The Roman Catholic Church makes a lot of claims. For example, St. Peter was the first Pope, the Prince of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ etc. All these come about in the history of the Church throughout the centuries. If you insist on limiting the truth within the Bible only, you will miss a lot of events that had happened after the Bible had been canonized (finalized) in around the third century. Of course, such claims cannot contradict the truth revealed in the Bible. They cannot be made without finding hints in the Bible. Otherwise, such claims will be baseless. Such claims come about in Church history as a result of a deeper understanding of the truth revealed in the Bible. Studying Church history will help us understand more how the Church struggles to make Biblical messages more accessible to the contemporary situation throughout the ages.
We will not be able to find the missionary work of St. Peter after Acts 15. His work can only be found in the Church History, Book II written by Eusebius of Caesarea (260-341). There are other sources supplying information about his setting up of the Church in Rome together with St. Paul and their subsequent martyrdom there. A rich tradition about these two great Apostles has come down to us. Christianity cannot be practised by individuals. It has to be lived in a community, the Church. Therefore, we need to learn Church History in order to understand the Church nowadays. In short, we need to go beyond the Bible.
The title "pope (papa)" had been used rather loosely in the early centuries until Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) restricted it to refer to the successors of Peter, who naturally had never called himself a pope. But the gospels of Matthew and John clearly state that Jesus made Peter the head of the Church (Matthew 16:17-19, John 21:15-17). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that St. Peter was the first pope.
The title "Prince of the Apostles" sounds very feudal. I suspect this was an invention of a latter age, reflecting the growing importance of the Bishop of Rome in maintaining security and order during the Dark Age in Europe, amid the invasions of the barbarians. Perhaps it is also due to the picture of Peter painted in the gospels and the Acts. In many occasions, Peter stood up to answer Jesus' questions, to make proposals among the eleven apostles, to make public proclamation on the Pentecost, to work miracles and to speak for the twelve apostles in front of the Jewish Council etc. No doubt, Peter had been the head of the "college of apostles".
The title "Vicar of Christ" is easier to understand. A vicar is a deputy, an authorized representative. Jesus told Peter, and no others, to feed his lambs, to feed his sheep (John 21:16-17). Therefore, Peter and his successors bear the responsibilities to run the Church of Christ. The title "Vicar of Christ" is limited within the Church only. A passage from the First Epistle of Peter comes to mind.
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.
Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,
not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).
True to his own words, the author wrote as a fellow elder among the elders but unlike other elders, he was a witness of the sufferings of Christ. He told the elders to tend the flock of God (the lambs and sheep) by being examples to the flock. He himself, as the Vicar of Christ, set examples. He should not be domineering over those in his charge. Alas! This is easier said than done. The use of authority cannot be an exact science but an art of delicacy. Abuses are inevitable.
The title "Prince of the Apostles" sounds very feudal. I suspect this was an invention of a latter age, reflecting the growing importance of the Bishop of Rome in maintaining security and order during the Dark Age in Europe, amid the invasions of the barbarians. Perhaps it is also due to the picture of Peter painted in the gospels and the Acts. In many occasions, Peter stood up to answer Jesus' questions, to make proposals among the eleven apostles, to make public proclamation on the Pentecost, to work miracles and to speak for the twelve apostles in front of the Jewish Council etc. No doubt, Peter had been the head of the "college of apostles".
The title "Vicar of Christ" is easier to understand. A vicar is a deputy, an authorized representative. Jesus told Peter, and no others, to feed his lambs, to feed his sheep (John 21:16-17). Therefore, Peter and his successors bear the responsibilities to run the Church of Christ. The title "Vicar of Christ" is limited within the Church only. A passage from the First Epistle of Peter comes to mind.
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed.
Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,
not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).
True to his own words, the author wrote as a fellow elder among the elders but unlike other elders, he was a witness of the sufferings of Christ. He told the elders to tend the flock of God (the lambs and sheep) by being examples to the flock. He himself, as the Vicar of Christ, set examples. He should not be domineering over those in his charge. Alas! This is easier said than done. The use of authority cannot be an exact science but an art of delicacy. Abuses are inevitable.
Dear Lord, we thank You for electing a humble fisherman to be our shepherd. With Your help, he was transformed to be a man of great stature. His examples are edifying for us sinners. I pray that You continue to protect our Pope and guide him to tend the Church. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment