_4.jpg)
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
There is no avoiding this question for anyone in the modern world. Jesus is such a unique and compelling figure that it is all but impossible to entirely ignore him or to have no opinion about the claims he seems to have made. And it is finally a question no one can answer for us, one which we must each come to terms with on our own.
Simon Peter said in reply,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus 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.
Flesh and blood, merely human thinking, or purely natural reasoning isn't enough to determine the true identity of Jesus. Philosophical reasoning can go so far as to realize that Jesus, in virtue of his life, his teaching, and his miracles, requires an explanation that it cannot supply. History may discover much about his life and even assert the likelihood of the resurrection. But it can never go so far as to say what these different pieces mean or how they fit together. The only context that makes sense of Jesus is divine revelation. In turn, divine revelation only makes sense when viewed through the paradigm of Jesus himself.
Peter was the first to peer so deeply into the identity of Jesus. But he also learned that however much we know Jesus there is always a still greater amount which we do not know because this always necessarily obtains between creature and creator.
For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them (see Fourth Lateran Council, Second Constitution).
Even with this new level of understanding Peter still couldn't grasp why the anointed Son of the living God would need to suffer and die. He couldn't hold in dynamic tension the concept of Godhood and the fullness of humanity. He couldn't see the need for one who was all powerful to undergo torment and death. But he kept working on it, frequently failing, but never giving up. He acted wrongly early on, such as trying to turn Jesus aside from his cross. But he remained open to being led by Jesus, even when he didn't understand. And even when he failed spectacularly he was able to make an equally impressive repentance.
And 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.
Could a Church really be built on anything so human and prone to failure? Could Jesus really transfer power from the seat of Moses on which the scribes and Pharisees (see Matthew 23:2) sat to the Chair of Peter to preserve faithfully and without error the truth entrusted to him by Jesus and his Holy Spirit? The answer to all of these is yes, and for the same reason that God was able to use mere humans, with their unique perspectives and abilities, to write inerrant Scriptures. The guarantee came, not from anything they were in themselves, but from God and the role he desired them to play. All that was necessary from them was their cooperation. In the case of Peter, entrusting him with Jesus' own authority as a steward by giving him the keys to the Kingdom, implied that he and his successors would never be in error when they taught formally on matters of faith and morals. After all, what would the Church be without truth? Or what would the netherworld want to prevail against if not the proclamation of the Gospel?
The role of Peter, and indeed of all the presbyters of the Church, was not like that of abusive secular authority. They were rather to imitate Jesus who came not to be served but to serve. They were to imitate his own compassion on peoples who were often like sheep without a shepherd. Jesus was the Good Shepherd, and Peter was called to feed his lambs. He seemed to take some time to adjust to this idea. But we can see from today's first reading that eventually he understood it deeply.
Tend the flock of God in your midst,
overseeing not by constraint but willingly,
as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
As Catholics we ought to be grateful for the shepherds we have been given, even if their personalities aren't perfect and their preaching leaves something to be desired. Their primary purpose isn't to entertain or to be popular, but to care for our souls. It is a task that is mundane and humble to watch from the outside. It entails patiently serving those in line for confession, those who desire baptism, couples joining in marriage, and attending to the dying, among many other responsibilities. But however humble it might seem to observers it is actually much more exalted and beneficial to those who are its recipients.
No comments:
Post a Comment