Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[steve_b]

Randy, can you either by PM or here, give me any quotation from an ECF why in John 21 Jesus asks three times “Simon Son of John, Do you love me?” What Im asking why Jesus had to keep saying “Simon son of John” Why not just Simon? Or even just “do you love me”? Like in Matthew 16 “who do YOU say I am”?

Thanks.

MJ

There was no surprise Peter would deny Jesus 3 times. Jesus told him in advance he would do it.

• After the last supper, Lk 22: 34 Jesusf] said, “I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.”
• After the resurrection Jesus asks Peter 3 times do you love me.
• Augustine
• newadvent.org/fathers/120114.htm scroll to ch 7
• newadvent.org/fathers/160387.htm scroll to paragraphs 3&4

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, can you either by PM or here, give me any quotation from an ECF why in John 21 Jesus asks three times “Simon Son of John, Do you love me?” What Im asking why Jesus had to keep saying “Simon son of John” Why not just Simon? Or even just “do you love me”? Like in Matthew 16 “who do YOU say I am”?

Thanks.

MJ

Of course, I should point out that Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me” to parallel Peter’s three denials.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Of course, I should point out that Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me” to parallel Peter’s three denials.

Oh great

:doh2:

And here I thought it was because St. Peter was hard headed. That’s why I empathize with him so much.

 

[KathleenGee]

The three repeats are emphasizing a most distinct reality…Peter is responding to the 3 times he denied Christ and at the same time, this dynamic of the Hebrew language is revealing a special calling to Peter by Christ.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Nor is it in an office, even church, unless God be in them (conditional).
This does not relate to riches, honor even ministerial giftings. A kingdom can be taken away. A kingly crown taken away. A talent can be taken away. A "lampstick’’ can be taken away. The inner effectual call to the believer, to mankind (gentiles), and in specific here, to the seed of Abraham, “Israel” is irrevocable.

True enough. But who is the only One who has the authority to take those things away?

Not you. Not I. Not Martin Luther. Not Calvin, etc., etc.

Only God can do that. And whoever started your religion ain’t Him.

You can not say exactly how the apostles took it nor can you say exactly how the non-believers took it literally, cannibalistically in John 6. The early church showed a range from pure symbolic to pure "trans’ and in between view of eucharist
and more “examplary”.

Please show me an example of how the early church showed the Eucharist to be purely symbolic.

Symbolic, sure. Many things are both symbolic and actual. The beheading of John the Baptist was symbolic of such things as the end of the OT. But it sure 'nuff was real to John. The Passover was symbolic & foreshadowed Christ. But it was real enough to the Egyptian first-born sons.

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m not sure I have anything on this specifically, but I’ll check. You might try newadvent.org or ccel.org.

My take is that it was a solemn occasion, and Jesus used Simon’s formal name to emphasize it.

Yes. Although solemn likely, just before that they all sat together and ate the fish it was Peter (as named by John which is interesting as opposed to Simon Peter) where Peter was the one who went to drag the net back alone however, St… John writes that Jesus asked “them” to bring in the fish! Peter seemed to be completely determined to get it himself! And how!

Thus it appears to me that( because the last time Jesus says Simon Bar Jonah) it it is much more than Peter’s confession but because Peter is specially chosen! And he somehow chooses to drag the fish.

Let’s not forget St. John writes Peter jumped into the water toward Jesus without hesitation when it was St. John himself who writes that it was he who first recognized Jesus “It is the Lord!”. Peter goes forward. Note also earlier in the same chapter Peter says “Im going fishing” yet the others decided to follow!

As later on we see in St. Peter’s first Letter he calls himself ** **Peter! And what follows is all the more cemented because has matured and ready to proclaim Christ unreservedly.

MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. Solemn likely. That said just before that they all sat together and ate the fish it as Peter (as named by John which is interesting as opposed to Simon Peter) where Peter was the one who went to drag the net back alone when John writes that Jesus asked “them” to bring in the fish! Peter seemed to be completely determined to get it himself! And how! Thus it appears to me that( because the last time Jesus says Simon Bar Jonah) it it is much than Peter’s confession but because Peter is specially chosen! And he somehow chooses himself to drag the fish.

On top that in Peter’s first Letter he calls himself ** **Peter! And what follows is all the more cemented.

MJ

One of my Italian friends decided to make me an honorary Italian (I’m of Irish descent), so he gave me the nickname “Rangelo” - a merger of Randy and Angelo - a common Italian name.

So, my friends all started calling me Rangelo, but it was never a name I used to refer to myself.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[MartinJordan]

One of my Italian friends decided to make me an honorary Italian (I’m of Irish descent), so he gave me the nickname “Rangelo” - a merger of Randy and Angelo - a common Italian name.

So, my friends all started calling me Rangelo, but it was never a name I used to refer to myself.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Rangelo, I just made an amendment above. Have a look.

MJ

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is it just me or is there some man-love going around?

 

[MartinJordan]

Is it just me or is there some man-love going around?

Actually, It’s love for Peter going around.:knight2:

I’ll also add that it was ONLY Peter who reminds : for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” He’s THE speaker for the Lord. Besides the Lord HIMSELF :yup:

MJ

 

[benhur]

Only God can do that. And whoever started your religion ain’t Him.

Right, those guys had no Godly authority/unction. Just as the Sanhedrin tried to convince the now seeing blind man that Jesus ministered but not by Godly authority.

Please show me an example of how the early church showed the Eucharist to be purely symbolic.

That is another thread.

Symbolic, sure. Many things are both symbolic and actual. The beheading of John the Baptist was symbolic of such things as the end of the OT. But it sure 'nuff was real to John. The Passover was symbolic & foreshadowed Christ. But it was real enough to the Egyptian first-born sons.

We both agree the eucharist is symbolic but we differ there after.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Steve B…

Our one class could not go into more detail because of time restraints but the Church of Rome, according to our professor at the major NW seminary, said that presbyters oversaw the many home churches of Nazarene Jews who had escaped Jerusalem during the Diaspora, where as Antioch and Alexandria had bishops and a more geographically centralized church.

In regards to the other teacher, he told me there was no infallible statements made prior to Vatican I, and those that were deemed infallible were the dogmas I stated. This teacher is also an instructor at the seminary, well known author, and provides questions and answers in our local Catholic newspaper.

I don’t doubt for a minute these instructors were providing us compromised information, but rather myself being a compromised student.

 

[joe371]

Right, those guys had no Godly authority/unction. Just as the Sanhedrin tried to convince the now seeing blind man that Jesus ministered but not by Godly authority.

That is another thread.

We both agree the eucharist is symbolic but we differ there after.

Examples of how the early church showed the Eucharist to be purely symbolic?

 

[benhur]

Examples of how the early church showed the Eucharist to be purely symbolic?

Sorry Joe fro another thread and it has been shared before.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Examples of how the early church showed the Eucharist to be purely symbolic?

Sorry Joe fro another thread and it has been shared before.

I believe there may have been examples of ECF’s who referred to the Eucharist in symbolic terms or ascribed symbolic meanings to it; however, I’m not certain that any denied the presence of Christ in the elements because that is Catholic teaching and they were Catholic men.

So, Catholics are comfortable with the idea that the Eucharist is both literally and symbolically the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve B…

Our one class could not go into more detail because of time restraints but the Church of Rome, according to our professor at the major NW seminary, said that **presbyters **oversaw the many home churches of Nazarene Jews who had escaped Jerusalem during the Diaspora, **where as Antioch and Alexandria had bishops **and a more geographically centralized church.

If I was in that class I would have asked the professor to explain his view.

From Jesus to the year ~311, Catholics (all over the empire) could be imprisoned, tortured and killed at will just for being Catholic. Given that dynamic, who is going to flash in such a way as building Churches so that the Ceasars could easily find and execute you? As it was, Catholics were strung up on poles, doused with oil and lit on fire to light the appian way at night, during the time of Nero. Peter and Paul were also executed in Rome under Nero. In 107 Ignatius, Bp of Antioch was taken to Rome to be thrown to the lions in the collosium. Constantine’s conversion in ~311, finally brought an end to the wholesale execution of Catholics all over the Roman empire. As a result of his conversion, he gave his residence (the Lateran) to the pope. It was then called the Church of the Lateran. Constantine made Christianity legal. It was then safe for Christianity to grow in the open

history of Vatican, The
history of Lateran, Saint John
K:

In regards to the other teacher, he told me there was no infallible statements made prior to Vatican I, and those that were deemed infallible were the dogmas I stated.

So what he is saying, in 2000 years, no pope EVER spoke “without error” (that’s what infallible means), on ANY faith or moral issue, except twice? Really? sheesh! Get the hook!
K:

This teacher is also an instructor at the seminary, well known author, and provides questions and answers in our local Catholic newspaper.

K:

I don’t doubt for a minute these instructors were providing us compromised information, but rather myself being a compromised student.

Don’t sell yourself short.

 

[benhur]

I believe there may have been examples of ECF’s who referred to the Eucharist in symbolic terms or ascribed symbolic meanings to it; however, I’m not certain that any denied the presence of Christ in the elements because that is Catholic teaching and they were Catholic men.

So, Catholics are comfortable with the idea that the Eucharist is both literally and symbolically the body and blood of Jesus.

yes understand it is both to you and that you say it is from day one of the church. I thought variations of presence were allowed until it was dogmatized much later. I can not assume the latter speaks for anyone specifically silent on the matter (beyond symbolic) formerly.

 

[Gorgias]

KathleenGee:

In regards to the other teacher, he told me there was no infallible statements made prior to Vatican I, and those that were deemed infallible were the dogmas I stated.

So what he is saying, in 2000 years, no pope EVER spoke “without error” (that’s what infallible means), on ANY faith or moral issue, except twice? Really? sheesh! Get the hook!

No, of course that’s not what’s meant – but, to tell you the truth, strictly speaking it’s a true statement!

Kathleen, I think, is misunderstanding the lectures she’s attending. Yes, the definition of infallibility was developed at 1st Vatican. Yes, since that time, there have only been three declarations that could be said, strictly speaking, to rise to the level of doctrine/dogma. However, that does not imply that there was never an infallible statement made by the magisterium prior to 1st Vatican. Moreover, the fact that there have only been two dogmatic statements made since then does not imply that there haven’t been other statements of the magisterium that are infallible – just that there haven’t been any others in which the magisterium has made it a point to use the language of 1V to make it obvious that they were invoking the definition.

Oh… and the notion that the Immaculate Conception “was already endorsed by the faithful” does not mean that the pope’s role is diminished. In the context of that part of the declaration, he was merely identifying that he wasn’t defining a brand new dogma that had never existed before; rather, this is something that Catholics had believed in (as evidenced by liturgical expressions, and prayer, and various writers). The pope was merely using his authority and that of the magisterium in order to formally proclaim the dogma.

 

[clem456]

Infallibility might be the most misunderstood concept ever. We just can’t seem to separate it from the arbitrary use of human authority.

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
…
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I believe there may have been examples of ECF’s who referred to the Eucharist in symbolic terms or ascribed symbolic meanings to it; however, I’m not certain that any denied the presence of Christ in the elements because that is Catholic teaching and they were Catholic men.

Right. Which is why I asked for an example of someone claiming it was purely symbolic.

So, Catholics are comfortable with the idea that the Eucharist is both literally and symbolically the body and blood of Jesus.