You know I don't see why we can't get along. After all, we're both trying to serve the Lord, aren't we?"

Getting out, the second minister said, "That's true. You serve the Lord in your way, and we serve the Lord in His."

There is a truth to this anecdote which we would do well to remember, and that is we must serve the Lord in His way and not in ours. Who accurately interprets Scripture and who errs? Remember that with contradictory claims, one must be wrong and the other right, while with contrary claims, both can be wrong, but it is possible neither is right.

Now, between Catholics and Protestants, and between different denominations of Protestants, (or for that matter between Christians and Jews concerning the Old Testament) there are disputes over the meaning of Scripture, where conflicting claims are made as to the teachings, and such disputes are a stumbling block for the world to whom we have been required to preach the good news to.

A Common Assumption

There are times when I receive comments from a person who is quite sincere in his or her belief attacking the Catholic position on the grounds that the Catholics "ignore" certain passages of the Bible. The problem is, this accusation makes a certain assumption:

When I [Read the Bible] I see [Teaching X]
[Catholics] don't believe [Teaching X]
Therefore, [Catholics] don't [Read the Bible]

Why is this assumption a problem? Because it assumes [Teaching X] is true, when this is actually a matter to be proven.

The question is: Is [Teaching X] true? If Catholics [Read the Bible] and don't see [Teaching X], then it comes down to an issue of who is authorized to interpret Scripture to make a decision on [Teaching X]. Catholics believe the Church in communion with the Pope has that right. Other denominations deny this, and insist on things like the Plain Sense of Scripture and Personal Interpretation. However, just as Catholics are called on to prove their position, it follows that those denominations who deny it must prove their own position on the authority to interpret Scripture.

Conclusion

I don't expect this article will lead people to accept one view over another. Rather, I post this in the hopes that when it comes to comments to articles, people will realize that the issue under dispute is ultimately over the issue of interpretation and not over accusations of "You're ignoring verses x:xx from the Book of Y in the Bible."

One needs to recognize the truth of what Bertrand Russell once said on slanting the language: "I am firm, you are stubborn, they are pig-headed." Also, the wisdom of GK Chesterton: "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

It is easy to assume one who disagrees with you is wrong. However, the question which must be asked is, On what basis do you hold you are right?

This is the real dispute between Christians.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIc): Other Gospel Passages Involving Peter

As I make constant references to past articles in this series, here are the links for your convenience.

Part I can be found here
Part IIa can be found here
Part IIb can be found here

Introduction

Now that we have discussed Matthew 16, there are other considerations from Scripture to look at about Peter. Some of them show Peter has an important role. Others we will look at because it they are commonly used by non-Catholics to challenge the belief in Peter being given headship over the Church established by Christ.

As this article is lengthy in itself, it will merely focus on the Gospel passages, especially those which seem to be misinterpreted or misrepresented when it comes to rejecting the Catholic belief. Article IId will move on to Acts and the Epistles, where, once Christ has ascended, we see how the Church carries on His teachings through Peter.

The reader is reminded that the parts of article II are not independent, but is essentially a large article broken into parts (otherwise, it would be over 10,000 words in length)

Preliminary Remarks

Some readers may notice I am focusing more on authority rather than on infallibility in this article. This is because infallibility is necessarily linked to authority which will be bound or loosed in Heaven. If an error is bound or loosed in Heaven, it indicates that God's authority is behind this error.

Keep in mind that the Early Christians saw the Scriptures of the New Testament as authoritative because of the source (the Apostles, or in the case of Mark and Luke, because they were written by those who knew the Apostles). Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, Matthew… their writings were accepted as people who had encountered Christ personally and who taught with authority. Mark was traditionally held to be written by one who knew Peter personally. Luke was traditionally held to be one who knew Paul personally.

We recognize that these New Testament writings are inspired and inerrant. However, we forget the fact that they were held to be important because of who was writing them.

So we have a link: The Apostles were believed to be teaching authentically what was handed to them by Jesus, and when they made decisions (the appointment of Matthias and the Council of Jerusalem), nobody questioned their right to do so.

If God Cannot Err, He Cannot Contradict Himself

At any rate, because of the fact that what Peter binds and looses will be bound and loosed in Heaven, we ought to add a ninth syllogism to consider.

Syllogism #9

[God] is [inerrant] (All [A] is [B])
No [contradictory claims] are [inerrant] (No [C] is [B])
Therefore no [contradictory claims] are from [God] (Therefore no [C] is [A])

Those who disagree with the Catholic understanding of infallibility often argue that since "it doesn't exist, there is no problem," but since we have Jesus' promise directed to Peter, we do have a problem. Either God protects Peter and his successors from error when teaching or we do have the possibility of God binding and protecting error. Since we do acknowledge that the Church was protected from error in the case of the canon of Scripture (See article I, syllogism #4), we can see it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe God protects the Church in other areas in terms of things essential for salvation.

Part I: Do Certain Gospel Verses in Scripture Deny the Primacy of Peter?

(Please note that this article pertains to the Gospels alone. Passages in Acts (Such as Acts 15) and the Epistles (such as Galatians 2) will come in Article IId. I haven't overlooked these. This separation is done to keep these articles from going on too long.)

Did Jesus Revoke His Promise?

So let's look at the allegation that certain passages revoke the promise made to Peter (and a promise was made, to Peter specifically in the second person) in Matthew 16. I have come across some groups who claim that even if Jesus did make a promise to Peter, Peter's later actions in Scripture show that he lost the rights to this promise.

However, if we accept Syllogism #9, we can't accept this interpretation. If Jesus, being God (See article IIb Syllogism #8) is inerrant, then for Him to revoke a promise He made would be to contradict Himself. Was He wrong in making the promise? Or wrong in revoking it? Catholics don't believe Christ did revoke His promise to Peter, but those who do claim this need to recognize that a God who does not err does not make promises He is unwilling to keep.

Therefore we need to keep syllogism #9 in mind when looking at the argument against infallibility from Matthew 16:20-23, which reads:

²¹From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

²²Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

²³He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Some have argued that this was a revocation of the promise made to Peter by Jesus (which indicates a promise was indeed made). However, there are some problems with this. The first is Syllogism #9 above. If Jesus made a promise to bind and loose in Heaven what Peter bound and loosed on Earth, then the revocation of this would be a contradiction of this promise.

This is because either Jesus would have erred in making this promise to begin with, or He would have erred in revoking it. Now, since we accept Jesus is God (See syllogism 8 in Article IIb) and that God cannot err (Syllogism 1 in Article I) it stands to reason that Jesus would not have made the poor judgment of making a promise to Peter and then needing to revoke it.

The second reason is even simpler. The rebuke makes no mention of a revocation of the promise Christ made. To claim there was a revocation is simply the insertion of a meaning into the text (eisegesis). Therefore, these verses cannot be used as evidence to a claim that Christ did so. The verses simply don't say what people who argue a revocation want them to say.

It seems more probable that the rebuke was over Peter's failure to understand the mission of the Messiah. The human thinking was of a political messiah who was to right the wrongs in Israel. God's thinking was of the salvation of the world from their sins. What sounded horrible to Peter (the crucifixion) was perfectly understandable when one knew God's plan of salvation.

The only way one could try to use this passage against Peter would be if they wanted to claim Peter was making an official Church teaching (which I don't believe is the case). However, unlike other verses where Peter does make decrees (such as in Acts), in this case, Peter spoke privately with Jesus ("took him aside"). So it seems, again, that this passage does not indicate what certain people claim about it.

Did Peter's Denial Mean The Revocation of Christ's Promise?

That Peter denied Jesus is attested to in all of the Scriptures (see Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38). Peter promised to stay with Jesus even if it meant risking his life. Jesus foretold that Peter would deny Him. It turned out that Peter did exactly what Jesus had foretold.

The problem is, to claim that these verses mean Peter lost his right to the promise Peter made is eisegesis, putting a meaning into Scripture which is not present. Indeed, we see in Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus had something to say to Peter:

³¹“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [second person plural] like wheat,

³²but I have prayed that your own faith [second person singular] may not fail; and once you [second person singular] have turned back, you [second person singular] must strengthen your [second person singular] brothers.”

Now, remembering Syllogism #9, it follows that either Jesus contradicts Himself (if the promise to Peter is revoked when Peter denies Jesus) or else Jesus, knowing all the disciples would falter, and that when Peter turned back (the Greek indicates turning from doing wrong, repenting), he was to strengthen (establish, make firm) his brothers.

In other words, Peter has an assignment which anticipates his denial. To strengthen his brethren once he has turned back.

When we get to John 21, we can see that despite Peter's denial, we have a scene with Jesus and Peter which is touching:

¹⁵When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

¹⁶He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

¹⁷He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.

¹⁸Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

¹⁹He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Peter is again given the mission to tend Jesus' lambs and sheep. Given that we are the sheep of His flock, Peter's mission is one of looking after the flock. It seems to be a necessary element of this commission that Peter must have authority over this flock. Otherwise, how could Peter tend the sheep?

So it seems that Peter's personal sins did not take away from the task which God had called him to do.

What About The "Dispute over Authority" Verses?

Others point to the dispute among the Apostles as to who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. They argue that this means that the Apostles were not aware of the primacy of Peter However, this is to miss the point of these readings. This was not about authority over the Church on Earth, but over privileges when Christ came into power. Like Peter in Matthew 16:21-23, they couldn't fully grasp the idea that Christ's kingdom was not a political kingdom on Earth.

The dispute among the Apostles seems to have been set off by James and John and their mother, who asked for a special favor in Matthew 20:

²⁰Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something.

²¹He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.”

²²Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.”

²³He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left (, this) is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

²⁴When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers.

²⁵But 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.

²⁶But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;

²⁷whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.

²⁸Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (See also, Mark 10:35-44)

What we have here is not a denial of authority in the Church, but an insistence on what this authority is for. James and John wanted special privileges when Jesus came in His glory. Jesus made clear that the one who would lead would do so as service to the whole, and not as a position of privilege. The Catholic Church recognizes this, in one of the titles of the Pope, which is Servant of the Servants of God. We see the Pope as having a ministry which looks out for the good of the Church in the role of the shepherd, and not as some sort of monarch living off of his subjects. The fact that some have not lived up to this does not take away from the intent Christ has called those who would shepherd to observe.

Part II:The Relationship of Jesus and Peter in Scripture

The next section is to look at the relation of Christ to Peter in the Gospel accounts. We have Matthew 16 which gives us the promise, but how did the actions in Scripture show this? Some may not be too impressed by this section. However, as I mentioned in Article IIb, we are looking at the Scriptures as data. How was Peter involved in the ministry of Christ? Do we see any prominence in Peter's actions among the twelve?

These are all things which make sense when one accepts the claim that Peter was made the head of the Church, but seem somewhat random if one rejects this.

First in the Lists

First we need to notice the prominence of Peter in all the lists of the Apostles. While in all the lists, ten of them are given in various sequences, Peter is always placed first and Judas is always placed last. Judas being placed last is pretty obvious. As the betrayer of Christ, he would not be seen as equal to the others. Yet Peter is always first. Not James (which would seem likely if it was James who was head of the Church as some seek to argue). Nor is it John, the Beloved Disciple. James and John are considered important of course and play important roles in the Gospels… but are usually mentioned with Peter, with Peter mentioned first.

So the person who would deny the primacy of Peter would need to explain this curious fact, as to why all four Gospels mention Peter first.

Peter the Spokesman

We also need to recognize that when it came to the actions of the Apostles, it was mostly Peter who spoke for the Apostles (See Matt 15:15, 16:23, 18:21, 19:27, Luke 12:41, John 6:68 for example). Now 18th century Protestant commentator Matthew Henry wrote:

Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mk. 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Jn. 14:5, 8, 22.

However, this isn't really the case. It's inserting meaning which assumes the denial of the primacy of Peter and seeks to justify this assumption. First, the invocation of Peter's personality is something Henry is putting into Scripture (eisegesis). Second, the other cases indicate they were speaking for themselves, whereas Peter asks questions like "Do you intend this parable for us…?"

Peter the Second In Command

I always found this section striking from Matthew 17:

²⁴When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax approached Peter and said, “Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?”

²⁵“Yes,” he said. When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?”

²⁶When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt.

²⁷But that we may not offend them, go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.”

First of all, the collectors went to Peter, which seems to indicate that there was some purpose to approaching him, instead of Jesus, and instead of one of the others among the twelve. Second, that Jesus had a miracle pay the tax not just for Jesus, but for Peter too. However, not for the other eleven. There seems to be the demonstration of a link between Jesus and Peter not necessarily present with the other eleven.

Now some have claimed it was because it was Peter's house that he was approached. However, we need to consider something here. All males 20 and older were obligated to pay the Temple Tax when enrolled in the census, as we see in Exodus 30:

¹¹The LORD also said to Moses,

¹²“When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered.

¹³Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD.

¹⁴Everyone of twenty years or more who enters the registered group must give this contribution to the LORD.

¹⁵The rich need not give more, nor shall the poor give less, than a half-shekel in this contribution to the LORD to pay the forfeit for their lives.

¹⁶When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites’ reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.”

So, all the twelve were obligated to pay, and about a month before Passover, there were moneychangers throughout Israel according to some sources who would exchange the foreign coins for the shekel (the tax seems to have been paid at the Temple, but since the shekel was not used for ordinary [civil] transactions (see Matt. 22:19), it appears it was a special coin for religious purposes and transactions [See John 2:15]).

Jews who were residents and visitors both could make use of the service, so mere residency seems not to apply. Yet the question was only asked about Jesus, and Jesus provided the coin needed to pay for Him and Peter. Remember, Peter's brother Andrew (Luke 6:14) and his partners in fishing James and John (Luke 5:10) also lived in the area (and thus would fit under the residence question), and some have alleged that it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church in light of Acts 15. Yet they did not go to James, a fellow Apostle and partner of Peter in the fishing enterprise.

So, the questions are: If one denies a special role for Peter, then why did the collectors go to Peter with the question? Why did Jesus include Peter with Himself when it comes to paying the tax but not the other apostles?

Jesus' Visiting Peter after the Resurrection

Another interesting fact was shown in Luke 24:

³³So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them

³⁴who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”

³⁵Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

While we do not have an account of what Jesus said to Peter, I find it notable that Peter was one of the first (since we do not know whether Jesus appeared to Peter before, after or at the same time He was present with the two disciples) to see the risen Lord.

Taken by itself, perhaps one could shrug it off and say "Who knows what God was thinking?" However, God does not act randomly, even if we may not be able to comprehend the mind of God. When we consider what Jesus has said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, it seems this is not merely a throwaway incident.

It is not enough to argue a possible alternate interpretation. One could argue a possible alternate explanation with space aliens. The issue is, on what basis is this alternate explanation held?

Conclusion

Each individual piece, taken in isolation could be given an alternate explanation. However, when taken as a whole, it becomes much more like obstinacy to deny that Peter had a role given to him by Christ to tend His sheep, and strengthen his brethren.

In the next article (IId), I intend to look at the role of Peter in Acts and in the Epistles. Jesus has ascended to Heaven. How does Peter act then?

Hopefully, after IId, I will be done with Peter and Scripture, and ready to move on to what Christ had to say about His Church itself in Article III.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIb): On Peter and Matthew 16

Preliminary Disclaimer

The article I am presenting here is not intended to be the definitive Church teaching on the subject of infallibility, but rather is my own take on the topic in hopes of offering some perspective on why the Church teaches what it does.

PART I: Introduction and Preliminary Concerns

Article ”Part I” is found here.
Article “Part IIa” is found here

In the first article, I dealt with some syllogisms about certain assumptions Christians hold and how they point to a need to know what is authentically taught and what is in error when it comes to truths necessary to salvation. I pointed out that we had not yet reached the point of saying we had proven the claims of the Catholic Church but we had an instance where a decree of the Church was considered infallible.

In Article IIa, I spoke about some historical fallacies we need to be aware of: not asking a Have you stopped beating your wife yet? kind of question about Peter and the Papacy but rather asking what the facts were about Peter’s role in the Church.

Now in Article IIb, I would like to look at the Bible… but with a caveat to keep in mind.

Caveat: The Bible as Data vs. Arguing in A Circle

The caveat here is that I don't intend to use the sacred character of Scripture as an appeal to authority. I have been on record as opposing the circular argument some people use which runs as follows:

The Bible is inerrant because God says so.
God is inerrant because the Bible says so.

A person who rejects either premise will not be willing to accept this reasoning. Also because I reject this as an illogical way to express the authority of the Bible, it would be hypocritical of me to use this fallacy when it favors me.

Therefore, I want to make clear I am using the Bible, for the purpose of this article, as an account which all orthodox Christians accept as telling us what Jesus said, without invoking the authority of Scripture as a trump card. Thus we will be looking at the Bible to see what Christ taught on certain subjects and look at what necessarily follows from His statements.

Remember I am simply intending to look at it in the sense of, “If Jesus said this, what is the significance of it?” What I am not going to do is to get into debates over what Jesus meant (commonly invoked in disputes over interpretation). Now of course we do need to understand the historical context of expressions and the like. However, if one person believes Jesus intended to found a Church and another denies this, the disputes generally turn out to be “argument by proxy” over beliefs and not texts.

So in terms of studying Matthew 16:17-19, we need to be aware of understanding what Jesus said before looking at the beliefs about this passage.

What is "Data"

For the purpose of this article, data is defined in the philosophical sense:

things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

If we understand Christianity to be centered on the person of Jesus Christ, then what He says when He teaches or gives example is considered to be things known as a baseline from which we must seek to understand. To say "Christ got it wrong in this section of the Bible" is to take a position incompatible with Christian belief.

In this case, using the Bible as data is not to diminish the text for the Christian. Rather I want to consult Scripture in the sense of looking at what Jesus said and not bringing in arguments of “you are obligated to believe this.” Eventually we may reach this point… but not yet.

Interpretations need to be established as having basis

I would like to remind the reader that there is a problem with appealing to the personal interpretation, which I made reference to in Part I of this series, and that is we have established that since individuals can err, so can personal interpretations of Scripture (See syllogism #6 of Part I in this series). Thus when it comes to an appeal to personal interpretation, we need to see how such Scripture was seen in the past, and not merely how an individual reads it today.

With these preliminaries out of the way, we can now move on to the data of Scripture.

PART II: Considering the Data of Scripture in terms of Peter and Matthew 16

There is a lot to consider about Peter’s role in Scripture. This particular article (IIb) will look at Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16. In future articles we will look at the rest of the Scriptures on Peter.

Singular and Plural

In the English language, we tend to use “you” to refer to both one person addressed or to a group of people addressed. In other languages, including Greek (the language of the New Testament), there is a form for “you” when speaking to one person (the singular form) and a form for “you” for speaking to many people (the plural form). Unfortunately, many do not make this distinction in the English translations of the Bible, and people uncritically interpret Scripture without considering this difference. Since Matthew 16 does make use of both forms, we need to be aware of this fact. If we try to make an argument based on the ambiguities of “you” in English, it will fall short if it is not supported by the Greek of the Gospels.

Peter’s Role among those called by Christ

Peter was not the sole Apostle, and He was not the only Apostle to speak to Christ about things. (Some objections to Catholic beliefs seem to be based on the assumption that we do believe this). However, he is shown to have a prominent role in the Gospels. While sometimes he is maligned for “not getting it” he was a man of great faith (remember the other eleven apostles never even got out of the boat).

In considering Scripture, we need to avoid the Argument from Silence fallacy which claims that because nothing is said on a topic it “proves” the validity/invalidity of the claim. Silence merely means nothing was said one way or another. What we are doing here is to study the words of Scripture, and what logically follows from what Christ said.

Certain People follow Jesus with different motives and Interests

In studying the relationship of Christ and Peter, first I would like to do a brief breakdown of the different relationships of people interested in Jesus and following Him. I am excluding those who were hostile to Him in this case.

The Crowds

First, we have the crowds who followed Jesus. The word for the crowds is ὄχλος (ochlos), which has the sense of the undisciplined masses or mobs. They were following out of curiosity or need out of their own volition. These were the people who wanted to hear about a political messiah who would overthrow the Romans and bring in a reign of prosperity for all. We could say they followed Jesus with an expectation. They were excited by miracles, but did not understand what He taught. They were fickle. Some of those who were calling out Hosannas on Palm Sunday were yelling “Crucify him!” on Good Friday.

The Disciples

Jesus had certain people follow Him as His disciples. The Greek word used in Scripture is μᾰθητής (mathētēs), which generally has the meaning of students/pupils of a teacher. In Greek, this had often been used for students of a philosopher or a doctor. While Christians believe that Jesus was more than a mere teacher, the fact is that the disciples followed Him in a different relationship than that of the crowd. They believed he was teaching truth, and they sought to learn from Him. This group could contain outcasts like tax collectors, and was not limited to men of certain education or social classes. Women too could be disciples of Jesus. This would have been a great change from the society which considered only men could be disciples.

Some of them did separate themselves from Him, such as John Chapter 6.

The Apostles

It is noted that there were two circles of Jesus disciples: The Twelve and the Disciples. The Twelve are often called the Apostles (ἀπόστολος), which means messenger, envoy or ambassador and has a literal sense of one who is sent forth. They were the ones who were closest to Jesus. They were the ones who stayed when the others left Him in John 6. They were present with Jesus at the Last Supper. Jesus chose the Twelve to be with him, and to them He gave the teachings of the Kingdom of God.

Peter Among the Twelve

This is where non Catholics will begin to disagree with me, and that is Peter's special calling among the twelve. The most commonly cited one is Matthew 16 of course, and this will be the thrust of this article. However it is not the only passage of authority (certain people who claim Catholics solely base their views on Matt 16:18-19 are incorrect). Throughout the Gospels we see that Peter is always given a prominent place. He is always there for the special events in Christ's life. Jesus' miraculous arranging of the paying of the temple tax shows that Peter's association is close to Christ.

It is to Peter alone that Jesus addresses these promises (though in Matthew 18:18, Jesus seems to grant some of them to the Apostles collectively). In the Greek, Jesus addresses Peter with the singular "you" in these cases. Most significant is the promise to build the Church on Peter and to give him the keys of the kingdom.

A Look at the Promise to Peter

¹³When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

¹⁴They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

¹⁵He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

¹⁶Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

¹⁷Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

¹⁸And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

¹⁹I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The sequence is rather interesting. While the others could tell Jesus who others said He was supposed to be, it was Peter who had revealed to Him the true answer of who Jesus actually is. Jesus tells Peter he is blessed because God the Father has revealed it to him.

Now we do need to look at the Greek for what Jesus says next in verse 18:

¹⁸ Κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω, ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾍδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Let's break this up into sections.

"I to You (second person singular) say that you (second person singular)…"

In other words, he is not speaking to the apostles in general.

"…are Peter/Rock (petros) and (supported) on this (this same) the Rock (petra)…"

What is interesting is the meaning of ταύτῃ (tautē feminine dative demonstrative singular pronoun) is the "this" can also hold a meaning of "the same" and as a pronoun with two objects, tautē, usually refers to the object mentioned before, not the one that comes after. It only refers to what comes after when there are not two objects.

Essentially, the Gospel of Matthew makes use of Petros to refer to Peter and petra second simply because that is proper Greek in trying to translate an Aramaic concept. Because Jesus was referring to Peter, and Peter was male, the Greek requires the masculine form Petros.

Also, since Peter's statement of faith is not even present in this sentence it cannot refer to this.

"I will build/found/establish of me the assembly duly summoned"

Some have tried to make use of an argument that ecclesia doesn't mean Church. The problem is, this word is used in the LXX for the assembly of Israel and in the New Testament for the Church in places like 1 Cor. 11:22 and Romans 16:5.

It should be noted at this point that the form ekklēsian used here is singular. Church, not churches. It is also only found twice in the New Testament, and both times used in the sense of the body established by Christ.

"…and gates/prison of Hades (it is used in the context of "Hell" as well as death) not will prevail/overcome against it.”

So we have a three layered statement:

Christ renames Simon "Peter" which is Cephas in Aramaic and translates as Rock in English. (Cephas can be used for both Petros and Petra)
Jesus promises that on this rock (which in Greek grammatically refers to Peter) He will build His Church
The gates of Hell/death will not prevail against His Church.

Now with the contested verse 18 out of the way, let us move on to the next verse

Verse 19 gives evidence that it is Peter, and not his profession, is the rock, when we see Christ says to Peter singularly, He will give Peter the keys to the Kingdom, which is to be understood as the authority to rule. To Peter singularly, Jesus gives the power to bind and to loose and that which he binds and looses on Earth will be held bound (this can mean both to be chained and to be bound together like a husband and wife) or loosed (to set free, be released) in Heaven.

Now remembering that this began because Jesus said Peter was personally blessed because God the Father had revealed this to Peter, we can see how personal a promise this is.

The Significance of This Promise

Now, what I find fascinating is that this promise in Matthew 16:19 of binding and loosing is addressed to Peter singularly, not to the Apostles in the plural form of “you.” Peter is being given the role of the steward to the King (Christ). To recognize this role, we should look at another Biblical passage where someone is given keys. This is Isaiah 22. The prophecy against Shebna, that God will take him down from his position and give it to Eliakim:

²⁰On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

²¹I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

²²I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

²³I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

²⁴On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

The keys, given to the steward meant he was given authority over the royal palace. That’s an interesting parallel in regards to Peter being given the keys to the entire Kingdom, which Jesus equates with His Church. Like a steward, Peter’s role exists until Christ returns at the Second Coming.

A Diversion: Peter, Rock and Promise

In light of Article IIa, I think we need a slight detour here. There are some who claim that the "rock" was referring to Peter's confession of faith. In doing so, they attempt to draw out the difference between petra and petros. Because there is a distinction in Greek between the two words (though it is not as great as some claim, the two could be and often were used interchangeably), some try to say this means the rock was not Peter. This claim is usually accompanied by an a priori assumption that Peter could not be the Rock, therefore it must have a different meaning. If, for example, you read Matthew Henry’s commentary on these verses (I cited it in IIa), you will see his entire commentary on this passage is based on the denial of the Catholic claim and seeking an alternative meaning.

Historian David Hackett Fischer calls this the fallacy of fictional questions where one tries to find an alternate explanation. This fallacy turns a “what if” question into an “it is” assumption. However, a “what if” cannot become a “it is” without evidence for the claim.

There are a few problems here which we need to be aware of and I list here.

Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So when we see the writings of the Gospels we need to remember that Jesus was not speaking Greek… or English.
In Aramaic, there is no gender difference between words. It would be kêpa (sometimes written Cephas [except for Galatians, Paul almost always uses Cephas for Peter]) in both cases (You are kêpa’ and on this kêpa’…). Only in Greek is there a gender difference in words. So the Greek difference in words would be a red herring distracting from the issue
Petros, Petra and Cephas/Kêpa were not names at this time, so for Jesus to name Simon "Peter" was significant.
When God changes a name (Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel etc.), it is done only when a significant promise is made. To Abraham and to Jacob, it concerned the promise of a nation. To Peter it concerned the promise of a the Kingdom.

When we recognize these facts, the argument that says the rock was not Peter fails to prove its point.

Adding A Syllogism

Now, at this time I am not going to say “See! This proves Peter was infallible.” We will eventually get to this point, but at this time we merely need to consider the ramifications of Jesus’ promise.

We’ve pointed out in the first article that God does not err. Now, if Jesus said that what Peter (and remember Jesus was talking to Peter in the singular form) bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven and what Peter loosed on Earth would be loosed in Heaven, this is to say that Peter binds and looses with authority given him by God. Now if Peter could err in such a decision, then it follows that God would be binding and loosing error, which would be incompatible with God’s perfection. So let’s add an Eighth Syllogism:

Syllogism #8

Being [inerrant] is an attribute of [God] ([A] is part of [B])
[God] is [Jesus] (All [B] is [C])
Therefore Being [inerrant] is an attribute of [Jesus] (Therefore [A] is part of [C])

(If God is Jesus then logically, all characteristics of God are characteristics of Jesus)

So if Jesus, as inerrant God, has made this promise to bind and loose in Heaven what Peter binds and looses on Earth, then He must either bind and loose error; or else He must at least protect Peter from declaring error bound or loosed when it pertains to matters of salvation.

We haven’t yet fully demonstrated a claim of infallibility. However, if we recognize that Jesus was inerrant and made this promise, we need to recognize that with these promises need to be backed up by something.

To Be Continued (Or, “DON’T Hit the Reply Button Yet…”)

We have not finished the discussion of Peter yet (Hence the IIb in the title). Matthew 16:17-19 is not the extent of the Catholic understanding of infallibility. However, because it is the lengthiest one in terms of potential misconceptions we did need to look into the significance of the promise Jesus made to Peter.

Nor have we merely equated the Church with Peter. We also need to look at the promises and commands Jesus made in relation to the Church itself.

Some readers may object that I have ignored the rebuke of Jesus which comes after this promise. This is not the case. Rather I will deal with this in a future article (the brief answer would be, Jesus seems to be rebuking Peter’s misunderstanding of the mission of the Messiah, and not withdrawing anything).

At this time, we need to consider syllogisms 1-8, recognizing that God cannot err, but personal interpretation can because human beings are fallible. Yet Jesus makes a promise to Peter which only makes sense if God will protect Peter from error.

Article IIc will continue looking at what Christ and the New Testament has said on Peter. Depending on length, discussion of the Church itself will be a part of IIc or else a Part IId may be necessary.

Pages

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Monday, August 2, 2010

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Friday, July 16, 2010