How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[Mickey]

That’s cuz you haven’t been Orthodox very long. The Orthodox tout “primacy” but only as long as it doesn’t mean anything more than being the last person in a procession – and they would probably reject even that.

Poppycock! You have never been Orthodox and now you pretend to speak for them. You know very well that the Holy Orthodox Church will never accept the ultramontane definitions of papal supremacy/infallibility and unviersal jurisdiction over all Churches as defined in 1870 by Pius IX.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I have never disputed Apostolic succession.
All bishops are created equal. I think St Peter would have agreed.

At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

In John 21:15–17, with only the other disciples present (cf. John 21:2), Jesus asks Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”—in other words, is Peter more devoted to him than the other disciples? When Peter responds that he is, Jesus instructs him: “Feed my lambs” (22:15). Thus we see Jesus describing the other disciples, the only other people who are present, the ones whom Jesus refers to as “these,” as part of the lambs that he instructs Peter to feed, giving him the role of pastor (shepherd) over them. Again, a reference to Peter having more than merely a primacy of honor with respect to the other apostles, but a primacy of pastoral discipline as well.

 

[davidv]

I have never disputed Apostolic succession.
All bishops are created equal. I think St Peter would have agreed.

This is true but some are elected to a higher office.

 

[Mickey]

This is true but some are elected to a higher office.

Yes. But all Apostles were equal under our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. You may believe differently David, and I respect that–but I will never believe that the glorious Apostle St Peter had supreme authority and universal jurisdiction over the other Apostles.

1 Cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

1 Peter 2:6-8
Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set.

 

[Mickey]

At every juncture where Jesus speaks of Peter’s relation to the other apostles, he emphasizes Peter’s special mission to them and not simply his place of honor among them.

Only through Rome colored glasses.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), the former is not.

Same authority–same keys.

In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide.

The “prayer of the Lord” is in reference to St Peter’s repentance after he falls away, so that he can in turn fulfill his calling to strengthen his brethren after Pentecost.

St.Peter in the period immediately following Pentecost did play a decisive leadership role - which is precisely the “strengthening of the brethren” that the Lord was prophetically speaking of in St.Luke 22:31-32, and is the activity which fulfilled the command for St.Peter to “feed My (Christ’s) lambs (the Apostles and early disciples)” found in St.John 21:15-19.

In John 21:15–17

See above.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide. The “prayer of the Lord” is in reference to St Peter’s repentance after he falls away, so that he can in turn fulfill his calling to strengthen his brethren after Pentecost.

The problem with this interpretation is that ALL the Apostles (except perhaps John) denied the Lord in some form or other. It’s just that Peter was the only one brave enough to go as far as he did to be with Jesus. Why doesn’t Jesus pray for the other Apostles, Mickey? Obviously, the prayer is NOT just for the sake of Peter’s repentance - or did not Jesus care that the other Apostles also needed to repent of their cowardice.

St.Peter in the period immediately following Pentecost did play a decisive leadership role - which is precisely the “strengthening of the brethren” that the Lord was prophetically speaking of in St.Luke 22:31-32, and is the activity which fulfilled the command for St.Peter to “feed My (Christ’s) lambs (the Apostles and early disciples)” found in St.John 21:15-19.

As Peter had a “decisive leadership role” among the Apostles, so too do Catholics believe that among the college of bishops, there is one who has “a decisive leadership role.” The Catholic position is more consistent with the idea of apostolic succession. In the EO position, the “decisive leadership role” suddenly disappeared. I guess Christ in all his divine wisdom understood that even the Apostles divinely blessed needed such a decisive leadership role among them. The EO seems to have adjudged that the Church after the Apostles were better than the Apostles themselves!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[catholic1seeks]

FYI I get $2 per post
since this thread is so popular,
just kidding…

Mickey, get a nice
Church Fathers book, okay?

 

[Mickey]

The problem with this interpretation

There is no problem with that interpreation.

Why doesn’t Jesus pray for the other Apostles

Did He not pray for ALL the Apostles in John 17?

The others abandon Him (except for St John). St Peter verbally denied our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ three times!

In the EO position, the “decisive leadership role” suddenly disappeared.

All bishops have a leadership and guidance role. You can stop with the polemics.

The EO seems to have adjudged that the Church after the Apostles were better than the Apostles themselves!

Really, Mark? Is that what you think that the Holy Orthodox Church has adjudged? Sheesh!

 

[Mickey]

There is no problem with that interpreation.
Did He not pray for ALL the Apostles in John 17?

The others abandon Him (except for St John). St Peter verbally denied our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ three times!
All bishops have a leadership and guidance role. You can stop with the polemics.
Really, Mark? Is that what you think that the Holy Orthodox Church has adjudged? Sheesh!

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, get a nice
Church Fathers book, okay?

c1s, there is no need to hurl insults if you can think of nothing constructive to write, kay?

 

[catholic1seeks]

c1s, there is no need to hurl insults if you can think of nothing constructive to write, kay?

Well, I didn’t find that insultive…:nope:

Look I’m not 100%…or even 50% convinced on how I will convince you about this whole thing. It’s kind of hard finding the right direction to take, especially when the main path for me is faith, not definite, primary proof.

What I am convinced of is that Christ has not failed his Church - the Catholic Church,* not* the Orthodox Church. “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church”.
He keeps His promises. Peter is the distant “predecessor” of every pope, whether they were called pope 300, 400, or 800 years after Peter. Even though the “office” of the pope has developed over time, the “office” remains the same.

 

[tqualey]

That is not a good analogy. Presidents of the United States do not claim supreme authority and infallibility (the congress usually shuts him down).

Mickey,

It may not be a ‘good’ anology (as I learned it, all analogies limp a bit) but, it is mroe then adequate to point out four important similarities.

1- The US Presidency is not in the least bit similar to the one that G.Washington began. But, this is a natural evolution of an office that has grown to meet the needs of a growing country.

2- Not every power of the US President we see today (e.g.,commanding Air Force One) was even dreamed of by the Founding Fathers

3- Not every vote for the US President went smoothly - but differences were resolved and the country moved forward.

4- During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the right to a writ of Habeous Corpus - a right specifically granted in the Constitution.

Ultimately, any type of comparrison between the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Apostle Peter - with instructions to carry on until His Return (John 21:15 ) and a very human institution, the US Presidency.

I think it would be fair if you took the concept of Apostolic Succession and explained it in light of the disunity and division created by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and their succeeding reformers. Feel free to use the US Presidency or any other institution as an analogy that you think is good enough to explain your message.

Best wishes

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

There is no problem with that interpreation.

Did He not pray for ALL the Apostles in John 17?

Yes, he did, and that is my point exactly. Jesus prayed for ALL the Apostles to be strengthened, knowing that they would all fail him, but it was ONLY to Peter that he gave instruction to be the confimer of the Faith to his brother Apostles. If you don’t mind reading the Greek of the Luke 22 passage, you will notice that Jesus predicts that ALL the Apostles would be tested, but it is to Peter ALONE that he gives the charge to be the confirmer of the brethren. Luke 22 would have been the perfect opportunity for the Lord to tell Peter that he does not have a special role but that all the Apostles will be confirming each other in the faith. I’m just taking the Lord’s words as is, without adding anything to them.

YOU are claiming that Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter was ONLY in reference to his coming back to the faith. What the text indicates, however, is that Jesus’ prayer that St. Peter’s faith will not fail is in reference to St. Peter’s special role in preserving and spreading the Faith of and among the Apostles.

Also, consider this order of events:

1. Jesus tells him that he will pray especially for him that his faith will not fail.
2. Jesus predicts that his faith will fail him.
3. Jesus gives him the charge to confirm the faith of his brethren.

It is absolutely self-contradictory to claim that Jesus’ prayer for Peter was in reference to him coming back to the faith. Why? Because that would mean that Jesus’ prayer for him WOULD FAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE (if he actually did fall from the faith, which he did momentarily in the courtyard). Thus, Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter MUST BE in reference to what happens afterwards, when Peter’s rock-solid faith would be a foundation for the Church, when indeed he would be the coryphaeus of the Apostles as their confirmer and mouthpiece…

Thus, there is still a definite problem with your interpretation.

The others abandon Him (except for St John). St Peter verbally denied our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ three times!

So?

All bishops have a leadership and guidance role. You can stop with the polemics.
Really, Mark? Is that what you think that the Holy Orthodox Church has adjudged? Sheesh!

I never denied your first sentence. What I am stating is that the EO have adjudged the episcopate to be better than the Apostles because they/you have deemed the office that St. Peter uniquly exercised AMONG the Apostles to have disappeared.

The Lord realized that despite their heavenly graces, the Apostles as a group would still require someone who will be the standard of truth to which they can turn and confirm them in the faith.

In opposition to that, the EO have adjudged that this standard of truth and confirmation among the body of bishops is no longer needed.

If you claim that the body of bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively, how can the EO adjudge for the Church that the unique role that St. Peter represented among the Apostles has now disappeared among the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles?

Let me put it this way:
The Apostles as a group is equivalent to the body of bishops of the world today.

Among the Apostolic group, Jesus himself adjudged that they would need a singular confirmer and mouthpiece, and this despite their many divine blessings.

Conclusively, the body of bishops today, if it is in line with the commands of Jesus, would have to recognize who among them is their confirmer and mouthpiece.

Now, the EO think they know better than Jesus, and claim that such an office no longer exists? That’s pretty arrogant, don’t you think? You can claim all you want how the Pope is arrogant to the other bishops, but it is the utter height of arrogance to oppose the Church order that Jesus himself established, which the EO have done.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[qui_est_ce]

1- The US Presidency is not in the least bit similar to the one that G.Washington began. But, this is a natural evolution of an office that has grown to meet the needs of a growing country.

2- Not every power of the US President we see today (e.g.,commanding Air Force One) was even dreamed of by the Founding Fathers

3- Not every vote for the US President went smoothly - but differences were resolved and the country moved forward.

4- During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the right to a writ of Habeous Corpus - a right specifically granted in the Constitution.

Best wishes

Thank you, you said it better than I could have. All those ideas were running around in my head, but I couldn’t figure out an eloquent way to state them.

We can think of the Early Church as the Kerygma, the seed.

Mark 4:30-32 (New International Version)

---

30Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.”***

For this reason, you can’t stuff the Kingdom of God back into the seed, as fundamentalists try to do when they seek to become the Early Apostolic Church.

 

[Mickey]

Jesus prayed for ALL the Apostles to be strengthened, knowing that they would all fail him, but it was ONLY to Peter that he gave instruction to be the confimer of the Faith to his brother Apostles.

Because St Peter was going to deny him three times!

I’m just taking the Lord’s words as is, without adding anything to them.

As has been interpreted for you by Roman Catholic apologetics.

You are claiming that Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter was only in reference to his coming back to the faith.

It is all of it Mark. It is in reference to strengthening the others; St Peter’s terrible fall by his triple denial; and his coming back to the faith (through grace, obedience and love ) (John 21)

It is absolutely self-contradictory to claim that Jesus’ prayer for Peter was in reference to him coming back to the faith.

He knew St Peter was going to deny Him. And He knew that St Peter would not fall into despair as Judas did.

as their confirmer and mouthpiece.

But not as supreme pontiff of the universal Church.

Thus, there is still a definite problem with your interpretation.

Nope.

they/you have deemed the office that St. Peter uniquly exercised AMONG the Apostles to have disappeared.

Rome separated from the other four Patriarchates. Holy Orthodoxy has a beautiful veneration and feast day for the gloroius Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by a two week fast.

The Lord realized that despite their heavenly graces, the Apostles as a group would still require someone who will be the standard of truth to which they can turn and confirm them in the faith.

I firmly believe that the Apostles as a group represent the standard of truth.

the EO have adjudged that this standard of truth and confirmation among the body of bishops is no longer needed.

There you go again with your opinions of who is adjudjing standards and such. Sheesh!

Among the Apostolic group, Jesus himself adjudged that they would need a singular confirmer and mouthpiece, and this despite their many divine blessings.

Is “adjudged” your new favorite word?

When the Apostles went out into the world, St Peter was a mouthpiece–not a supreme ruler. In the early Church, the Ecumenical councils were the mouthpiece. Not until the ultramontanes of the post schism Latin Church did the Pope begin to have the authority to declare dogma apart from an Ecumenical council. This was finalized by the unfortunate definition in 1870 by Pius IX.

Now, the EO think they know better than Jesus…

Wow is that rude!!! Why do you harbor so much anger? Is it because you were Coptic Orthodox? It is not healthy for me to continue this discussion with you–the passion of your insults permeates the internet. I will pray for you.

That’s pretty arrogant, don’t you think? You can claim all you want how the Pope is arrogant to the other bishops, but it is the utter height of arrogance to oppose the Church order that Jesus himself established, which the EO have done.

I have claimed what?!?

YOU are arrogant and angry. YOUR insults are unwelcome. MY discussion with you is finished. May you find true peace.

Slava Isusu Christu!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yes, he did, and that is my point exactly. Jesus prayed for ALL the Apostles to be strengthened, knowing that they would all fail him, but it was ONLY to Peter that he gave instruction to be the confimer of the Faith to his brother Apostles. If you don’t mind reading the Greek of the Luke 22 passage, you will notice that Jesus predicts that ALL the Apostles would be tested, but it is to Peter ALONE that he gives the charge to be the confirmer of the brethren. Luke 22 would have been the perfect opportunity for the Lord to tell Peter that he does not have a special role but that all the Apostles will be confirming each other in the faith. I’m just taking the Lord’s words as is, without adding anything to them.

YOU are claiming that Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter was ONLY in reference to his coming back to the faith. What the text indicates, however, is that Jesus’ prayer that St. Peter’s faith will not fail is in reference to St. Peter’s special role in preserving and spreading the Faith of and among the Apostles.

Also, consider this order of events:

1. Jesus tells him that he will pray especially for him that his faith will not fail.
2. Jesus predicts that his faith will fail him.
3. Jesus gives him the charge to confirm the faith of his brethren.

It is absolutely self-contradictory to claim that Jesus’ prayer for Peter was in reference to him coming back to the faith. Why? Because that would mean that Jesus’ prayer for him WOULD FAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE (if he actually did fall from the faith, which he did momentarily in the courtyard). Thus, Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter MUST BE in reference to what happens afterwards, when Peter’s rock-solid faith would be a foundation for the Church, when indeed he would be the coryphaeus of the Apostles as their confirmer and mouthpiece…

Thus, there is still a definite problem with your interpretation.

So?

I never denied your first sentence. What I am stating is that the EO have adjudged the episcopate to be better than the Apostles because they/you have deemed the office that St. Peter uniquly exercised AMONG the Apostles to have disappeared.

The Lord realized that despite their heavenly graces, the Apostles as a group would still require someone who will be the standard of truth to which they can turn and confirm them in the faith.

In opposition to that, the EO have adjudged that this standard of truth and confirmation among the body of bishops is no longer needed.

If you claim that the body of bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively, how can the EO adjudge for the Church that the unique role that St. Peter represented among the Apostles has now disappeared among the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles?

Let me put it this way:
The Apostles as a group is equivalent to the body of bishops of the world today.

Among the Apostolic group, Jesus himself adjudged that they would need a singular confirmer and mouthpiece, and this despite their many divine blessings.

Conclusively, the body of bishops today, if it is in line with the commands of Jesus, would have to recognize who among them is their confirmer and mouthpiece.

Now, the EO think they know better than Jesus, and claim that such an office no longer exists? That’s pretty arrogant, don’t you think? You can claim all you want how the Pope is arrogant to the other bishops, but it is the utter height of arrogance to oppose the Church order that Jesus himself established, which the EO have done.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well stated, soundly reasoned!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Wow is that rude!!! Why do you harbor so much anger? Is it because you were Coptic Orthodox? It is not healthy for me to continue this discussion with you–the passion of your insults permeates the internet. I will pray for you.
I have claimed what?!?

YOU are arrogant and angry. YOUR insults are unwelcome. MY discussion with you is finished. May you find true peace.

Slava Isusu Christu!

So let me get this straight - when Catholics who are pro-papacy outline with no misgivings or nuance why they assert that the Church they are members of - in Mark’s case, joined as an adult convert - in an assertive fashion they are angry, rude and need to find peace?

The 8000+ posts you have on here engaged in strongly worded argument for Orthodoxy and why Rome is the one in error… That would be classified how?

Whatever you say voco. :whacky:

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church.
I think there was not the term “pope” for the first 300 years or so–he was known as the bishop of Rome.

Sadly, after the first millenium, Rome separated from the other four Patriarchates.

Calling your pope “the Vicar of Christ” is not analogous to the “Real Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Oh well, at least you guys dropped the title “Vicar of God”.

(that last one a hat-tip to claims fundamentalists make about us that we never make about ourselves. I would tread lightly in accepting their authority on all things anti-Catholic… they feel the same way about Eastern Orthodox in all things besides the papacy if and when they actually know about you folks.)

You guys are all backaward.

The pre-schism Church believed in the Dormition of Our Lady–this is Sacred Tradition and accepted by Holy Orthodoxy. When did Rome begin to allow for the belief that maybe she did not repose?

Oh brother. Round and round we go. :whacky:

Sorry Techno. I see no proof for the strange doctrine of purgatory in the quotes that you provide.

For your edification? You are comical.

Look up “primacy of honour”. The Holy Orthodox Church may be able to explain it to you.

The assertive fashion in which you write about your communion of national churches over and against the Catholic Church and when folks here rise to the occasion of offering clear thoughts on why they share in the faith of 1.1B people, they are angry and need to find peace?

What is good for the goose…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Because St Peter was going to deny him three times!

As has been interpreted for you by Roman Catholic apologetics.

It is all of it Mark. It is in reference to strengthening the others; St Peter’s terrible fall by his triple denial; and his coming back to the faith (through grace, obedience and love ) (John 21)

He knew St Peter was going to deny Him. And He knew that St Peter would not fall into despair as Judas did.
But not as supreme pontiff of the universal Church.
Nope.
Rome separated from the other four Patriarchates. Holy Orthodoxy has a beautiful veneration and feast day for the gloroius Apostles SS Peter and Paul preceded by a two week fast.
I firmly believe that the Apostles as a group represent the standard of truth.
There you go again with your opinions of who is adjudjing standards and such. Sheesh!

Is “adjudged” your new favorite word?

When the Apostles went out into the world, St Peter was a mouthpiece–not a supreme ruler. In the early Church, the Ecumenical councils were the mouthpiece. Not until the ultramontanes of the post schism Latin Church did the Pope begin to have the authority to declare dogma apart from an Ecumenical council. This was finalized by the unfortunate definition in 1870 by Pius IX.
Wow is that rude!!! Why do you harbor so much anger? Is it because you were Coptic Orthodox? It is not healthy for me to continue this discussion with you–the passion of your insults permeates the internet. I will pray for you.
I have claimed what?!?

YOU are arrogant and angry. YOUR insults are unwelcome. MY discussion with you is finished. May you find true peace.

Slava Isusu Christu!

You sure seem touchy. I don’t know why you would be so upset over what I wrote. You stated that the Catholic Church separated from Holy Orthodoxy. But I’m not going to throw a fit over it. I know that is what you believe. It is my duty to attempt to demonstrate to you that you are wrong (and vice-versa). You need to relax. I did not experience a whit of anger when I wrote what I did. It is simply - to me - the logical conclusion of the EO position. Instead of ending the dialogue (which you can if you want to), try to demonstrate to me where my logic has gone wrong.

BTW, where did Jesus establish the Ecumenical Council as the mouthpiece of the body of bishops? Where did Jesus say that the Council would be the mouthpeice of the Apostles? Why did God himself appear SINGULARLY TO PETER to instruct the Church that the Gentiles should be received into the Church? Why didn’t God appear and give that instruction in the presence of the other Apostles? The Catholic Church is just following the example of Scripture and the early Church, Mickey. Besides, even with an Ecumenical Council, the practice of the early Church was that there was a bishop who confirmed the proceedings - this was the bishop of Rome. Everyone recognized in the early Church that the special grace given to St. Peter to be the confirmer of the Faith of the brethren was passed down to the bishop of Rome.

I don’t mind if you don’t respond. What I write is for the benefit of those who are willing to dialogue.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I apologize if you feel insulted, but at the same time I would advise you not to take things too personally.

P.P.S. As a matter of fact, when I was Coptic Orthodox, I was always miffed whenever Eastern Orthodox would try to impose their understanding of Tradition on me or my fellow Copts. I don’t have that anger anymore because in the Catholic Church, there is an unspoken rule that we (east, Orient and West) don’t go around trying to tell each other who is wrong. We try to UNDERSTAND the differences and accept them.

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yes, he did, and that is my point exactly. Jesus prayed for ALL the Apostles to be strengthened, knowing that they would all fail him, but it was ONLY to Peter that he gave instruction to be the confimer of the Faith to his brother Apostles. If you don’t mind reading the Greek of the Luke 22 passage, you will notice that Jesus predicts that ALL the Apostles would be tested, but it is to Peter ALONE that he gives the charge to be the confirmer of the brethren. Luke 22 would have been the perfect opportunity for the Lord to tell Peter that he does not have a special role but that all the Apostles will be confirming each other in the faith. I’m just taking the Lord’s words as is, without adding anything to them.

Absolutely!!! I took a similar approach on another thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3544884&postcount=964

Mardukm:

YOU are claiming that Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter was ONLY in reference to his coming back to the faith. What the text indicates, however, is that Jesus’ prayer that St. Peter’s faith will not fail is in reference to St. Peter’s special role in preserving and spreading the Faith of and among the Apostles.

Yes.

Mardukm:

Also, consider this order of events:

1. Jesus tells him that he will pray especially for him that his faith will not fail.
2. Jesus predicts that his faith will fail him.
3. Jesus gives him the charge to confirm the faith of his brethren.

It is absolutely self-contradictory to claim that Jesus’ prayer for Peter was in reference to him coming back to the faith. Why? Because that would mean that Jesus’ prayer for him WOULD FAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE (if he actually did fall from the faith, which he did momentarily in the courtyard). Thus, Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter MUST BE in reference to what happens afterwards, when Peter’s rock-solid faith would be a foundation for the Church, when indeed he would be the coryphaeus of the Apostles as their confirmer and mouthpiece…

Yes.

There were no suprises here. Jesus told them ALL in advance, that as you said, it was not

• THEM confirming each other,
• or THEM confirming Peter,
• but Peter confirming THEM, i.e. the Church and her leaders.
  forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3688786&postcount=385

Mardukm:

What I am stating is that the EO have adjudged the episcopate to be better than the Apostles because they/you have deemed the office that St. Peter uniquly exercised AMONG the Apostles to have disappeared.

The Lord realized that despite their heavenly graces, the Apostles as a group would still require someone who will be the standard of truth to which they can turn and confirm them in the faith.

In opposition to that, the EO have adjudged that this standard of truth and confirmation among the body of bishops is no longer needed.

Well said

Mardukm:

If you claim that the body of bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively, how can the EO adjudge for the Church that the unique role that St. Peter represented among the Apostles has now disappeared among the bishops who are the successors of the Apostles?

Let me put it this way:
The Apostles as a group is equivalent to the body of bishops of the world today.

Among the Apostolic group, Jesus himself adjudged that they would need a singular confirmer and mouthpiece, and this despite their many divine blessings.

Conclusively, the body of bishops today, if it is in line with the commands of Jesus, would have to recognize who among them is their confirmer and mouthpiece.

As I mentioned on another thread, the patriarchal system introduced by the East in the 4th century, tried to equalize the authority away from the pope and give it to patriarchs of each see. And make the pope a mere 1st among equals.

No pope ever accepted this equalization. (notice what Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict XVI writes)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3568755&postcount=127

Mardukm:

Now, the EO think they know better than Jesus, and claim that such an office no longer exists?

Blessings,
Marduk

As an early example of the primacy of THIS office, DURING apostolic times,

St John is still alive. And Clement, successor to Peter, is settling sedition among bishops in Corinth. Clement writes:

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

Good to see you back.

 

[tqualey]

Good Morning, Steve b,

I would like to thank you for that excellent response.

In reality, I have had no personal contact with any aspect of EO - and all I know of it, I learned about 40 years ago. My only focus has been with those who claim agnostic or athestic beliefs and our separated brothers who have been lead away by blinded reformers. The EO folks are just sort of ‘out there’ somewhere.

Your post has clarified a lot for me - so, thank you, very much.

Have a great day.