Episode 136: The Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul
In today’s episode, we look at some details from the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul that are relevant for doing apologetics. The first detail, which is found in the second reading—taken from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18, relates to apologetical discussions on the topic of purgatory. The detail in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 16:18-19, relates to Peter’s role as the “rock” of the Church—the visible foundation of Jesus’ Church here on earth, and his infallibility.
Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Dr. Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In today’s episode, we’re going to look at some details from the second reading and Gospel reading for this upcoming Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul that are relevant for doing apologetics. The first detail, which is found in the second reading—taken from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 17-18, relates to apologetical discussions on the topic of purgatory. The detail in the Gospel reading, which is taken from Matthew 16:18-19, relates to Peter’s role as the “rock” of the Church—the visible foundation of Jesus’ Church here on earth, and his infallibility.
Let’s get started with the second reading. The portion of the passage that I want to highlight is verse 8, which reads as follows:
From now on the crown of righteousness awaits me, which the Lord, the just judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but to all who have longed for his appearance.
The one phrase that I want to draw your attention to is “that day.” For Paul, this is a reference to the day of judgment. But in particular his day of judgment that will soon happen when he dies.
Why is this significant?
Paul also speaks this way in 1 Corinthians 3:13 when he speaks of “the day” and its fire disclosing the type of work one has done. This is often appealed to by Catholics as a reference to purgatory.
Now, as I point out in my book Purgatory is for Real, some Protestants counter our appeal to this passage for purgatory by point out that “the day”, for Paul, refers to the Final Judgment at the end of time. Thus, Paul cannot be envisioning some interim period between death and the Final judgment, like purgatory. And if that’s the case, then a Catholic can’t appeal to this text as evidence for Purgatory.
I respond to this sort of objection with a few lines of response in my book, one of which is that even if we concede 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 only applies to the Final Judgment, you at least have some sort of purification before the Beatific Vision for those living at the time of the final judgment, which would be a purgatory of sorts. For the other lines of response, see my book.
Suffice to say here that Paul’s use of “that day” in our second reading for this upcoming Solemnity shows us that the principles of judgment that Paul articulates in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 for “the day” can be applied to our particular judgment immediately after death as well, even if Paul was envisioning the final judgment at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
To state it differently, if Paul articulates principles of judgment for “the Day” referring to the final judgment in 1 Corinthians 3 and speaks of his particular judgment immediately after death as “the day,” then it’s reasonable to conclude that the principles of judgment he articulates in 1 Corinthians 3 can apply to the particular judgment as well. And if that’s the case, then 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 can be used as evidence for purgatory, since it would include a purification during the interim period between death and the final judgment.
So, as small of a detail it is, “the day” has application to discussions about purgatory.
Okay, let’s now turn to the Gospel reading, which is Matthew 16:13-19. Here’s the whole passage:
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi
he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
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.
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.
I 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 statement that I want to highlight is “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Catholics believe the “rock” primarily refers to Peter. Thus, Jesus constitutes Peter as the visible foundation of His Church, which in turn reveals Peter to be the leader of Jesus’ Church on earth, the visible principle and source of unity.
Now, perhaps the most common counter-argument to this interpretation is that the metaphorical “rock” upon which Christ will build his Church is NOT Peter but rather Peter’s confession of faith uttered in the preceding context.
Protestant apologists[i] note that Jesus begins with a personal address directed to Peter using the second-person pronoun you, “And I tell you, you are Peter,” but then switches to the demonstrative adjective this: “and upon this rock.” James White, in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, infers from this that Jesus makes “the differentiation between ‘Peter’ and ‘this rock’ complete,” and that Jesus is “speaking to Peter, about the ‘rock.’”[ii]
If Jesus had intended “this rock” to refer to Peter, the argument continues, he would have continued to use the second-person pronoun and said, “You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build my church.” Instead, he’s referring to the next-closest thing in the text: Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ.
What I share here in response is in written form in my book Meeting the Protestant Response.
At the outset, it’s important that we note there’s no reason why the metaphorical rock can’t have a double meaning: one primary (Peter) and the other secondary (Peter’s confession of faith). In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) alludes to just this secondary meaning: “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church” (424).
However, given the context of the passage, as we’ll see below, Peter’s profession of faith can only be a secondary meaning, since Peter is the direct recipient of Jesus’ address.
Just because Jesus switches from saying “you” to saying “this,” it doesn’t follow that he must be changing his object from Peter to something else. In Matthew 5:14, Jesus says of his disciples, “You are the light of the world.” He could very well had added, “and this light will draw men to myself.”
Upon hearing this solemn pronouncement, we wouldn’t think that the word this refers to some separate thing besides the disciples whom Jesus is addressing. To suggest otherwise would undermine the force of the rhetorical device.
We see other examples in Scripture where this is used in reference to a person. In Acts 4:10-11, Peter says of Jesus, “Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner.”
Since the demonstrative “this” can be used to refer to the person who is spoken of in the preceding phrase, the argument that says Jesus can’t be referring to Peter as the rock because he uses the demonstrative “this” fails.
A second response is that Peter’s declaration of faith is two verses removed from the pronoun “this.” So, when Jesus says “this rock,” it’s more reasonable to think he’s referring to Simon, whom he just renamed Rock, because he is the nearest thing for the pronoun to refer to. There is nothing in the text to make us think that we need to dig back further to find the referent for “this rock.”
In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Reformed theologian J. Knox Chamblin argues along the same lines: “The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v.18) than to the more remote confession (v.16).”[iii] We apply this principle of reading comprehension in Acts 4:10-11, which we just read above. There, “this stone” refers to the person spoken of immediately before: Jesus. And we do so here in Matthew 16:18.
Now, I think we can go beyond saying Peter is the closest referent to “rock” and argue that Simon’s new name, “Peter,” gives reason to think that he is the “rock” upon which Christ builds his Church.
According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), Simon’s new name in Greek, Petros, means “stone.” And it affirms that Petros is “from the beginning probably thought of as the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kephas,” which is used by John in John 1:42, where Jesus tells Simon, “you shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter [Gk. petros]).” In its entry on kephas, it affirms that the word means “rock” and is the “Aramaic surname of Simon; the Greek form of the surname is Petros.”
So, according to BDAG, what kephas means in Aramaic—rock, Petros means in Greek—rock.
Given that Simon’s new name means “rock,” it’s reasonable to conclude that the metaphorical “rock” is Peter. Jesus is literally saying, “You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church.” The pun that exists here, as Oscar Cullman affirms in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, gives strong reason to conclude that Peter is the rock.
To further support this line of reasoning, consider the alternative hypothesis that Peter is NOT this metaphorical rock. If Jesus didn’t intend Peter to be the rock, then the obvious pun would be either A) meaningless or B) accidental.
There’s no point in a pun if the two words don’t refer to each other. Hence, the pun would be meaningless on the view that Peter is not the rock.
Moreover, if they don’t refer to each other, then the obvious pun is accidental.
Now, do we really want to say that the pun was meaningless? Do we really want to say that the pun was accidental? I don’t think so.
Therefore, we can conclude that Peter is the rock. For the pun to be meaningful and intentional, we must affirm that Peter is the rock, not merely his confession of faith.
There are many objections that Protestants give to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. But we know that the switch from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative “this” is not one that proves Catholics wrong for interpreting Peter as the rock of Jesus’ Church.
Okay, there’s another implication here of Peter being the rock—namely, Peter’s infallibility. Let’s talk about that now.
We can start with this principle: whatever is built on a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. I take it this is easy enough to understand, since if the foundation were less than that which is built on it, then the edifice would come tumbling down.
Now, Jesus promises in verse 18 that the gates of the netherworld, or the powers of death, would not prevail against his Church. Peter is the foundation of this very Church. Given our principle that whatever is built on a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation, it follows that the gates of the netherworld, or the powers of death, cannot prevail against Peter. In other words, insofar he exercises his role as the foundation of the Church he’s infallible.
We can use a similar line of reasoning when we combine the revelation of Matthew 16:18 with 1 Timothy 3:15. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul writes, “[T]he Church of the living God [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Notice, the Church is the foundation of truth. Now, recall our principle: whatever is built on the foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. Another way to state this principle would be a foundation cannot be less stable than that which is built on it. Since the Church is the foundation of truth, it follows that the Church cannot be less than truth. Or, to state it differently, the Church cannot be less stable than truth itself.
Now, to not be less stable than truth is to be secure in truth, or free from error (infallible). Therefore, the Church is secure in truth, or free from error (infallible).
Peter is the foundation of the Church, at least the visible foundation of the Church here on earth. Therefore, Peter is not less stable than truth. Therefore, Peter is free from error (infallible).
The truth of Peter as the rock, therefore, has many implications. It signifies his headship in Christ’s Church here on earth and it signifies his infallibility.
Conclusion
Well, my friends, that’s all I have for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul provide us with a few details that are relevant for doing apologetics:
- We have Paul’s understanding of “the day” of judgment that is relevant for conversations surrounding purgatory, and
- We have the revelation of Peter as the visible foundation of Christ’s Church, the implications of which are vast concerning his headship and infallibility.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well through any podcast platform that they use. You can also access the archived episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word at sundaycatholicword.com.
You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s The Jimmy Akin podcast,” all of which can be found at catholic.com. And if you want to follow more of my own work, check out my website at karlobroussard.com
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, Year C. Until next time, God Bless.
[i] See James White, The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics and Protestants—Do the Differences Still Matter? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), 118. See also Steve Hays, “Catholic Prooftexts,” Triablogue, December 17, 2017, http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/catholic-prooftexts.html; Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1995), 207.
[ii] James White, Answers to Catholic Claims: A Discussion of Biblical Authority (New York: Crowne Publishing, 1990), Chap. 7; Electronic Edition.
[iii] J. Knox Chamblin, “Matthew,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.