Isaiah 22,19-23; Romans 11,33-36; Matthew 16,13-20

The founding of the Church by Jesus Christ has been often put to question throughout history. For believers, having been founded by Christ, the Church is of divine origin. For many others, the Church is an institution like all other institutions, fallible and prone to be corrupt, and any other claim is deemed simply presumptuous.

This is very comprehensible, given that the human element in the Church at times transpires much more than the presence of grace that sustains it. Ultimately, this whole issue is reducible to the mystery itself of believing.

The question posed by Jesus to the disciples in today’s gospel “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” says it all. In our way of thinking as humans, we can simply stick to facts and to perceptions and exclude the divine element. Yet, we can also open our heart to God’s presence and inspiration and there experience the encounter with God that can change radically even our perceptions.  Peter’s response to Jesus’s question was outstanding and laudable precisely because at that moment in time he let go of whatever he might have personally thought of Jesus and instead let God speak through him. We know for sure from the gospel narratives that this is not the usual Peter we encounter. Peter had his own moments of illusion, disappointment and even betrayal in his rapport with Jesus.

In a nutshell this is the mystery of our faith, even the mystery of the Church we believe in and we belong to. It is a church made up of fallible human beings and yet can still be a sign and instrument of God’s working presence and love in the world. The Church is not miraculous or immaculate and the human in it can many a time overshadow the divine. Just like in us individually as believers, moments of disappointment do not necessarily cancel our faith.

In court, a key witness is someone whose testimony holds firm ground and is authoritative. This is what Peter is in the gospel and it is on his being a key witness that he is invested with authority among the disciples. His power was rooted in the authority of his witness, not vice versa.

To guarantee the success of his project and earn more credibility, Jesus could have so easily chosen people who belonged to the establishment and who formed part of the inherited priesthood in Judaism. That would have given a more firm standing from the standpoint of power. Yet his vision was radically different and his intention was not of setting up a power structure to replace what he vehemently and constantly criticised in the religious institutions of Judaism.

The anointing of Peter was bound to his profession of faith, not to some worldly or religious entitlement. The credibility of Peter and the other apostles was not to be founded on any power transferred to them but on the moral authority of their own witness. We ourselves no longer believe something to be true and credible because the Church says so. Even the Church has to earn its credibility in whatever it teaches and stands for. And it is an undeniable fact of history that for comprehensible reasons many a time this credibility is lost.

At this precise moment in time, Pope Francis seems to be a living sign of contradiction and he is contested internally even by people high up, clergy and laity. He is loved and hated, admired and denigrated. His office may be under siege. Yet his moral authority is unwavering and that is the source of his strength in a world where, rather than just unity of doctrine, what is urgent is the safeguarding of the dignity of each person, particularly of the poor and marginated. In this Francis is staunchly a key witness and credible.