Editorial Note:
After considerable deliberation, the editorial board of “TheJournal” has decided to report a shortened 
version of a dialogue on the nature and scriptural foundations of the “petrine ministry” of the papacy. The dialogue was initiated by Dr. Heinz-J. Vogels, Ph.D (theology) of Alfter, Germany (author of Celibacy - Gift or Law? and member of the International Federation of Married Catholic Priests) who took issue with Arthur Menu’s Theological Soapbox article in the Nov-Dec 2000 issue of “The Journal.” The dialogue 
went on for six weeks, beginning on Jan. 28, 2001. It involved Dr. Vogels, Arthur Menu, François Brassard and, indirectly, Dr. Michael Zarb, Ph.D (Ancient Middle Eastern languages) who also wrote on the topic in the Aug ‘99 issue of “The Journal.” 

The dialogue in its entirety would more than fill an issue of “The Journal.” The editorial board struggled with several questions: Could we devote this much space to a highly politicized ecumenical topic? Could we provide a radically shortened version that would be fair to all involved? Would this reporting really be of interest to our readers? On the other hand, are we not obliged in conscience to report a reader’s honest, 
critical response to an article in “The Journal?” Obviously, the positive response to this last question won the day. Have we made the right decision? You be the judge. Your written comments would be appreciated. 

From Heinz-J Vogels: 

Only today was I able to read your issue of Nov-Dec 2000. Since correspondence is welcome, I would like to make some comments on Arthur Menu’s Theological Soapbox, vol. 3/6, p.3-5. Even though I share his view that the Petrine ministry is broader than leadership and that there are many who do Petrine ministry in the church, I am under the impression that he overlooked some biblical references. 

First, but not essential to the topic, he overlooked Gal 1:19 where Paul says that James, the kinsman of Jesus, was in fact one “of the apostles.” My Revised English Bible has: “Three years later (after Paul’s conversion) I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, and I stayed two weeks with him. I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord’s brother.” Therefore, you cannot say that the kinsman of Jesus, James, is “not to be identified with either of the two James belonging to the Twelve.” And Cephas was the first authority Paul contacted! 

Second: You can hardly say that “leadership was not the mission Jesus gave Peter.” The words in John 21:16-18, three times repeated: “Tend my sheep,” clearly bestow on Peter the authority to lead the flock, whether or not we like the image of being a sheep. And it is significant that this passage stems from the Johannine community, which had no elaborate structures, rather than from a Petrine community. 

Third: If we turn to Mt 16:18ff, it seems to be hazardous to say that “this passage presents a viewpoint on Peter that has elements unique to the Gospel of Matthew, and may not represent the way Peter was viewed in the Church as a whole.” What should we say of the parable of the Prodigal Son or the Merciful Father in Lk 15:11-32, which is unique to Luke? Should we not eliminate it as well, simply because it is unique 
to Luke? Furthermore, Peter is called Kephas, Rock, in three sources independent from one another: Mt (16:18), John (1:42) and Paul (Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 1:12, etc.). Does this not reflect a common understanding of Peter in the Church? - As to “the sense in which he can be said to have a successor,” I would point out that in Mt 16:18 Jesus speaks in the future tense: “I shall build my Church on this rock,” not in the present tense. In view of that, is there not a sense of a successorship intended? The same applies to the prophecy: “The gates of Hades will not prevail against it”. Shall the rock disappear in history, which would be equivalent to a victory of Hades or Death? If Paul “opposed Peter to his face” in Antioch (Gal 2:11), he did so because of the overwhelming authority Peter had in this and all communities. What he did and said was seen as normative for others, so Paul had to correct him to preserve the “truth of the Gospel.” As to the keys of the kingdom, one cannot dismiss as irrelevant the only parallel in the Old Testament, that is Is 22:22: “I shall place the key of  David’s palace on his shoulder,” which is explained in the preceding verse as “I shall equip him with your sash of office and invest him with your authority.” The Greek text has oikonomia, which is administration. It is true that the other apostles received similar authority as Peter (Mt 18:18 for loosing and binding, and John 20:22f for forgiving sins), but it is not possible to deny his special authority over “my church” as a whole in Mt 16 or on “my sheep” in John 21. So leadership, in my understanding, was indeed the mission given by Jesus to Peter. 

The question is rather how to interpret this leadership. I agree, as most non-Catholic denominations and many Catholic theologians do, and even as John Paul II indicates in “Ut Unum Sint” (94ff), that the right interpretation has not yet been found! Vatican Council II stated in the Decree “Unitatis Redintegratio” (UR 14) that the role of the Roman See in the first millennium was the role of “a (mere) moderator with whom all agreed when dissensions on faith or discipline arose among them.” So he has the last word in matters of faith or discipline, but not of jurisdictional administration over the whole church. Perhaps we should return to the first millennium! This is what bishop Walter Kasper, now a Cardinal, said in earlier publications edited together with Card. Ratzinger! 

The “Synod” of married priests and laypersons that took place after the Atlanta Congress of the International Federation in 1999, where François Brassard, Jack Shea and Jim Noonan from Canada took part, dealt with this question of Petrine authority. If I may quote from this document, I bring home to you what your fellow theologians agreed to. “A first step in reforming the Church will be the partial renunciation of the papal claim of the ‘Primacy of Jurisdiction’ over the whole Church of Christ, particularly, the recent custom of appointing all bishops.”

Conclusion: If we maintain the mainstream view on the biblical sources of the Petrine ministry, there is more realistic hope for a change in the pope’s exercise of this ministry than if we challenge the foundation of his leadership in the will of Jesus. 

From Arthur Menu: A Response To Heinz Vogels

I welcome Heinz Vogels’ critical response to my Theological Soapbox article in the November-December issue of “The Journal” The private dialogue between him and me that ensued via e-mail explored in greater depth some of the issues raised in my article. Rather than repeat or even summarize everything I said in the dialogue, I will try to state in general terms where I differ from Heinz regarding Peter’s role in the Church. 

Everyone has the moral authority to teach what they know. Peter had the moral authority to teach what he knew about Jesus and about what Jesus taught. Indeed, it is possible that no one else knew as much about Jesus and his teaching as Peter, and, hence, it is possible that no one possessed as much moral authority to teach about Jesus as Peter. 

Only someone who holds the office of legislator of doctrine has the juridical authority to legislate a teaching, that is, juridically impose and enforce the teaching within the community. 

I contend that Peter, notwithstanding all the influence and moral leadership he exercised in the Church, did not hold the office of legislator of doctrine. Heinz Vogels, as I understand him, does. That is the crux of our disagreement. 

This disagreement can be broken down into two main points. 

(1) I hold that Jesus gave Peter and the rest of the Twelve Apostles the mission of bearing witness to him and his message, at first to Jews alone (Matthew 10:5-6) and then to the whole world (Matthew 28:19). I hold that Jesus gave Peter the special mission of strengthening and encouraging the disciples in the difficult times that followed Jesus’ death (Luke 22:31). I do not believe that Jesus gave Peter or the Twelve legislative authority over the whole Church in matters of faith or morals. Heinz, as I understand him, agrees with me about Jesus’ giving the Twelve the mission of bearing witness. In opposition to me, he holds that Jesus also gave Peter legislative authority over the whole Church in matters of faith and morals. 

(2) I hold that the “office” of membership in the Twelve was not a permanent office in the Church to be filled by successors when the original members of the Twelve died. Heinz Vogels holds that membership in the Twelve was a permanent office and that bishops are successors in that office. I do not hold that the special mission Jesus gave Peter constituted a permanent office in the Church to be filled by successors. Heinz, on the other hand, holds that Jesus installed Peter in a permanent office the successors to which are the popes of the Roman Catholic Church. 

With regard to (1) let me make a logical point. From the premise, (a) the Church obeys person X, one cannot validly deduce the conclusion, (c) Jesus gave person X authority over the Church. In order to make this inference valid, one must adduce a second premise, (b) the Church obeys person X because the Church believes that Jesus gave person X authority over the Church. It seems to me that Heinz Vogels spends much effort showing how Peter or the Twelve wielded authority in the early Church. But no matter how much authority they wielded, it would not prove that Jesus gave them such authority, unless Heinz Vogels also shows that the Church believed that Jesus gave that authority to Peter or the Twelve. 

It is an assumption easily made, but false, that the early Church would not have obeyed Peter or the Twelve unless the Church believed that Jesus gave Peter or the Twelve authority over the Church. It was an entirely human, natural and instinctive response of the disciples in the tumultuous days after the death and resurrection of Jesus to look to Peter and the Twelve for leadership. The disciples would have done so whether or not Jesus had given Peter or the Twelve this authority. The simple fact of the Twelve’s close association with Jesus would have been enough to win them this role. It took no special commissioning by Jesus for the Twelve to be “elected by acclamation,” as it were, to the position of leadership. 

But the Twelve recognized that taking on the governance of the community of disciples interfered with the mission of bearing witness to the whole world that Jesus gave them, and they shed that leadership role quickly. We see this when they hand over to the Seven the distributing of food to the widows of the community (Acts 6:1-7). We see it when doctrinal matters are decided by a council of apostles and elders chaired by James, the kinsman of Jesus and not one of the Twelve (Acts 15). (For the reasons that this James should not be counted among the Twelve see Raymond Brown’s article “The Twelve and the Apostolate” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 81:141.) We see it finally in the lack of any trustworthy historical record that any of the Twelve governed any Christian community anywhere. 

In fact, the role of missionary is not compatible with the role of governor of a community. A missionary goes from place to place founding churches, a governor resides in the community he governs. Heinz refers to the authority that Paul exercised over the churches he founded. But when we read the letters to the Corinthians, we find Paul writing, not as a governor would, giving directions he expected would be obeyed without question, but pleading, cajoling, arguing, threatening, and persuading the community to do as he was asking them to. If 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 2 Corinthians 10:10 are any indication, Paul did not rule the church at Corinth. (I recommend the article by Dr. Michael Zarb in the January-February 2001 issue of “The Journal”on the charismatic leadership of the Pauline churches.) 

Peter also worked as a missionary as we see from his travels in Acts, Paul’s mention of him as living in Antioch, and his martyrdom in Rome. If Peter had wanted to be the pope, he would have stayed in Jerusalem, the mother church, and chaired the council of elders (being missionaries, the apostles eventually left Jerusalem and no longer participated in the council). According to Acts, this council was the only body whose rulings were authoritative for the whole Church. 

I turn now to (2) above, the question of whether membership in the Twelve constituted a permanent office in the Church, and whether Jesus installed Peter in a permanent office. Heinz cites the election of Matthias as successor of Judas as a reason for seeing membership in the Twelve as a permanent office. Judas Iscariot had “turned aside from this ministry and apostleship” (Acts 1:24) and, according to Peter’s interpretation of Scripture (Acts 1:20), had to be replaced. However, as the quoting of Psalm 69:25, “Let his habitation become desolate,” shows, this interpretation applied to Judas alone, and is not to be taken as establishing a regular succession to membership in the Twelve. 

In addition we must remember that membership in the Twelve had eschatological implications. At the last supper Jesus said, “‘You are the Twelve who have continued with me in my trials; as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel’” (Luke 22:28). In order for the Twelve to fulfil their 
eschatological role, which Judas had forfeited, it was necessary for him to be replaced. However, once the number was restored to twelve, there would be no more successors appointed, as we can infer from Acts’ not mentioning that anyone replaced James, the brother of John, among the Twelve, after James was killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). 

Heinz Vogels’ argument from Scripture for the view that Jesus appointed Peter to a permanent office rests primarily on his interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. This passage has three parts: 

(A) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 
(B) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
(C) and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

Biblical scholarship has taught us when the Gospel writers combine sayings of Jesus in a continuous narrative we are not to assume that they were so connected when Jesus himself spoke them. It is possible that (A), (B) and (C) are independent sayings of Jesus that Matthew has combined in this passage in pursuit of his theological agenda. 
With that in mind, I agree that (A), with its focus on the name “Peter,” was addressed to Peter individually. I contend, on the basis of parallels at Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 in which Jesus conferred the same thing upon the community of disciples, that (C) was addressed to the whole Church and not to Peter individually. 

Because (B) and (C) are both couched in juridical language and are parallel in content, I contend that the combination (B)-(C) should be taken as an example of linguistic parallelism, common in the Hebrew Scriptures and not surprising in the mouth of Jesus, or in Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels. Matthew may have elaborated his statement of (C) in this instance by borrowing and modifying Isaiah 22:22 (“I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open”). More than in the other Gospels, Matthew’s Jesus speaks in the language of the Hebrew Scriptures. If (B) and (C) are parallel in this way, then (B) would also be addressed to the whole Church and not to Peter individually. 

Does Matthew want the reader to think that Jesus addressed these words to Peter as an individual? Not necessarily. Matthew clearly wants to enhance the status of Peter, but this purpose is accomplished to some extent if we regard (B) and (C) as addressed to Peter in his role as representative of the Church rather than to him as an individual. 

But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose, as Vogels contends, that (B) was addressed to Peter individually. Does (B) install Peter in a permanent office? 

Heinz Vogels’ argument that it does rests on Matthew’s allusion to Isaiah 22:22 in which Isaiah prophesies that Shebna is to be replaced as royal steward by Eliakim. Isaiah adds, “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Here Isaiah describes either a customary privilege of the office of steward or a special privilege over and above the privileges customarily attached to the office. In either case the office of steward already exists; the conferral of the privilege on Eliakim does not create the office. If the office of royal steward did not already exist, one can imagine a person being appointed to exercise this privilege as a personal prerogative rather than as the holder of a permanent office. 

Heinz Vogels would agree, I think, that Jesus had not established a pope-like office prior to speaking these words to Peter. Therefore, even if one takes (B) as addressed to Peter as an individual (which I do not) and accepts that (B) alludes to Isaiah 22:22, it is possible to interpret (B) as conferring a personal prerogative on Peter without creating a permanent office. 

In conclusion, my Biblical interpretation of the Petrine texts has been greatly influenced by my extensive experience working in Protestant churches and with Protestant Christians. I have experienced that authentic Christianity can be found in churches that do not accept the pope as legislator of doctrine. Both Heinz and I agree that the papacy must change to accommodate ecumenism, but I think the change must be more radical than Heinz believes. It is inconceivable to me that Protestant churches would surrender their freedom from absolute papal rule in faith, morals and church discipline, for which the blood of Protestant martyrs was shed, and which is the raison d’être for Protestantism itself. 

From François Brassard: 

In a recent meeting, Michael Zarb and I discussed the petrine ministry dialogue between essentially Arthur Menu and Heinz Vogels. He is not interested in entering this discussion; he stands firmly by his exegesis and sees no convincing reason to change it. However, I am interested in this discussion, and I 
would like to pass on to you a number of comments that Michael made and add a few of my own. However, before doing so, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with all of Arthur Menu’s remarks above with the exception of his interpretation of Mt 16:18,19. Also, I am in total agreement with Heinz Vogels’ main purpose behind this discussion, namely, the reformation of the Petrine ministry. 

First of all, I want to pass on to you a written comment that Michael Zarb sent to me after our meeting: “Heinz is working on the assumption that these sayings come from Jesus; this is not my assumption. My fundamental assumption is the text, i.e. that the author is saying that these are the words of Jesus; there is no way of demonstrating that these are the actual words of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar rejects the authenticity 
of about 90% of the known reported sayings and with good reason. As far as I am concerned, I would require proof of the reliability of these sayings as the “ipsissima verba Jesu;” and proof that the authors are just reporters and not authors in their own right, which, as a result of my studies, I have rejected some time ago and cannot accept any more. Each evangelist is an author in his own right, has his own agenda, 
own purpose for writing, own christology, own ecclesiology, own theology and, hence, each saying of Jesus has to be taken within the context of these individual parameters. Therefore, the Matthean ‘rock’ passage has to be understood in the context of Mt not of any other book or mixture of books and that is, I think, what I did in my article; I kept to Matthew’s understanding of the passage.” 

1- When Heinz Vogels counters Michael’s argument based on the singularity of the Matthaean text, Heinz points to other texts found only in one gospel (e.g. Luke’s prodigal son story in Ch.15) and he questions whether that negates their validity. Michael responds: “No, not necessarily, though it raises problems concerning sources.” However, he continued, Heinz’ argument indicates that he has misunderstood what is meant by the “singularity of the Matthaean text (16).” In fact, there are three independent reports of the gathering of Jesus and the disciples at Caesaria Philippi: Mark, Matthew and Luke, each one using the “Q” document.  But only Matthew adds in v.16 “the Son of the living God,” and then adds vv.17-19. As 
Matthew follows Mark historically, that immediately makes the additions suspect: there is no proof that these words came out of the mouths of Peter and Jesus (respectively). When one adds to this that current scholarship dates Matthew in the 80’s, it becomes clear that the Matthaean author is addressing the faith concerns (i.e. the authority of Jesus) of his community in the historical context of the 80’s, especially persecutions. Furthermore, Michael Zarb writes: “One has to explain why Mark and Luke expunged such an important saying  from their narrative, especially Luke who has Peter as his hero in Acts,” [if you choose to prefer a single documentary source which has additions not found in other sources]. 

2- Heinz bolsters support for his interpretation of Mt 16:18 by referring to: 
A: Galatians 1-2. Heinz writes: “The apostle Paul here refers to the name and the position of Peter, long before the Gospel of Matthew was written. Kephas is clearly a translation of Peter and vice-versa. We do not need a whole glossary to see that, especially since Jn 1:42 gives the explicit translation: ‘Kephas, that is Peter, (the rock).’ If Paul, three years after his ‘conversion’ in 35, goes to the city of Jerusalem ‘to see 
Kephas (only Kephas!), and I stayed with him a fortnight’ (Gal 1:18), does this not reflect the eminent position of Peter in the original community of Jerusalem? Does it not reflect the effect, if not the wording, of Mt 16:18? And if, 14 years later, Paul goes once again to Jerusalem to submit the gospel he preaches to the pillars of the community (Gal 2:1-2) ‘to make sure that I had not run and was running in vain,’ does 
this not show the eminent position of those pillars? If the validity of his preaching depends on the agreement of those of repute in Jerusalem - and again Peter is named in the firsst place (Gal 2:7-8) - then they have some sort of a supervision over the whole church. Does this not reflect Mt 16:18? If Kephas, again, in Gal 2:11 must be won over to the position of Paul as regards taking meals with pagans (Greek christians) as well as the question of the whole Jewish Law, why should this have been necessary, if Peter had not a leading position for the whole church, outside of Jerusalem, i.e. in Antioch? All this goes back to the years 35 and 14 years later (49, the time of the Apostles’ Council), long before Matthew’s Gospel.” 

In response, I agree 1) that Kephas is the correct Aramaic translation of Peter; 2) that (contrary to some exegetes) this Kephas and this Peter are one and the same person; 3) that Peter is the nickname that Jesus gave to Simon, son of John (a phenomenon not unique to Peter: cf. Mk 3:17); 4) that the Galatian and Mathaean (Mt 16) texts that you cite do indicate that Peter has an important leadership role. However, I do not agree that these texts prove that Peter had a pre-eminent role of “supervision over the whole 
church.” Indeed, Gal 2:9 puts James, the brother of Jesus, first, followed by Peter and John. Furthermore, the texts seem to imply that Peter exercised a very important teaching role, consistent with his calling as an apostle: to bear witness to the life/teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus, just like the other 11 and Paul himself, a call that all christians of every generation are called to. Galatians 1:18 makes that clear: 
three years after his conversion - a time spent in prayer and reflection - Paul rightly goes to see Peter “to oobtain information.” He also visits another apostle,  James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:19), but the text doesn’t say why. One might infer that it was out of deference to James’ (not Peter’s) supervisory leadership of the council of elders of the mother church of Jerusalem. Such an inference is credible, I suggest, based on Acts 15:2,6,19; 21:18. Interestingly enough, James appears in these texts to exercise the supervisory role of a moderator of a consensus driven council of elders where apostles speak to the question as teachers. Though Peter and Paul are the obvious heroes of the author of Acts, they are portrayed as apostles and not, like James, as supervisory leaders. 

B: Jn 21:15-24: Heinz refers to the resurrected Jesus’ triple command to Peter “to tend my sheep” as a further indication of a special Christ given petrine authority. In response I would say that the historical accuracy of the entire chapter (21) is very weak, since all scholars agree that ch.21 is a much later editorial addition by someone in the Johannine community. Others think that this Christ-like compassionate rehabilitation of Peter is a backhanded effort at compromise designed to resolve 
considerable differences (e.g. gnostic beliefs, structural organization) that existed at the time between the Johannine and Petrine communities. I say backhanded, because the editorial writer is reminding his readers of Peter’s triple denial of Jesus (foretold by Jesus in Jn 13:38 and accomplished by Peter in Jn 18:16-17, 25-27), morally speaking a far cry from the leader of the Johannine community to whom, some claimed, Jesus had granted ‘immortality:’ “What’s it to you, if I want him to live until I come?” Jn 21:22. 

3- Heinz and Arthur as well, your interpretation of Mt 16:18-19 is unacceptable to me for the following reasons: 

A: Your position presumes that the author of Matthew portrays Peter in a favourable, even privileged light in Mt 16:16-19. However, that interpretation does not coincide with Matthew’s consistently negative view or presentation of Peter throughout his Gospel. An analysis of every Petrine reference in Matthew reveals a negative or, at best, neutral view of Peter. This is manifest even in ch. 16, four verses after the “keys of the kingdom” verse: “Jesus turned around and said to Peter, ‘Get away from me, Satan! you are a stumbling rock [a scandalon, not a petros] in my way, because these thoughts of yours don’t come from God, but from man.’” v 23. In ch. 17:4 Peter is portrayed in a manner indicating that he doesn’t understand the significance of the Transfiguration: Peter wants to set up a new tent/temple to replace the one in Jerusalem; whereas, by contrast, the Matthaean community understands it to mean that: by the revelation of the Father, Jesus’ divine credibility and authority is the true foundation stone upon which the church is built. This is a reiteration of the Father’s confirmation of Jesus at his baptism: “This is my own dear Son with whom I am pleased” Mt 3:17. 

B: Arthur writes: “The problem I have with this is that the Matthean text is undoubtedly based on an Aramaic text (there are obvious semiticisms in the Greek text), and in Aramaic the statement would be “You are kepha and upon this kepha I will build...” (see “Peter in the New Testament,” ed. by Raymond Brown et al., Augsburg/Paulist, 1973, p.91). The two kepha are exactly the same word and therefore the ‘this’ in ‘this kepha’ must refer back to the ‘kepha’ who is Peter.” 

In response, it should be pointed out that present scholarship would no longer be bold enough to affirm that the Greek Matthaean text is “undoubtedly” based on an Aramaic text. Most Aramaic scholars today, including specialists like J.A. Fitzmeyer, no longer accept Aramaic retro-translation as reliable or credible, because there is no solid database as yet of 1st century Palestinian Aramaic to draw from. And I quote from Michael Zarb: “Arguments for the historicity of the words of Jesus through retranslation of the Greek text into Aramaic are not valid in any way primarily for the reason that the language of Jesus is not known, that is, a) we do not have literature or texts from that period and from that region, b) the few pieces of text that possibly (dating and provenance debated) come from the area are not enough to 
establish an adequate glossary, lexicon or dictionary of the language let alone deep knowledge of the idiomatic expressions used by the local speakers. Therefore, guesses as to how Jesus may have expressed the greek text are just that, futile guesses.” 

Arthur and Heinz rebut quite plausibly the above argument by stating that a retranslation into Aramaic that is restricted solely to Mt 16:18 is valid: “you are Kephas and upon this Kephas I will build my community.” Perhaps, but the use of the Aramaic is still a presupposition, not the actual Greek text. Besides, though I admit that Kephas is a good Aramaic translation of petros (a loose rock, one that could be used as a building rock), it is not so of petra (a shelf of rock or rock foundation); in fact, we don’t know what the Aramaic word for petra would have been at the time of Jesus. And even if the text had been originally in Aramaic, as you say, shouldn’t the Matthaean author have translated it into Greek as: “you are petros and upon this petros I will build my community.” Instead, the author uses petros (masculine singular) and petra (feminine singular), two different words with two different meanings. Furthermore, your position doesn’t respond to the other arguments indicated below.

C: Arthur writes: “The other problem I have is with Michael’s interpreting Mt 16:19b,c as a future perfect tense ‘will have been bound/loosed.’ As Michael himself states, this is an ambiguous phrase in Greek. It can be interpreted as a future perfect or as a past participle (‘will be bound/loosed’). Michael chooses the future perfect interpretation, not on exegetical grounds, but on theological grounds. The past participle interpretation ‘turns theology upside down,’ to quote Michael’s Journal article of August 1999, because it makes ‘the human the decider and God the lackey, the follower.’” 

It is incorrect to say that Michael Zarb’s interpretation of Mt 16:19b,c is not based on exegetical grounds, but only on theological grounds. 

1- He chooses the future perfect tense because it is the initial, classical, traditional Greek form of the verb. The past participle interpretation is not traditional. While it is true that the author of Matthew rarely uses this Greek verb form in his Gospel, it is that very rarity that argues well in favour of the opinion that he consciously intended to use it in accordance with its traditional understanding as a future perfect. 
2- This grammatical form, in conjunction with Michael Zarb’s translation of petros and petra (v.18 - the actual Greek terms in the manuscripts), is in literary conformity with the basic theological message of Matthew (not Michael) in this chapter, as well as in ch 17, indeed, in the entire Gospel, namely, that the faith and life (halakah) of the Matthaean community is based on the divine authority of the risen Christ as revealed by Jesus’ Father in heaven (through the mouth of Simon, son of John, in ch.16, through the Transfiguration experience in ch.17, and through the Father’s confirmation of Jesus at his baptism in Mt 3:17). It is this consistent Matthaean theology that provides solidity for Michael Zarb’s choice of petros (building stone=Peter) and petra (foundation rock) with the antecedent of the latter (this petra) referring not to Peter 
(v.18), but rather to the revelation of the Father (v.17). Thus, Peter and the other apostles whom Peter represents are truly “rocks” who, by their Spirit driven apostolic witness, will help build  the risen Jesus’ chaburah (community) on the rock solid foundation of the Father’s revelation. These exegetical remarks are also supported by cosmological and theological considerations: 

a) Early christian cosmology believed that earth reflected the numinous world (heaven) and not vice-versa. 
b) To question Michael Zarb’s interpretation of Mt 16:19b,c by confronting it with Jesus’ statement in Mt 18:19: “Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven,” is like comparing an elephant to a flea in terms of the importance of subject matter. Let me explain. Mt16:19b,c is dealing with the faith and morality of the community, halakah, whereas Mt 18:19 is dealing with prayer. The implicit condition that Arthur introduces with respect to prayer, namely, “that the thing prayed for must not be something for which it is wrong to ask,” can be easily understood and accepted in the case of prayer; however, such a condition applied to halakah with your use of the past participle in Mt 16:19b,c is far too risky an option. In my opinion, it leaves too much room for doubt and error in judgement. On the other hand, the use of the future perfect tense in Mt 16:19b,c declares by its very nature that “the action in the second part is prior to that of the first part, meaning that the action in heaven is before the action on earth” (M. Zarb, Journal, 08/99, p.9). Thus, Michael Zarb’s theological argument in favour of using the future perfect interpretation in Mt 16:19b,c obviates the problem of “making the human the decider and God the lackey.” This concept is further confirmed by Matthew’s particular (singular) version of Jesus’ prayer, the “Our Father.” Only Matthew has the phrase: “may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” Mt 6:10. True, it is not a future perfect verb form, but it is the same theological and cosmological sequence as the one found in the future perfect version of Mt 16:19b,c: God’s will is done in heaven first, and, hopefully, on earth afterwards. 

Arthur Menu wisely rebuts that “Michael’s translation says literally that whatever you (Peter or the Church) bind or loose on earth will have been bound or loosed in heaven. In other words, the halakah of Peter or the Church cannot be mistaken--a great argument for papal or Church authoritarianism. Instead of the pope or the Church saying, do what we tell you because God will always back us up, they can say, 
do what we tell you because whatever we tell you is what God has already decided.” 

Arthur’s comment raises a crucial political and theological question, one that everyone involved in this dialogue would agree is a very realistic danger, namely the abuse of power or authoritarianism. Frankly, I believe that either interpretation of Mt 16:19b,c lends itself to this possible abuse, if, as Arthur indicated, one interprets the text “literally” or strictly. True, the Mathaean author couches the text in scriptural terms 
designed to give absolute authority to the assertion that God will reveal to the community without fail all that it needs to know in terms of halakah. However, this is one more expression of Matthaean theology (described above) that the author, writing in the 80’s, feels that his community needs to hear to encourage them in the face of persecutions. Thus, an understanding of the historical context, namely, the need for 
absolute assurance that God is with them in all their decisions, allows a more flexible interpretation of the text when one’s faith is stronger and the need for certitude is not so great. Furthermore, the text is akin to those radical statements that Matthew puts into the mouth of Jesus (quite probably Jesus’ historical words), such as: “if your right eye is a source of sin, pluck it out,” etc. (Mt 5:27-30; 18:8-9). Should one take that literally? Of course not, because we know from many other NT passages that Jesus’ use of hyperbole was part of his dramatic oratorical style which, by the way, contributed to his authority and popularity. Applying this to Mt 16:19b,c and in accordance with the conditions that Arthur Menu placed on this text in his article, it is possible that the pope or a council or even the entire christian community could make an honest (perhaps even dishonest) mistake about slavery, about an earth centered universe, about the sexual perversity of women, about birth control, about the priestly ordination of women, and even about papal infallibility. Not to worry! God is with us always and will reveal the truth to us in good time. 

D: Besides the other arguments that Michael Zarb presents on p. 10 of the August 1999 Journal, I would add that your interpretation (Heinz’ in total and Arthur’s in part) of Mt 16:18-19 was not put forward in any form until the 4th century C.E. Heinz counters this assertion by quoting Irenaeus (+202) in his book Against the Heretics: [we do this, I say,]  “by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two 
most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (Adv. Haer. III, 3)  Heinz comments on this text as follows: “Why should Irenaeus attribute this authority to Rome, if it were not for the role Peter (and surely Paul) played in the primitive church? Does this not reflect an effect of Mt 16:19?” 

I do not accept this argument as probative, because: 
1) Irenaeus is merely reflecting the pre-eminent religious prosperity of the christian community in the hey-day of the capital of the Roman Empire. Indeed, in the late 2nd century no other christian community compared to Rome in number and quality of bishops and faithful. This situation changed dramatically by the beginning of the 5th century in favour of Constantinople, the new capital of the Empire. 
2) A little further in the text quoted above, Irenaeus refers to Mt 16:17, but he says nothing of vv. 18,19 which would have bolstered the authority of Peter, and which he should have used, in view of the fact that he wanted to use every argument in his arsenal in his battle “Against the Heretics.” (Adv. Haer. III, 13) 

Heinz also quotes Papias (early 2nd century) to explain why Mark doesn’t have the additions of Matthew (Mt 16:17-19: “The commonly alleged reason why Mark has nothing about the prerogatives of Peter, is that he was ‘the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter’s preaching,’ as Papias tells us. And that Peter, in his preaching, does not boast about himself concerning what Jesus had told him, is quite comprehensible after he had denied him three times.” 

In response, I point out that Papias is an unreliable source, because his remark quoted above did not come from his own authority, but rather from information that he was passing on from an unnamed source, and because modern exegetical studies have discredited his assertion (cf. Raymond Brown: Peter in the New Testament). 

Finally, the great Father of the Church, St. Augustine, did not embrace Heinz’ interpretation of Mt 16:18,19. 

Conclusion: 

In my view, Michael Zarb’s conclusion is valid: “Peter was certainly one of the pillars (Gal 2:9) of the nascent Messianic movement, but he did not have the extraordinary powers that the Roman Catholic church claims for him and for his supposed successors.” 

In summary, I do not believe that anyone can legitimately claim from New Testament exegetical analysis or from early scriptural interpretation of NT texts: 
1- that Peter received from either the historical Jesus or the resurrected Christ a unique administrative authority to resolve questions of halakah definitively for all christian communities; 
2- and far less, that the successive leaders of the church of Rome would have inherited this presumed Petrine ministry. 

This having been said, I do accept as historical fact that at some point in the fourth century C.E, leaders of the Roman church began to attribute to themselves, by right of succession, a presumed special petrine authority to resolve differences of halakah among the different christian churches, and that, over time, for whatever reasons, true or untrue, this role was varyingly received by other christian communities. That such an historical phenomenon should take place is neither bizarre nor extraordinary. Historically speaking, different types of leadership roles did develop and evolve in the different christian communities from apostolic times to the very present. Michael Zarb’s article in the Jan-Feb, 2001 issue of “The Journal” is a clear exegetical analysis of one such leadership role, namely, the Elder in the New Testament. And in this issue of “The Journal” he analyses the role of the “overseer” in the New Testament. Such historical development is a natural socio-political outflow of any community large 
enough to need good order in order to survive and grow. It is because of the need for good order that I have no problem accepting that the leader of the christian church of Rome, the “pope,” has and should have a pre-eminent role to serve all other christian communities, namely, the moral authority to hold the communities together as one focussed clearly on the faith that christians have in the Person and Gospel of Jesus Christ, halakah, as directed by the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. In essence, the “pope” serves the international christian community as a ‘conflict resolution facilitator’ with the express purpose of achieving a unity that liberates the creative Spirit (rather than a uniformity that destroys it). All this so that the “Kingdom of Godde” might develop on earth as it does in heaven.