(Mk 8:27-35)

Mark 8:27 Then Jesus departed with his disciples to the villages around Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he questioned his disciples, saying, "Who do people say that I am?"

Mark 8:28 And they answered him, "John the Baptist, and others Elijah, and others one of the prophets."

Mark 8:29 But he replied, "And who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."

Mark 8:30 And he sternly commanded them not to speak of him to anyone.

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly, and be reproved by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and then be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:32 Jesus made this discourse openly. Then Peter took him aside, and began to reprove him.

Mark 8:33 But he turned around, and looking at the disciples, rebuked Peter, and said to him, "Far be it from me, Satan! For you do not think according to God, but according to men".

V. 27 creates the geographical context within which the account of the discovery of Jesus' identity is placed. It is on the road to Caesarea Philippi that Jesus prompts his disciples to question who he is. The understanding of who Jesus is, therefore, is here depicted by the 'road' where a journey of deepening and knowledge is taking place. That is, the beginning of a journey of knowledge of Jesus' true identity and nature.

The method Jesus adopts to stimulate his disciples to respond closely recalls that of maieutics, in which the teacher in dialogue with his disciples, through appropriate questions stimulates them to question themselves and find the answer. Jesus here first prompts his disciples to make up their own minds, summarising what they had heard about him from the people. But then Jesus' question becomes more pressing and directly questions his own: what did they think of him? The answer is simple, almost lapidary: 'You are the Christ'.

After this acknowledgement, a new phase opens in the relationship between Jesus and his disciples, that of a close teaching about his destiny of death and resurrection. Two realities that arouse bewilderment and incomprehension. Hence that "he began to teach" (v. 31), which suggests that from here a new path of catechesis is embarked upon, which will have as its central focus the theme of passion-death-resurrection. One is still on the road to Caesarea Philippi, a metaphor for a path of teaching and discovery.

If, therefore, Peter discovers the identity of Jesus as the Christ, that is, the Anointed One of God, consecrated and sent by the Father to fulfil a salvific mission, Jesus with the announcement of his passion reveals the nature of his messianism, founded on suffering and death, redeemed by his resurrection. This was shocking for Judaism, which dreamed of a revolutionary and victorious Messiah, so that Peter performs a counter-teaching towards Jesus: "Then Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him".

Here Peter assumes the role of teacher and guide towards Jesus, who, according to his logic, seems to be completely lost or, at least, unaware of his role as Messiah. The verb that has been softly translated here as 'took him' actually means to draw towards him, to lead with him, to take hold of him. So Peter's attitude is quite determined, not without a hint of violence or at least aggression towards Jesus for this exit, which destroys his dreams and those of others. A determination that is accentuated by that "he began to rebuke him" which is contrasted with Jesus' "he began to teach". It is not, therefore, a question of a momentary outburst of anger, but of a decisive dissent on his part against Jesus. The verb 'epitiman', in fact, does not only mean to rebuke, but also to blame. There is, therefore, between Jesus and Peter a clear clash of views; a clear rejection of the messianism that Jesus envisaged.

Jesus' response is quite harsh and bordering on a break with his group of Twelve. V. 33 opens in an unusual way: "But he turned away". "He" is Jesus, who is here referred to only by the pronoun, to indicate Jesus' estrangement from the Twelve. If, for the ancients, the name expressed the very essence of the person, the obscuring of his name meant somehow erasing that person, who had become a stranger. Jesus' turning away, then, should not be read merely as a turning towards someone, in this case the other disciples. The verb "epistrapheìs" (to turn around), while undoubtedly meaning to turn towards someone, has also taken on in New Testament language the sense of retracing one's steps, of repenting. Jesus, therefore, on the road to Caesarea Philippi, stops his journey and turns back "looking" at his disciples, almost as if to retrace his steps, refusing to go any further with them, thus involving the Twelve in the harsh rebuke addressed to Peter: "Far be it from me, Satan! For you do not think according to God, but according to men".

The rebuke opens with a scathing "Ipage opísō mou" (get behind me), which in the language of the evangelists indicates following. But that 'ipage' says much more than just 'go': it also means 'submit to someone; put yourself in someone's power'. Jesus, therefore, orders Peter, and with him his own, to fall in line and submit to his teaching. But if we think that Peter is here apostrophised by Jesus as 'Satan', this is somewhat reminiscent of the orders Jesus gave to demons during exorcisms. A kind of exorcism, then, that Jesus performs against Peter, his satan, whose Hebrew root "śtn" means to oppose, to accuse. What this means is explained in the second part of the call to Peter: "because you do not think according to God, but according to men". The reason, then, is based on the God-man opposition, on God's plans that do not match those of men. Therefore, following Jesus means moving from the perspective of men to that of God. A path that is not easy, peaceful and obvious, since it must pass through the Cross.

This is not a work done out of antipathy towards Protestantism, or resentment towards evangelicals, but to defend the true faith, without warlike aspirations. I spent much of my life in the Protestant world, and late in life I discovered that I did not know the Catholic Church I was criticising at all, and it is this ignorance that leads many Catholics to allow themselves to be convinced or influenced by Protestants.  

These are divided into a myriad of denominations, some of which do not like to be called 'Protestant', but would like to be referred to only as 'Christian'. We also know that for Protestants, Catholics are not Christians, but idolaters and pagans; it follows that evangelicals in wanting to be called only 'Christians' aspire to the implicit recognition that they are the only 'true Christians'.

The problem is that only very few Protestants know the history of the Church; a great many only accuse by hearsay, but have never opened a book on Christian history over the centuries. All they need is what the pastor on duty says, a few pamphlets, and the internet to form their anti-Catholic 'culture'.

Many Protestants and/or Evangelicals, rather than being ashamed of their ignorance about Christianity, are proud of it, saying the classic phrase 'I am only interested in the Bible', a phrase that is already a whole programme. People's biblical-historical ignorance is essential in order to be able to guide them. A serious Protestant who would study the history of Christianity would have a good chance of ceasing to be a Protestant. 

In all Protestantism there is a do-it-yourself faith! The Holy Spirit guides us to understand the Bible well, it is true, but in the Protestant world, this pretext is used to cover an unrestrained and in some ways arrogant presumption, which leads every pastor to become a kind of infallible 'pope' in teaching people.

Presumption and arrogance are not immediately apparent - no one shows these faults so easily. They all seem God-fearing, observant of the Word and full of love for their neighbour. Too bad that their neighbour in most cases is the one who listens passively and does not contradict their biblical teachings. Those who dare to dissent are then no longer loved, often no longer greeted, and sometimes slandered. 

For a long time, thanks to Luther, the pope was considered the antichrist, therefore hated and accused, and so were all Catholic bishops and priests. Observant individual Catholics were also included in this climate. 

Protestants criticise papal infallibility, but in fact behave as infallibles; each in their own community, free to invent whatever they want, pulling the jacket on the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their doctrines! The result? A myriad of denominations with doctrines that often conflict heavily with each other.  

The problem lies in the great ignorance mixed with presumption that so many Protestants and/or Evangelicals have. Are Catholics less ignorant? No, most Catholics, unfortunately, are very ignorant in biblical matters, but at least they do not set themselves up as teachers to anyone who happens to be within their reach. The average Catholic is aware of his own ignorance, the average Protestant, on the other hand, is very presumptuous in biblical matters.

A Protestant who truly loved, as he says, the truth, would go and see for himself what the early Christians, our ancestors in the faith, wrote and how they lived, in order to understand if and how the Catholic Church is wrong, or where the Protestants are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible.    

Logically, rather than trusting a pastor who explains the Bible 2000 years later, it would be better to trust the early fathers, who learned Christian teaching directly from the voice of the apostles. Unfortunately, many Protestants do not use logic, but only anti-Catholic ideologies, cultivating a visceral dislike for everything Catholic, because they dismiss a priori the evidence of how the very first Christians lived, who lived after the apostles but before Constantine.  

The Christian faith is one, because the Spirit of God is one! So many take the wrong path, and we have a duty to understand who is in the right one and who is in the wrong one. Unity is the cohesion of the elements, of the parts that make up an entity (e.g. the cohesion between the parts of a car such as the body, the wheels, the engine, etc.) as Plotinus already said; if unity is lacking, that entity is also lacking and others may result, but no longer the entity it was before [if the cohesion of the body, wheels and engine is lacking, there is no longer the car entity, but rather the entities body, wheels, engine]. Here, Protestantism looks so much like the pile of sheet metal that a car once was. There is much criticism of the Catholic Church, but how many people know, for example, that Bultmann, a famous Lutheran Protestant theologian and exegete, reduced the resurrection to a theological symbol? Indeed, he did not consider it possible that physically Jesus was resurrected. In order to compare different biblical interpretations, one must have one's mind as clear as possible of ideologies and preconceptions. One must be open to any hypothesis if it is properly motivated and proven. If we rely on ideological prejudices that bind us to our doctrinal beliefs, we can do without reading or listening to any text or person; it is useless anyway. Our pride will prevent us from learning truths other than 'our own'. We often defend our biblical error with an impenetrable shell, we keep our truth, rejecting any other, which bangs on the shell and slips away. As soon as one touches the religious/spiritual plane, strangely enough, it is as if many pull the switch off their own mind, or at least a part of it. When Protestants converse with a Catholic, for example, they receive no information at all, only sounds that slip over their eardrums, but do not reach their brains. They do not listen.   

The history of Christianity means nothing to them, it is of no importance, except in the events to be held against them - see crusades, inquisitions, etc. - without knowing the true history of these events, and without knowing that the Protestants also had their wars, and also had their inquisitions, which were much bloodier than the Catholic ones.

They claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but strangely enough there are many groups that receive different and contradictory information from the same Holy Spirit, inexorably losing credibility. 

I realise that the Catholic Church has neglected the problem of Protestant proselytism. Evangelicals have been successful not because they are right, but simply because they find the Catholic people very ignorant in biblical matters, incapable of defending their faith properly, taking refuge behind the classic "I have no time to lose"; perhaps they even lose their faith... but time cannot be touched.   

Many Catholics claim to have faith in Jesus Christ, but this faith of theirs is only seen in times of need: when everything runs smoothly, Jesus is forgotten, and the Bible is of no interest to anyone to read. In contexts like these, evangelicals find a people who really need to be evangelised, by them. Many Catholics do not resist this proselytism because they have no biblical answers to give, only ignorance to hide. In such terrain the Protestant conquest is easy, and it is as if they were facing an unarmed army.   

But those who study the Bible and strive to deepen their understanding of the meaning of God's word realise that in reality Protestants are not at all the biblical teachers they appear to be, but are profoundly ignorant historians and biblical scholars, plagiarised by their sect of membership. By calling them ignorant I do not mean to offend them, for otherwise I would call them "false and liars". By calling them ignorant I acknowledge their good faith, they believe in some wrong doctrines, not realising that they are wrong.  

The point is that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, and so certainly the conflicting interpretations of different denominations cannot all be true, nor all inspired. Clearly, it is not possible for the same Spirit to suggest different doctrines to each. This creates watertight compartments, each Protestant group believing it is in the truth more than the others, isolating itself and preaching its own gospel. For example, according to the Adventists, all other Christian churches have abolished the Sabbath commandment by worshipping on Sunday, and therefore everyone except them is doomed to hell if they do not abolish Sunday as the Lord's Day. Of course, they justify these accusations of theirs with certain Bible verses, interpreting them in their own way. Here, this is the point that escapes all Protestants, classical and modern: the Bible cannot be interpreted subjectively, because the Truth is not subjective at all.

But being divided into watertight compartments, not communicating with one another, it is difficult for any of them to notice the doctrinal differences with other Protestants. If anyone does notice them, they pretend that they do not, or do not give them the proper weight, just believe in Jesus as our personal saviour. Their attention is only turned towards the Catholic Church, the enemy to be defeated! It is all too convenient to proudly claim that "I understand what is written in the Bible because the Holy Spirit guides me. God has hidden the truth from the wise and revealed it to the humble'. Here, every good Protestant uses such phrases to reject the interpretative authority of the fathers and doctors of the Church.In this context, we witness scenes in which any Protestant, of any degree of culture, scoffs at the writings of Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and does so casually, because in interpreting the Bible he feels humble enough to be guided directly by God, but at the same time he is blind enough not to realise that too many 'humble' Protestants then profess very different doctrines. They despise the Catholic, but elect a "do-it-yourself" that prides itself and says: "I do not need to read the writings of the church fathers, the Bible alone is enough for me", so the teachers of which the Apostle Paul speaks would be of no use: "It is he who established some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11). 

One only has to read the history of the heresies that have affected Christianity throughout the centuries to realise that heretics based and always base their theses on the Bible, explaining it in their own way. People are unlikely to go poking around intertwined doctrinal and theological issues. It is easier to find a priest who has committed some human error and choose him as a target, in order to corroborate anti-Catholic theses and consider the Catholic Church as the enemy of Christianity and truth, allied with Satan to mislead souls and lead them to hell. Not even the archangel Michael flaunted such confidence in branding or judging the devil, yet it was the devil (Jd 1:9):  

The archangel Michael, when in dispute with the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare to accuse him with offensive words, but said: You condemn the Lord!

The truth is that the accuser par excellence is Satan himself; the saints do not accuse anyone, not out of respect, but because they defer to God's judgement. For a Protestant, on the other hand, it is normal to say that Catholics go to hell because they are idolaters. They set themselves up as judges, believing they know the hearts, and misunderstand the concept of worship. Any Christian should ask himself questions, to verify what he believes, and should be able to discern whether his beliefs in matters of faith are just the result of autosuggestion, induced fantasies, or whether they find confirmation in the history of Christianity and in the Bible.   

Argentino Quintavalle

 author of the books

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Revelation - exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers - Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ true God and true Man in the Trinitarian mystery

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants compared - In defence of the faith

(Buyable on Amazon)