![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/03\/Cover-555-x-831.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(my first book) was completed in May 1996 and \u201cofficially\u201d published in June 2003 by Sophia Institute Press. The following is from pages 211-233, 238, minus the final section,\u00a0Petrine panoply: fifty New Testament proofs for the pre-eminence of St. Peter<\/a><\/em>: which I have long since linked as its own self-contained article. It was published in The Catholic Answer<\/em><\/a> (Jan\/Feb. 1997 issue).<\/p>\n I present below my slightly different original (i.e., pre-edited) 1996 manuscript version (all Bible passages: RSV). Readers may also be interested in additional related sections from the much longer initial 1994 version of this book:\u00a0Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Papacy & Papal Infallibility: Classic Catholic Reflections.<\/a><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n <\/p> We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks\u00a0ex cathedra<\/i>, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.<\/span>\u00a0(1)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The charge is often made that the Catholic Church \u201cinvents\u201d dogmas late in the game, which were not present in earlier centuries. The papacy, and papal infallibility, have indeed been in existence from the very earliest days of the Church, starting with the Apostle Peter, and what he and other Christians believed about his leadership and jurisdiction.\u00a0<\/span>(2)\u00a0<\/span>As is to be expected, however, both the office of the pope, and the notion of papal infallibility did undergo much\u00a0development<\/i>\u00a0through the centuries.<\/span><\/p>\n In order to illustrate how the definition of 1870 drew on centuries of reflection and practice, we will cite St. Francis de Sales\u2019 teaching from around 1596:<\/span><\/p>\n When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form .<\/span><\/p>\n We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err\u00a0extra cathedram<\/i>, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.<\/span><\/p>\n But he cannot err when he is\u00a0in cathedra<\/i>, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church.\u00a0<\/span>(3)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914), a convert to Catholicism, whose father, Edward W. Benson (1829-1896), had been the Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest office in Anglicanism, wrote concerning the development of the papacy:<\/span><\/p>\n It was not, then, until the head had been fully established as supreme over the body that men had eyes to see how it had been so ordained and indicated from the beginning. After it had come to pass it was seen to have been inevitable. All this is paralleled, of course, by the ordinary course of affairs. Laws of nature, as well as laws of grace, act quite apart from man\u2019s perception or appreciation of them; and it is not until the law is recognized that its significance and inevitability, its illustrations and effects, are intelligibly recognized either.\u00a0<\/span>(4)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, [St.] John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his masterpiece\u00a0Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine\u00a0<\/i>(1845), offers similar analysis:<\/span><\/p>\n Whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated . . . while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined . . . All began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it. . .<\/span><\/p>\n Doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and . . . therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.\u00a0<\/span>(5)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n James Cardinal Gibbons, in his best-selling book of Catholic apologetics,\u00a0The Faith of Our Fathers\u00a0<\/i>(1917), eloquently defended papal infallibility against many of the common objections of Protestants and other non-Catholics:<\/span><\/p>\n You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God\u2019s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.<\/span><\/p>\n If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.<\/span><\/p>\n If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?\u00a0<\/span>(6)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Although the pope is supreme Head of the Church and preeminent in authority, nevertheless, he acts in concert with both the college of bishops (especially when meeting in an ecumenical Council, such as Trent or Vatican II),\u00a0<\/span>(7)<\/span>\u00a0and the \u201csense of the faithful\u201d (or,\u00a0sensus fidelium<\/i>).<\/span>\u00a0(8)<\/span>\u00a0It is this united jurisdiction of bishops and pope (distantly analogous to the U.S. Congress and President, with the Supreme Court similar to Catholic Canon Law), which is the distinctive mark of Catholic ecclesiology,\u00a0<\/span>(9)<\/span>\u00a0as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy, which accepts bishops but acknowledges no pope, and Protestantism, which does not formally recognize the papacy, and many denominations of which (perhaps the majority) lack bishops. Catholics claim that this arrangement is mirrored in the biblical relationship of St. Peter and the other original disciples, and that it is required by the demands of apostolic succession, which is itself suggested in the Bible.\u00a0<\/span>(10)<\/span><\/p>\n Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the\u00a0Relatio<\/i>) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the aspects of collegiality and community:<\/span><\/p>\n We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .<\/span><\/p>\n We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to make an infallible pontifical judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is not able to fail.\u00a0<\/span>(11)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nevertheless, the pope is ultimately supreme, even over ecumenical Councils, which he ratifies in all particulars (a power which might be compared in part to the veto of the American President). The famous English convert and apologist Ronald Knox (1888-1957) explains:<\/span><\/p>\n [It is a] quite unworkable idea that the authority of the Pope depends on the authority of the Council. There is no way of deciding which councils were ecumenical councils except by saying that those councils were ecumenical which had their decisions ratified by the Pope. Now, either that ratification is infallible of itself, or else you will immediately have to summon a fresh ecumenical council to find out whether the Pope\u2019s ratification was infallible or not, and so on\u00a0ad infinitum<\/i>. You can\u2019t keep on going round and round in a vicious circle; in the long run the last word of decision must lie with one man, and that man is obviously the Pope. In the last resort the Pope must be the umpire, must have the casting vote. If therefore there is to be any infallibility in the Church, that infallibility must reside in the Pope, even when he speaks in his own name, without summoning a council to fortify his decision.\u00a0<\/span>(12)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Contrary to common assumptions, the doctrine of the papacy is well-grounded in Scripture, and the institution is present in increasingly-developing stages throughout the history of the Church. Moreover, the constant, remarkable primacy of\u00a0Rome<\/i>\u00a0in the history of Christianity is equally undeniable. Because the very existence of this historical\u00a0institution<\/i>\u00a0(in the early Church) is so often denied (for example, many arbitrarily maintain that Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century was the first pope, and others claim the same for Gregory the Great in the sixth), more attention than usual will be paid to the actual history of the papacy and the theological justifications historically put forth in defense of it.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p> Matthew 16:18\u00a0<\/strong>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Catholics contend that the \u201crock\u201d is Peter\u00a0himself<\/i>, not his\u00a0faith<\/i>, or Jesus (although arguably his faith is assumed by Christ in naming Peter \u201crock\u201d in the first place). This interpretation is found in the Church Fathers at least as early as Tertullian (d.c.230). The next verse (16:19) is in the singular, which supports this view, which is in fact the consensus of the majority of biblical commentators today, according to the article on Peter in the\u00a0Encyclopedia Britannica\u00a0<\/i>(1985 edition).\u00a0<\/span>(13)<\/span><\/p>\n It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter\u00a0petros<\/i>\u00a0(literally, \u201cstone\u201d), not\u00a0petra<\/i>\u00a0(the word for \u201crock\u201d in the passage), so that the \u201crock\u201d wasn\u2019t Peter, but this is simply explained by the necessity for a proper male name in Greek to be in the masculine gender. In Aramaic, however (the language Jesus spoke), the name\u00a0kepha<\/i>\u00a0would have been used for both \u201crock\u201d and \u201cPeter.\u201d Matthew could just as easily have used another Greek word for \u201cstone,\u201d\u00a0lithos<\/i>, in contrast to \u201crock,\u201d but this would have distorted the unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!<\/span><\/p>\n Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the \u201crock\u201d in Matthew 16:18, including Alford, Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann\u00a0<\/span>(14)<\/span>, Albright\u00a0<\/span>(15)<\/span>, Robert McAfee Brown\u00a0<\/span>(16)<\/span>, and more recently, respected evangelical commentators R.T. France\u00a0<\/span>(17)<\/span>\u00a0and D.A. Carson.\u00a0<\/span>(18)\u00a0<\/span>Also, popular one-volume Protestant Bible commentaries such as\u00a0Peake\u2019s Commentary<\/i>\u00a0<\/span>(19)<\/span>,\u00a0New Bible Commentary<\/i>\u00a0<\/span>(20)<\/span>\u00a0and numerous others concur.\u00a0<\/span>(21)<\/span>\u00a0Both Carson and France surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that Peter himself is the \u201crock.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The great Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent was among those who took the traditional view, in his standard reference work\u00a0Word Studies in the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0(1887):<\/span><\/p>\n The word refers neither to\u00a0Christ<\/i>\u00a0as a\u00a0rock<\/i>, distinguished from\u00a0Simon<\/i>, a\u00a0stone<\/i>, nor to\u00a0Peter\u2019s confession<\/i>, but to\u00a0Peter himself<\/i>, . . . The reference of\u00a0petra<\/i>\u00a0to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic\u00a0this\u00a0<\/i>naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the\u00a0foundation<\/i>, but as the\u00a0architect<\/i>: \u201cOn this rock<\/i>\u00a0will I build.\u201d Again, Christ is the great foundation, the\u00a0chief cornerstone<\/i>, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ\u2019s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a\u00a0living stone<\/i>, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as\u00a0living stones<\/i>\u00a0. . .<\/span><\/p>\n Equally untenable is the explanation which refers\u00a0petra<\/i>\u00a0to Simon\u2019s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on\u00a0confessions<\/i>, but on\u00a0confessors<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 living men . . . . . .<\/span><\/p>\n The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.\u00a0<\/span>(22)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a leader of the Catholic Reformation, draws out the implications of this passage for the papacy:<\/span><\/p>\n Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on St. Peter, shows that St. Peter will be its foundation-stone . . . When he makes St. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this family.<\/span><\/p>\n By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .<\/span><\/p>\n The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not\u00a0beside<\/i>\u00a0the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy\u00a0besides\u00a0<\/i>Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . St. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord . . . in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments . . . So, although he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Ephesians 4:11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John 10:11; Ezekiel 34:23).\u00a0<\/span>(23)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the English literary giant, made a marvelously insightful comment concerning Christ\u2019s selection of Peter as the \u201crock\u201d:<\/span><\/p>\n When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, he chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward \u2013 in a word, a man. And upon this rock he has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.\u00a0<\/span>(24)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p> Matthew 16:19<\/strong>\u00a0I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Isaiah 22:20-22<\/strong>\u00a0In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.<\/span><\/p>\n Revelation 3:7<\/strong> [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The power of the \u201ckeys,\u201d in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name \u201crock,\u201d this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God\u2019s \u201cvice-regent,\u201d so to speak.\u00a0<\/span>(25)\u00a0<\/span>In the Old Testament, a steward was a man\u00a0over a house<\/i>\u00a0(Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a \u201cgovernor\u201d in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of \u201cprime minister.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n In the New Testament, the two words often translated as \u201csteward\u201d are\u00a0oikonomos<\/i>\u00a0(Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and\u00a0epitropos<\/i>\u00a0(Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context).\u00a0<\/span>(26)\u00a0<\/span>He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201copening\u201d and \u201cshutting\u201d (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister\u2019s prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah\u2019s time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh\u2019s \u201cvizier,\u201d who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8).\u00a0<\/span>(27)<\/span><\/p>\n The symbol of keys always represented authority in the Middle East. This standpoint comes down to us in our own culture when we observe mayors giving an honored visitor the \u201ckey to the city.\u201d The reputable\u00a0Commentary on the Whole Bible\u00a0<\/i>(1864), by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, a Protestant work, expounds Isaiah 22:15,22 as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n [The steward is] the\u00a0king\u2019s friend<\/i>, or\u00a0principal officer of the court\u00a0<\/i>(1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles27:33,\u00a0the king\u2019s counsellor<\/i>) . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for\u00a0sustaining the government on one\u2019s shoulders<\/i>. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of \u201cDavid,\u201d of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder<\/i>].\u00a0<\/span>(28)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase\u00a0keys of the kingdom of heaven<\/i>\u00a0must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p> Matthew 16:19<\/strong>\u00a0. . . <\/i>Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Binding<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0loosing<\/i>\u00a0were technical rabbinical terms meaning, respectively, to\u00a0forbid<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0permit<\/i>, with regard to interpretations of Jewish Law. In secondary usage, they also could mean\u00a0condemn<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0acquit<\/i>. This power is also given to the Apostles in Matthew 18:17-18, where it apparently refers particularly to discipline and excommunication in local jurisdictions (whereas Peter\u2019s commission seems to apply to the universal Church). In John 20:23 it is also granted to the Apostles (in a different terminology, which suggests the power to impose penance and grant indulgences and absolution). Generally speaking,\u00a0binding<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0loosing<\/i>\u00a0usually meant the prerogative to formulate Christian doctrine and to require allegiance to it, as well as to condemn heresies which were opposed to the true doctrine (Jude 3).\u00a0<\/span>(29)<\/span>\u00a0Marvin Vincent writes:<\/span><\/p>\n No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of\u00a0binding<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0loosing<\/i>. They represented the\u00a0legislative\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0judicial<\/i>\u00a0powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23) . . .\u00a0<\/span>(30)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p> John 21:15-17<\/strong>\u00a0. . . <\/i>Jesus said to Simon Peter, \u201cSimon, son of John, do you love me more than these?\u201d He said to him, \u201cYes, Lord; you know that I love you.\u201d He said to him, \u201cFeed my lambs.\u201d A second time he said to him, \u201cSimon, son of John, do you love me?\u201d He said to him, \u201cYes, Lord; you know that I love you.\u201d He said to him, \u201cTend my sheep.\u201d He said to him the third time, \u201cSimon, son of John, do you love me?\u201d Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, \u201cDo you love me?\u201d And he said to him, \u201cLord, you know everything; you know that I love you.\u201d Jesus said to him, \u201cFeed my sheep.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Revelation 7:17\u00a0<\/strong>For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Greek word for \u201ctend\u201d in 21:16 is\u00a0poimaino<\/i>, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 7:17 above, and also in Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 (which seems to be a passage perhaps reminiscent in St. Peter\u2019s mind of the Lord\u2019s charge to him). Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority is being given to Peter, which includes, according to the Protestant Greek scholar W.E. Vine, \u201cdiscipline, authority, restoration, material assistance of individuals.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>(31)<\/span><\/p>\n The commission of Christ to Peter, then, to\u00a0tend my sheep<\/i>, while not exclusive to Peter in the sense that no one else (besides Christ) exercises this function (St. Peter himself says as much in 1 Peter 5:2), nevertheless is supremely unique and important insofar as no other\u00a0individual<\/i>\u00a0disciple is likewise instructed by our Lord \u2013 and in such momentous terms (considering all of the biblical data).<\/span><\/p>\n Peter\u2019s ministry to the Church is always universal; his jurisdiction knows no bounds, and the language that Christ Himself applies to him is strikingly sublime and profound. For to no one else was it granted the\u00a0keys of the kingdom of heaven<\/i>. No one else was renamed \u201cRock,\u201d and proclaimed by Jesus to be the foundation upon which He would build His Church. And although the power to\u00a0bind\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0loose<\/i>\u00a0was given to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, nevertheless, Peter is the only\u00a0individual<\/i>\u00a0to be given this power by Christ. In other words, St. Peter has extraordinary privileges unique to himself, and in cases where they are not exclusive they are obviously applied to him in a preeminent sense.<\/span><\/p>\n We find then, that the scriptural relation between Christ, Peter, and the disciples (by extension, bishops and priests), is precisely that found in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, where the pope, more than just the \u201cforemost among equals,\u201d as the Orthodox and some Lutherans and Anglicans hold, is the supreme shepherd and leader of the Church, yet not in such a fashion as to exclude Christ as the Head or the Cardinals and bishops (and even laymen) as fellow members of the Body in Christ acting in organic harmony. Always, it is the pope and the Cardinals, the pope and the Council, the pope acting with due consideration of the faithful lay members of the Church, but the pope is supreme.<\/span><\/p>\n It is simply not necessary to dichotomize the relationship between the pope and lesser clergy. With regard to the papacy, only Catholicism does justice to both the scriptural data and the course of the early Church in the formative years of its development. One need not fall into the trap of denying the pope\u2019s existence (and thereby doing violence to the Petrine texts as well), nor of caricaturing the Catholic Church\u2019s doctrine of the papacy as strictly a \u201ctop-down,\u201d \u201cautocratic,\u201d \u201cmonarchical\u201d conception of Church government. In any event, the abundant Petrine evidence in the Bible must be dealt with in an open and consistent manner, whatever position one holds.<\/span><\/p>\n