Laying it on a bit thick
Neil Caputo of FOX NEWS seems to think that the election of Pope Benedict XVI is somehow going to be good for the American economy. His reasoning- which seems to be shared by a great many of his collegues at FOX- is that his election has filled everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, with joy, joy, joy, joy down in their hearts, and that everyone is so blissfully happy that they just can't wait to spend their money.
I think Caputo and his collegues vastly overestimate the degree to which non-Catholics even care who is pope, and certainly the impact Pope Benedict's election is going to have on people's lives generally.
This is not to say that the former Cardinal Ratzinger's stand against relativism is not welcome, or that his influence in the battle against the culture of death will not be helpful. But c'mon. You're laying it on a little thick, guys.
Kind of like you and the media generally have been ever since Pope John Paul II's death, with your non-stop reporting of Roman Catholic tradition and doctrine as historic fact with regard to the numbering of the popes and St. Peter's supposed status as the first of them. Somebody needs to point out that the "rock" upon which Christ said He would build His Church in Matthew 16 is called, in the original Greek, a petra- a large rock like Gibraltar. Simon Bar-Jonah is given the name Petros- a small rock, possibly derived from a petra- in commemoration of his confession.
The petra is that confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Not only is Jesus not giving Peter a job, but He certainly does not mention an ongoing office, or even one successor. And the keys of the Kingdom are given to the Apostles collectively elsewhere, and in the same words. Why assume that He's still talking to Peter alone in the part of Matthew 16 where He repeats what He said elsewhere to the Apostles collectively? After all, every one of the disciples is present, not just Peter.
Further, the monarchial episcopate didn't develop until long after Peter's time, when a "bishop" was simply a parish pastor. "Bishop" and "presbyter" are terms used by the New Testament interchangably.
Peter, in any case, may have visited Rome. It is anything but an established, historical fact that he did so. He may even have died there, and the bones under the altar of the basillica in Vatican City which bears his name may actually be his.
But the actual evidence for any of this is slim at best, and the contemporary evidence that Peter was ever Rome's bishop is zilch. All we have is a very old Roman Catholic tradition.
Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. It just isn't history. It's Roman Catholic dogma.
And don't basic journalistic ethics require a distinction between historical fact and sectarian dogma? Wouldn't the truly professional move be to preface all that theological spin with a qualifier like, "According to Catholic belief....?"
I think Caputo and his collegues vastly overestimate the degree to which non-Catholics even care who is pope, and certainly the impact Pope Benedict's election is going to have on people's lives generally.
This is not to say that the former Cardinal Ratzinger's stand against relativism is not welcome, or that his influence in the battle against the culture of death will not be helpful. But c'mon. You're laying it on a little thick, guys.
Kind of like you and the media generally have been ever since Pope John Paul II's death, with your non-stop reporting of Roman Catholic tradition and doctrine as historic fact with regard to the numbering of the popes and St. Peter's supposed status as the first of them. Somebody needs to point out that the "rock" upon which Christ said He would build His Church in Matthew 16 is called, in the original Greek, a petra- a large rock like Gibraltar. Simon Bar-Jonah is given the name Petros- a small rock, possibly derived from a petra- in commemoration of his confession.
The petra is that confession: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Not only is Jesus not giving Peter a job, but He certainly does not mention an ongoing office, or even one successor. And the keys of the Kingdom are given to the Apostles collectively elsewhere, and in the same words. Why assume that He's still talking to Peter alone in the part of Matthew 16 where He repeats what He said elsewhere to the Apostles collectively? After all, every one of the disciples is present, not just Peter.
Further, the monarchial episcopate didn't develop until long after Peter's time, when a "bishop" was simply a parish pastor. "Bishop" and "presbyter" are terms used by the New Testament interchangably.
Peter, in any case, may have visited Rome. It is anything but an established, historical fact that he did so. He may even have died there, and the bones under the altar of the basillica in Vatican City which bears his name may actually be his.
But the actual evidence for any of this is slim at best, and the contemporary evidence that Peter was ever Rome's bishop is zilch. All we have is a very old Roman Catholic tradition.
Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. It just isn't history. It's Roman Catholic dogma.
And don't basic journalistic ethics require a distinction between historical fact and sectarian dogma? Wouldn't the truly professional move be to preface all that theological spin with a qualifier like, "According to Catholic belief....?"
Comments
As for economic effects, the US is about a quarter Catholic these days. If a quarter of the population starts upping their expenditures by 4% you've got a general rise of 1%. That's pretty significant. Frankly I think that Caputo is probably wrong but it's a plausible guess, given current US demographics.
TM, John 21 is a better argument for the Petrine primacy than Matthew 16, certainly. It's also a very rich pericope, and one which, in Greek, contains some really poignant, neat stuff not particularly relevant to the application we're discussing, but edifying nonetheless.
Only three problems.
The first is that the connection between Peter and the papacy in the first place is still wholly dependent on the unsupported claims of the very institution which stands to benefit from it.
The second is that Peter is dead. No mention of a successor or of an ongoing office in John 21, either.
The third is the record of the New Testament itself. Whatever Peter's role may have been, it doesn't seem to have been very Pope-like. While he is mentioned at least once in Acts in a way which seems to set him apart from the other apostles, and mentioned in the same way when the angel speaks to the Marys on the first Easter, neither the apostles nor the rest of the Church seems to defer to him in the way one would expect if he was, indeed, understood to be Christ's Vicar on Earth.
There is no association at all between Peter and Rome anywhere in the New Testament, and Galatians speaks of Paul in effect calling Peter out- and winning- on the issue of Peter's hypocrisy in refusing to eat with Gentiles in the presence of Jewish Christians. The latter might be said to be a personal failing, and not a matter of faith and morals- except that in conspicuously refusing to eat with Gentiles, Peter was teaching, whether he intended to or not.
Was Peter given special instructions to feed Jesus's sheep? Yep. Absolutely. As were the other apostles collectively, though admittedly not in the same words. Once again, as with Matthew 16, there is nothing said to Peter which is in itself unique, however unique
it might be that Jesus singles Peter out to say to him personally what He says collectively to the others. What, then, is the significance of Jesus taking Peter aside on this occasion?
Might it be that the thrice-repeated instructions to "feed my sheep" correspond to Peter's three denials of Christ? After all, no other apostle had denied his Lord, and in effect had committed apostacy! Could this simply be the restoration of a lapsed apostle to the office he shared with the twelve- that of episkopos/presbuteros/pastor?
It's true that on those two occasions the New Testament speaks of "the disciples and Peter." What is the significance of that singling out? I frankly don't know. But we're still left without any indication that Peter was to have even one successor, much less 264 of them- or that Christ was founding an office, or that He intended such an office to be invested in the bishop of Rome.
I agree that American Catholics have, demographically, the economic clout you suggest. Were American Catholics to be so overjoyed that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI that they reacted as Cavuto suggests, I would rejoice- not simply as an American or as a person who has to live with this economy like everyone else, but as a Christian who- though he can't, in conscience, espouse Catholicism, likes Pope Benedict's brand of Catholicism a heck of a lot better than other varieties floating around these United States at the moment.