A Catholic Rejects the Primacy of Peter

[jimmy]

I agree with you only in part because the ECF when the 400 year old persecution was lifted the Papacy was not defined by councils as needed in our present histories, because back then they were all in unity with the Pope as one in Christ Jesus.

I disagree with you about St. Cyprian for it is he who calls Peter’s Chair the “Sacerdotal Throne which being occupied by the will of God”, he also references Peter’s bishopheric as “one cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church”. When he writes to Antonianus, a 251- 252.

Taking all these ECF teachings surely does not equate how the Papacy has been defined by Jesus himself and throughout the ages, but these ECF’s sure blazed a path for us to follow in regards to recognizing Peter and his successors in the Popes.

Gabriel you continue to assert that just because the fathers appealed to Rome that means that Rome had authority over the whole Church. This is a false conception and there is no logical connection. The fact is that St. John says that the rock is the faith, not Peter. And St. John never asserts a universal jurisdiction of Rome. You can deny it all you want but that is what John says. Yes, Peter had a special place even in John Chrysostom’s writings, but he was not the rock.

Read Augustines retractations, in which he changes his opinion on the rock of Matt.16.

 

[losh14]

Remember that this council is in response to P. St. Stephen’s view that heretics are not to be rebaptized. Cyprians view is not as clear as you are making it out to be.

Cyprian could also have been affirming the Primacy of Peter but not necessarily the transmission of that Primacy in Apostolic succession. One can recognize Peter as foremost among the Apostles while also affirming the equality of the bishops and suggesting a terminal level of authority at the diocese.

That said, such an understanding of Primacy is not nearly as unitive as one that holds Primacy to be transmitted via Papal Succession.

During our history, the Papacy and the Cardinals have often balanced power against one another, with Popes who were popular, well-known, charismatic personalities, shrewd negotiators or good managers holding more effective authority for the same reasons that these qualities make certain presidents hold more sway with the Congress and being more successful in effecting change.

Given that the Papacy has been a position of political and temporal authority, as well as spiritual and managerial, I am not surprised to see some disagreement from even among the early Fathers as to the role of the Bishop of Rome, though I am disappointed to see that disagreement become a theological question of Peter vs. Paul.

 

[losh14]

My heart is set on reunification one day and I have a feeling that many prideful Catholics have been sticking to overstating the “power” of the Pope as opposed to his pastoral authority, much like a patriarch - yet as the first among equals in that he has at least some say so to settle disputes as they arise.

I share your sentiments for reunification. I think there are other issues but yes the role of the Papacy is an important one.

When we discuss overstating or understating the Pope, we’re really continuing a centuries-long tension that has vacillated between two extremes: that of a monarchical, absolute Pope, and that of a pure figurehead. In reality it’s been more a tension than a struggle, with the College of Cardinals claiming more power at some points and the Pope at others. We can think of Popes who have almost acted unilaterally and we can think of others who would not dare write an encyclical without the help of multiple learned hands to ensure that the collective sentiment of the bishops was accurately expressed.

 

[eucharisteo]

.

And when did this ever change?
Wait a minute there Catholics do not go around making the Pope a superhuman or a Ruthless ruler over all Bishops as the EO not in communion with the Pope falsely protray the Popes. You have the power issue blown out of proportiion from EO who refuse communion with the Pope confuse with Catholics. For a Catholic the Pope is the Vicar or Primeminister of our King of Kings Jesus Christ. The Pope has boundaries, the EO falsely claim that the Pope does not have boundaries. This alone reveals who has the issues with authority.

Once you get your sense of direction correct of who is blowing hot air over the Popes power, then you will see that the Bishops in communion with the Pope operate freely, yet should they vear off Apostolic Doctrine or teachings, then you will see the Pope act to protect the flock of Jesus Christ as Jesus commanded Peter to tend and feed his flock.

The Bishops have full reign to settle any scandal issues in their own diocese. If it involves the faithful the Pope may oversee the proceedings, but will not intervene unless the local Bishop is out of line from Apostolic Traditional teaching, or is bringing scandal to the body of Jesus Christ.

It never fails when ever an opponent to Catholic Teachings runs out of argument, one is quick to reach out for any anti-Catholic rhetoric or scandal from the past present.
I believe you are gravely confused as to what I’m saying. You also are making all or nothing statements which most people know required cognitive therapy to straighten out. People that make statements like this are not taking into consideration those that do not speak in such words. I do, however, know what you mean. But I do reject you saying “alone” and “all”. Not all and not alone to the EO speak in such ways. There have been and still exist today Bishops and hierarchy that also speak in such harsh language towards other faiths, including towards EO. So, before you get into a deep discussion with what you think I don’t know, you need to rethink how you present your arguments before speaking again, thus making us all look uncharitable. I reject you way of thinking because it is NOT Catholic because it lacks charity in the truest sense.

All truth must be spoken in charity. Truth without charity is what? BCV? Charity is not bashing or abusive. It is clear and plain. It is not accusatory.

The Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth for the Universal Church. That is not up for dispute with me. But likewise, our bishops also represent Christ as well as priest and even deacons. Now even the laity has been set aside inappropriately as Vatican Council II tried to set straight. But there were many that went way overboard with the so call “the spirit of Vatican Council II”. There is a specific meaning that was distorted for personal agenda. We all must realize that we are also called. But for centuries there is another unspoken heresy that rarely gets mentioned. Clericalism. A lot of the abuses came during the most strenuous moments in the history of the Church. There were many abuses in the church from before the dark ages. I remember reading and hearing about the abuses during St. Francis time. We know like was much different back then and people were mostly illiterate. But in today’s society, thanks in part - mostly - for the growth in the Church for the education level people are now able to obtain. My point is that I believe there is a possibility that clericalism still remains a problem towards the higher ranks of the clergy. As they die off and new blood fills their shoes we may see a trend away from clericalism. Priests have said very abusive things to me in the past about my ability to learn, as if I’d never get it or that it was some prideful attempt at being like God, which it wasn’t. Today, my proof is that peopple like Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Tim Staples, Steve Ray, Sister Rosalin Moss, etc. are great examples of the level of knowlege I was out to obtain so that I could know and understand at least to a level to defend myself from family.

Pope Benedict along with Pope John Paul II have made great efforts towards reunification between the East and the West Church. You see it was desiring to become an Orthodox Christian that ultimately led me to becoming Catholic. Even priests told me I should go back to being a Latin Rite Catholic for the sake of working towards reunification. But ultimately as previously posted I believe that the Pope is the physical living head of the Church, but exercises his authority on the matter of settling issues on the matters of faith and morals. I believe the EO should really consider this role and work their way back as we work our way back to reunification. We can live in harmony is we choose.

I do NOT speak with authority. But then again, neither do you. Just so you know, I’ve been listening to Catholic radio speakers try to explain to people the limits of governing authority of the Pope over diocese outside of his own. This is a new understanding to me about the roles of the episcopacy since I returned to the Church in 2006, really 2007 with my wife’s conversion. I was really seeking communion with the Eastern Church, which provoked me to seek an understanding about the Catholic faith I was never taught thoroughly even though I tried. People taught heresy in my days and many clergy were just as guilty. Blind faith as a child is fine but once you grow in your faith you should be eating meat, not drinking milk. They wanted me to stay on milk.

 

[Hesychios]

Here’s an graphical analysis of quotes from the “Peter’s Roman Residency” page on catholic.com. I noted whether each quote mentioned “Peter and Paul” or “Peter, no Paul” as the basis of the city’s primacy. …

Very interesting. Good work!

Thanks for the post.

 

[fnr]

Thank you for your compliment.

More evidence that Peter and Paul were considered the “first bishops” of Rome prior to Pope Stephen I’s letter to Cyprian of Carthage. Graffiti from a 3rd century Roman catacomb invoking the names of Peter and Paul together:

View attachment 7965

I found the picture at the linked reference.

I firmly believe in the primacy of Rome, as it is fully borne out in all the earliest literature. However, it would appear that Rome didn’t start out with a single monarchical bishop; Peter and Paul were considered the first bishops. Not my idea. It’s the idea from Epiphanius of Salamis:

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic! “Monarchical” is not a synonym for any of the marks of the Church. Were the keys to the kingdom which Christ gave to Peter for a monarchy of this world and the kahal an obedient flock? Does Roman primacy necessarily imply monarchy? I don’t think it does! Forgive me if I am wrong, please!

How does the doctrine of Petrine primacy going all the way back to Matthew 16 square with Galatians 2, a letter of Paul written 50-60 CE. The Gospel of Matthew was written between 80-100 CE. (Reference: earlychristianwritings.com/)

Here’s Galatians 2:

• Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us-- to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel 6 might remain intact for you.

But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those of repute made me add nothing. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Of course not!

But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.*

To me, this text speaks to the heart of the matter. If Paul was instructing Peter on the necessity of Gentile adoption of Jewish law, isn’t that Peter receiving instruction from Paul on a matter of faith?

 

[mandateman]

Well to settle the argument the final word is always that the pope is the pope. The visible head of the Catholic Church and he alone is infallible meaning he alone is guaranteed to speak for God.

Next is the problem of the persecution of the Pope and the Catholic Church by the USA. The government of the USA has begun its own personal persecution of the Church by attacking our head. What will be the end result? They can’t think that this will go unpunished. We have had other groups persecute us officially but we are still here and they are not. I think it will end the same with the destruction of the USA and Rome during the reign of the next pope. Peter the Roman.

Certainly God must punish the American people for having the audacity to attack His Church. Perhaps they will be treated like Paul and only blinded but converted or perhaps like the Romans and destroyed. There is not really that much difference between USA and Sodom.

But certainly the USA government believes itself above God and untouchable by God. Foolish but you guys elected these nut cases. The history of the world and the holiness of our saints prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God is behind only one Church. Only our saints perform first-degree miracles in the hundreds of thousands. Most other churches haven’t recorded one provable first-degree miracle in 2000 years. This alone should be sufficient. The USA is biting the hand that feeds it, God.

 

[John_Pascendi]

Come now,it was Peter who was always mentioned first in any list of the apostles! Plus since Jesus left us a chair in Rome and whomever is elected to be seated in that chair speaks for Him,well it makes sense. What has caused so much harm in the one true Church was Luther when he declared that whatever a person feels he can deal with in a spiritual way,go for it…a conscience thus freed will always be true…yeh sure…what happened of course was that the wealthy ruling class who wanted the RCC property,gold and silver ornaments,paintings.ie :wealth…then backed his revolt and disaster struck. By having a person who is given the power to never cause sin is a strong use of common sense. only the RCC has been attacked so much by dictators in the world. I would refer anyone listening here this evening to check on the great letter published in Time Mag.Dec.23,1940 and signed by a Doctor Albert Einstein…in this letter he delared “only the Cathlic Church in Germany has had the courage to stand up for intellectual truth and Moral freedom” and this from an agnostic!!!..thats why this great scientist was portrayed and lampooned,alongside Theodore Roosevelt in that horrible play…arsenic and ole lace!!! all the best…Pas

 

[seamusmohr]

Come now,it was Peter who was always mentioned first in any list of the apostles! Plus since Jesus left us a chair in Rome and whomever is elected to be seated in that chair speaks for Him,

It was Peter who betrayed Christ three times! It was Peter who was described as satan!It was Peter who had to be forgiven three times! Further S.Peter ,‘left’, us at least three chairs Rome [with S.Paul,] Alexandria and Antioch! S.Gregory the Great said S.Peter’s Chair was in three places but all three spoke with one voice! That was then, now things are different?
Why is that?

 

[Epistemes]

Well to settle the argument the final word is always that the pope is the pope. The visible head of the Catholic Church and he alone is infallible meaning he alone is guaranteed to speak for God.

Next is the problem of the persecution of the Pope and the Catholic Church by the USA. The government of the USA has begun its own personal persecution of the Church by attacking our head. What will be the end result? They can’t think that this will go unpunished. We have had other groups persecute us officially but we are still here and they are not. I think it will end the same with the destruction of the USA and Rome during the reign of the next pope. Peter the Roman.

Certainly God must punish the American people for having the audacity to attack His Church. Perhaps they will be treated like Paul and only blinded but converted or perhaps like the Romans and destroyed. There is not really that much difference between USA and Sodom.

But certainly the USA government believes itself above God and untouchable by God. Foolish but you guys elected these nut cases. The history of the world and the holiness of our saints prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God is behind only one Church. Only our saints perform first-degree miracles in the hundreds of thousands. Most other churches haven’t recorded one provable first-degree miracle in 2000 years. This alone should be sufficient. The USA is biting the hand that feeds it, God.

It’s fanatical diatribes like this which makes the concept of a divinely-appointed papacy an embarassment.

 

[steve_b]

How does the doctrine of Petrine primacy going all the way back to Matthew 16 square with Galatians 2, a letter of Paul written 50-60 CE. The Gospel of Matthew was written between 80-100 CE. (Reference: earlychristianwritings.com/)

Here’s Galatians 2:
Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us-- to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel 6 might remain intact for you.

But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those of repute made me add nothing. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Of course not!

But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
To me, this text speaks to the heart of the matter. If Paul was instructing Peter on the necessity of Gentile adoption of Jewish law, isn’t that Peter receiving instruction from Paul on a matter of faith?

I think you have this wrong. Paul didn’t teach Peter. Peter already knew.

Augustine and Jerome had an interesting discussion on Gal 2. re: Paul rebuking Peter. Scroll down and start reading from Ch 3 v 8 .

newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

bottomline, Paul ended up adopting Peter’s style.

'“To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews 1 Corinthians 9:20 and other such things in the same passage, which are to be ascribed to the compassion of pitying love not to the artifices of intentional deceit. For he that ministers to the sick becomes as if he were sick himself, not indeed falsley pretending to be under the fever, but considering with the mind of one truly sympathizing what he would wish done for himself if he were in the sick man’s place.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

It was Peter who betrayed Christ three times! It was Peter who was described as satan!It was Peter who had to be forgiven three times! Further S.Peter ,‘left’, us at least three chairs Rome [with S.Paul,] Alexandria and Antioch! S.Gregory the Great said S.Peter’s Chair was in three places but all three spoke with one voice! That was then, now things are different?
Why is that?

Have you got something against saint Peter? What’s the point of all the guff you posted above?

Saint Peter is given primacy in scripture and Tradition. No more need be proven than that. Doctrinal development is more than sufficient explanation for the ever increasing recognition of the extent and full implications of saint Peter’s primacy.

=====
PS: I noticed that you never did explain why you included that anti-catholic diatribe in post #64.

 

[steve_b]

It was Peter who betrayed Christ three times!

• Jesus told Peter ahead of time that he would betray Him.
• Jesus told Peter and the others in the upper room, that Satan asked to sift ALL of them like wheat,
• Jesus could see Satan in the upper room. Satan entered Judas there
• Jesus said to Peter, I have prayed for YOU Peter, that after you have been sifted, you turn and strengthen all of THEM (the apostles) after they’ve been sifted.

Notice Jesus didn’t pray that Peter wouldn’t be sifted, He prayed that after he was sifted he would turn and strengthen his brothers after they were sifted.

When do you suppose Satan started sifting Peter? I would suggest it goes back to Ceserea Philippi when Jesus renamed Simon to Rock and said He would give Rock the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. Then Jesus said He must die, and Peter didn’t want his friend to die. That was considered by Jesus as Satan sifting Peter. So Jesus said, get behind me satan.

Has sifting stopped?
s:

It was Peter who was described as satan!It was Peter who had to be forgiven three times!

Did Jesus know all of this ahead of time? Yes
Did it stop Jesus from giving Peter the keys of the kingdom,? No
Did it mean Jesus wouldn’t build His Church on Peter? No
Did Jesus take away ANYTHING that He gave Peter? No

AFTER His death and resurrection but before His ascension back to heaven, Jesus says to Peter, feed and rule my sheep. That alone takes away all arguments.

Speaking of Peter, Everything Jesus said and did was actually from the Father. Therefore, all that was done for Peter was actually from God the Father through Jesus.

One could actually say, Peter is the Father’s choice. Jesus describes it well.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.


s:

Further S.Peter ,‘left’, us at least three chairs Rome [with S.Paul,] Alexandria and Antioch! S.Gregory the Great said S.Peter’s Chair was in three places but all three spoke with one voice! That was then, now things are different?
Why is that?

If Alexandria or Antioch played any kind of Petrine role in history, when did they do it? And why is Constantinople/Istanbul the see that was in first place in the East?

The popes (to escape persecution) for awhile (60 yrs) were in Avingnon and not Rome. Does that mean the chair of Peter today is in Avignon too? Nope

Or how about this. Popes ordain bishops during their tenure as pope. Does that mean every bishop they ordain is then a pope? Nope

 

[Hesychios]

Have you got something against saint Peter? What’s the point of all the guff you posted above?
.

It’s not guff.

The point is Peter was “in confession” with Jesus, he needed to be reconciled for his betrayal (just like any of us who might have been in that terribly frightening situation).

Three times “I do not know him!”, then the cock crows.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matt 10:32-33

Three times “do you love Me?”

Then Peter says “Lord you can see into my heart, you know I love you.”

"Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."Matt 16:24=25

Jesus recognize his human frailty, and forgives.

Some apologists are trying to turn the dialog into a mandate for power held by later men, when it was a reconciliation of Saint Simon Peter in confession.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It’s not guff.

The point is Peter was “in confession” with Jesus, he needed to be reconciled for his betrayal (just like any of us who might have been in that terribly frightening situation).

Hesychios the Catholic church does not deny this is a confession of Peter, but you failed to finish what took place here after each of Peter’s confession.

Before our Lords passion, Jesus begins to build his Church upon Peter himself, not Simon Bar Jona’s confession. True as the Church teaches that Jesus denied Peter 3 times during Jesus passion.

After the resurrection. before Jesus ascends into heaven, Jesus hears Peter’s confession. What you failed to mention here is that Jesus places a commandment after each of Peter’s confession not as a penance but as confirming Peter as chief pastor and ruler over his fold, from Jesus own words after Peter’s confession “Feed my lambs”, “Feed my sheep”, “Tend my Sheep”.

What you mention is only part of what the Catholic Church and scripture confirm. The totality of Jesus Words places Peter after his confession back where Jesus originally began to build his Church upon Peter before he suffered and resurrected from the Dead.

The good news is, now that Jesus is resurrected and commanded Peter, after his confession, that Peter loved Jesus more than his apostles,** Jesus will ascend into heaven leaving Peter to "tend my sheep, “feed my lambs”, “feed my sheep”.**

Jesus graced Peter with his primacy over his flock and makes it clear when he leaves him singularly in the care of his flock on earth.

Jesus asked Peter “do you love me more than these” pitting Peter between Jesus himself and his other Apostles, by doing this Jesus singled out Peter who confessed “YES LORD YOU KNOW THAT I LOVE YOU”, now that Jesus singled Peter out, Jesus commands Peter to “Feed my lambs” etc.

So you are correct that Peter makes a confession from his 3 fold denial now in the affirmative of Loving Jesus “more than these”, but you failed to mention after his confession Jesus gives the primacy to Peter to tend and feed his flock before Jesus ascends into heaven.

I don’t think believing that this discourse is only a confession from Peter to Jesus, because if this was the case your comment falls short of the full context, Peters penance after his confession would be to tend and feed Jesus flock until he returns? So, by Peter’s confession, Jesus is able and willing to leave Peter to tend and feed his flock in the presence of his apostles who witnessed it, including John himself “not Peter” who records this event.

Peace be with you

 

[seamusmohr]

Have you got something against saint Peter? What’s the point of all the guff you posted above?

**This has already been fully answered by Hesychios. I can’t do better!
**