Feast of the Chair of Peter

Upon the election of Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, Cardinal Francis George, who at the time was Archbishop of Chicago, was noted to have a serene and contemplative look on his face when the new pope and all the cardinals were standing around the Loggia of St. Peter's. When asked what he was thinking about at that time he said: "I was gazing over toward the Circus Maximus, toward the Palatine Hill where the Roman Emperors once resided and reigned and looked down upon the persecution of Christians, and I thought, 'Where are their successors? Where is the successor of Caesar Augustus? Where is the successor of Marcus Aurelius? And finally, who cares? But if you want to see the successor of Peter, he is right next to me, smiling and waving at the crowds.'"

Today is the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter—the celebration of the office of the papacy. Pope Francis, who has so far captured the hearts of the world with his simplicity, humility and compassion, is the 265th successor of St. Peter. He was joined today by his predecessor, Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus in an "unprecedented ceremony." Everyone recognizes that it is quite unusual to see two popes at the same time. It has not, however, been unusual to see one pope succeed another pope. In fact it is really silly to say. It is a no-brainer to everyone. For almost two thousand years there has been an unbroken succession of Apostolic authority vested to the man who stands in Simon Peter's stead. The succession is clear and steady, but the barometer of papal popularity greatly varies. There is not a position on earth where a man garners as much love as he does hate. Are you ambivalent towards Pope Francis? Probably not. Everyone who finds out I am a Catholic chomps at the bit to ask me what I think of the new pope.

For two thousand years, the papacy has wielded more influence than any other office. You may think, "well, he doesn't wield the power that the President of the United States possesses." While I would say that there is an argument to be had against that (see Pope John Paul II and the downfall of the USSR and the influence of Catholic Social Teaching), point is that only the pope has been there since the beginning. Every step of the way, there has been a pope: from the persecutions of Christians under the Romans, to doctrinal crisis of the 4th and 5th centuries, to shooing Attila the Hun out of Italy, to missionary work in the far reaches of Northern Europe in the dark ages, to unifying Christendom under one banner and countering the advancement of Islam during the Middle Ages, to patronizing the arts and culture during the Renaissance, to sending missionaries to the ends of the earth after the Counter-Reformation, to rallying the Catholic nations to defending Europe from the Ottoman Turks, to the development of Social Teachings that put the dignity of the human person in real practical terms, to combatting tyrannical regimes and fostering ecumenism among all Christians in the present age.

And yet amid all these empirical accomplishments, all the while, every step of the way, the successors of Peter have preserved and safeguarded the deposit of faith which was given to them by Jesus Christ. Catholics recognize that without Peter's charism, the truth cannot be preserved. Truth cannot be properly known to be true if those who profess to transmit the truth cannot be trusted to properly know the truth. Without the preservation of truth, things will disseminate into moral relativism—a Christianity with fuzzy edges. Truth-seekers, rightly frustrated, will end up rejecting it. Let us go a step further. Without the leadership of one who preserves the truth, not only will moral relativism ensue, but it will do so on the backs of manifold schisms—an anti-Pentecost, if you will, or the new Babel. This is one reason why Protestants divide instead of unite. Protestantism, in itself, claims no authority. It places the authority on the clear understanding of Scripture. Scripture alone is the only infallible interpreter of the Truth. But if you and I disagree on the "clear teaching" of Sacred Scripture, who, I pray thee, will settle the matter if there is no one to turn to? For let's be real, a book cannot interpret itself. Luther had no authority to call off Zwingli or the antinomians. Neither could John Calvin, with all his "genius," forge the middle way. Their words cannot bind your conscience if they don't carry the weight of infallible authority. At best you agree with them by virtue of believing them in yourself, as if the arrow of truth is pointing towards oneself—you become you're own pope. This is the stuff of schism. Called to Communion has taken up this charge, and I need not belabor the point here. This lack of infallible authority is why there are countless schisms within the Protestant communities. Furthermore, it is just plain ol' common sense: What army can stay unified without a general? What corporation can operate without one who makes the final call? What government of any stripe that has worked at much length can make any progress and bind the state together without one leader who decides? What local parish or church has no leader? What sports team has no head coach? What school has no principal?

In the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, the evangelist is clear in showing us that Jesus intends to allow Peter to participate in his authority in a special way:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' 'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'"

Now many will say that faith is the rock upon which Christ builds his Church. I agree, but I will add that it is Peter's faith—not James', not John's, not any one else's. It is a both/and argument. Just as Jesus has united the divine and human in his person, so by extension, the office of the pope is both a divine and human—faith which comes from God and the man, Peter, whom God chose. This divine and human marriage bleeds into all aspects of Catholic teaching: the Incarnation, the Passion and the Resurrection, the Sacraments, the Nature of the Church, Sacred Scripture, the Office of the Pope, et cetera. 

So many times the argument is used that the whole enterprise of the Bishop of Rome is opposed to Jesus Christ. But I believe that to be a misunderstanding that stems from a lack of incarnational theology. God has come to us. Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit a nobis. The Son of God condescended to us to unite us to himself. We are baptized into his body and participate in the life of Christ. Everything we are to do is in participation with Jesus Christ, not in opposition to him. He is the Vine and we are the branches. It is through him which we live and bear fruit. So it is with the Chair of Peter. Peter's authority does not take away from the authority of Jesus. It was given to him by Jesus. Listen to the words of Pope St. Leo the Great in a homily on Matthew 16:

"And I say to you. In other words, as my Father has revealed to you my godhead, so I in my turn make known to you your preeminence. You are Peter: though I am the inviolable rock, the cornerstone that makes both one, the foundation apart from which no one can lay any other, yet you also are a rock, for you are given solidity by my strength, so that which is my very own because of my power is common between us through your participation."

Now, the power of binding and loosing which Matthew 16 speaks of is also given to the other apostles. In the Gospel of John, Jesus appears in their midst, breathes on them and say: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Jesus Christ gives the authority he received from his Father to the Apostles, but he singled out Peter for something more. Peter's charism is not one of just cold preservation of the truth, like a safety deposit box, he is chiefly called to be a faithful shepherd who provides for the sheep and even for his brethren. In Luke 22, on the night he was betrayed, Jesus said to Peter:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Peter, of course goes on to deny Jesus, but unlike Judas, Peter repents and turns back. In John 21, after the disciples recognized the Risen Lord standing on the shore while they fished, they meet with him as he is preparing food. Mirroring his triple denial, Jesus pulls Peter away from the rest of the disciples and asks him:

"Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

St. Augustine highlights this in a letter to the Manichees: "There are many things that keep me in the Catholic Church... the succession of priests, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it the charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate." Later in the letter he comes right out and says, "I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not moved me."

The "dynasty" of the popes has had a remarkable run: two thousand years and still kicking. Now, if all of the popes were truly exceptional and saintly individuals, which would be remarkable enough, one would try to rest the merits of this incredible succession on the individuals themselves. But, as we are all well aware, God has blessed his Church with some less than stellar pontiffs, and some that were downright bad. This to me is more remarkable. How could an man-created institution perpetuate itself down throughout the centuries with so many ill-equipped leaders? Answer: it cannot. The Catholic Church and the Papacy does so because it is a divine institution.

Like any other institution, there is a leader. Unlike any other institution, it is divinely protected. If not, how could there be any unity? Now this is by no means a proof, but if you look at the disparity between the communions of the Christian bodies of the world, there is one that most obviously stands out. As Blessed John Henry Newman so eloquently and sharply puts:

"There is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and holding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is a well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society, binding together its members by influences and by engagements which it is difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known world; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but it is strong on the whole from its continuity; it may be smaller than all other religious bodies together, but is larger than each separately. It is a natural enemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and engrossing, and tends to a new modeling of society; it breaks laws, it divides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the foulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is frightful to the imagination of the many. And there is but one communion such."

That the Catholic Church stands out among the rest, there can be no question. The Chair of Peter in no small way is the distinguishing principle of unity that preserves so vast and diverse a body of people. It has existed for so long, beginning with Peter, "down to the present episcopate." The Barque of Peter, the Catholic Church, is still sailing, and Peter is still at the helm. For two thousand years it has lasted, and we take it for granted. I think it is safe to say, even if you would not desire to admit it, that the Catholic Church and the papacy will be around for the next two thousand years, if the Lord tarries. It is a rather immovable force. It is grounded–much like, I dare say, a Rock.

All-powerful Father,

you have built your Church

on the rock of Saint Peter's confession of faith.

May nothing divide or weaken

our unity in faith and love.

Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

one God, for ever and ever.