C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
But Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith wouldn’t fail. He foretold Peter’s weakness to bear witness to that faith. But, despite that, Peter would repent and be able to strengthen the others.
Non-Catholics: Why do you think Jesus prayed for Peter specifically?
- Status
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well in that case, shouldn’t He had prayed for Judas if He was just going to pray for one member based on that?
2
2ndGen
Guest
Or…of course Satan was going to attack the Leader of The Apostles (you know, trying to take the head out) so that The Apostles would scramble (as they all did except John because He was needed to take care of Mary).
Why would Satan go after Peter most?
Not because he was the weakest. Judas was weaker than him. Also, Thomas even “after” he saw the risen Christ doubted him (Peter didn’t).
No…Satan knew who to go for. First Jesus, then Peter. The one who held the Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.
But what did Jesus tell Peter? That the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church built upon rock (I mean Peter…I’m sorry. I keep mixing up my Greek and English).
That means Jesus knew Satan would go for Peter. And he did. But he failed.
Satan went after Peter because Peter was the one who loved Jesus most.
2
2ndGen
Guest
If Peter “wasn’t” the leader of them, why would Jesus assign him to strengthen the others if they were all co-equal?
2
2ndGen
Guest
What about Judas?Kind of. I think Christ knew that Peter would betray Him so he prayed that Peter would be strong enough to resist that temptation. The others were not going to directly betray Christ. So Peter was most in need of strength because he was most likely to fail. In that sense Peter was the weakest of the apostles and it makes sense for Christ to try to strengthen the weakest. I dunno.
Wasn’t he the weakest?
Why didn’t Jesus pray for him?
And when did Peter verbally denying Jesus become worse than literally betraying Him as Judas did?
2
2ndGen
Guest
New name for Peter Haters: Judas Ignorers.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I haven’t claimed any proof-text on the verse, O.S. Luke, so I don’t know to what you are referring. In fact, I have not given my exegesis on the verse at all. I have only asked for others to offer their understanding.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Same thing that crossed my mind…Well in that case, shouldn’t He had prayed for Judas if He was just going to pray for one member based on that?
2
2ndGen
Guest
While it’s open season on Peter,Same thing that crossed my mind…
heaven forbid we should talk bad about Judas…
…Judas seems to be off limits to anti-Catholics.
L
Lev23
Guest
Correct, St.Peter was given the Keys, and he used them for the Jews starting at Pentecost and to the Gentiles starting at Cornelius’s house. St. Peter alone was chosen for this task. This is why Jesus prayed for St.Peter specifically. When God choses a person for a task, so does Satan.
Acts 15:7-
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago ((((God made a choice among you)))) that the Gentiles might hear from ((((my lips)))) the message of the gospel and believe.
((((emphasis mine))))
2
2ndGen
Guest
"Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers…"
I always wondered…do Protestants believe that Peter was only addressing those men that his mother gave birth to since he called them “brothers”?
Or is that term “only” brothers literal only when attacking Mary’s Catholic’s belief on perpetural virginity?
("That depends what the definition of is, “is”.
)Good points Lev.
H
Harpazo
Guest
To affirm Marco Polo’s OP, the Greek version of this verse is as follows:
The phrase in verse 32 “Εγώ δέ εδεήθην περί σου ινα μη εκλήπι η πίστις σου” literally means " I begged for you that not fail the your faith." Clearly, Christ is saying that Peter’s faith will not fail and he will lead the Church on Earth until Christ comes. Granted, that last sentence isn’t in there verbatim, Christ is again promising Peter as He did in St. Matthew 16:18-19.
Many Protestants (and Orthodox, too) are in denial about this, and understandable so. If they were to admit to it, their faith would come crumbling down.
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
In the Greek, the word “υμας” meaning “you” (plural). While “σου” is “you” (singular). It’s very clear that Christ is protecting Peter’s faith here, allowing it not to fail. Why else would Christ do this if the Church was not founded upon him?
The phrase in verse 32 “Εγώ δέ εδεήθην περί σου ινα μη εκλήπι η πίστις σου” literally means " I begged for you that not fail the your faith." Clearly, Christ is saying that Peter’s faith will not fail and he will lead the Church on Earth until Christ comes. Granted, that last sentence isn’t in there verbatim, Christ is again promising Peter as He did in St. Matthew 16:18-19.
Many Protestants (and Orthodox, too) are in denial about this, and understandable so. If they were to admit to it, their faith would come crumbling down.
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
This post apparently never took on Friday, so here it is again…
I am seeing a pattern with regard to Peter’s primacy. To the non-Catholics who say that neither does Luke 22, nor Scripture attest to Peter’s primacy, I’d like to respond with this. John MacArthur, who has said some of the most anti-Catholic things I’ve ever heard, has argued for Peter’s primacy:
*But look at the word there, it says the first Simon who is called Peter. You have to understand the word there… .protos. That’s an interesting word. In this context it means the foremost in rank…The chief of the twelve was Peter. They had to have a leader, and he was their leader. *(Link)
Now I realize that if John MacArthur says something, it doesn’t make it true. But I would at least like to make an appeal. Pay heed to the claim on which opposites agree. At least try to understand why many understand Peter to have had primacy among the apostles.
Anyway, thank you all for your answers. I do not think they are bad answers per se. I do think the non-Catholic explanations I have seen so far contain “holes”. It is all good food for thought anyway.
I am seeing a pattern with regard to Peter’s primacy. To the non-Catholics who say that neither does Luke 22, nor Scripture attest to Peter’s primacy, I’d like to respond with this. John MacArthur, who has said some of the most anti-Catholic things I’ve ever heard, has argued for Peter’s primacy:
*But look at the word there, it says the first Simon who is called Peter. You have to understand the word there… .protos. That’s an interesting word. In this context it means the foremost in rank…The chief of the twelve was Peter. They had to have a leader, and he was their leader. *(Link)
Now I realize that if John MacArthur says something, it doesn’t make it true. But I would at least like to make an appeal. Pay heed to the claim on which opposites agree. At least try to understand why many understand Peter to have had primacy among the apostles.
Anyway, thank you all for your answers. I do not think they are bad answers per se. I do think the non-Catholic explanations I have seen so far contain “holes”. It is all good food for thought anyway.
2
2ndGen
Guest
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.htmlThis post apparently never took on Friday, so here it is again…
I am seeing a pattern with regard to Peter’s primacy. To the non-Catholics who say that neither does Luke 22, nor Scripture attest to Peter’s primacy, I’d like to respond with this. John MacArthur, who has said some of the most anti-Catholic things I’ve ever heard, has argued for Peter’s primacy:
*But look at the word there, it says the first Simon who is called Peter. You have to understand the word there… .protos. That’s an interesting word. In this context it means the foremost in rank…The chief of the twelve was Peter. They had to have a leader, and he was their leader. *(Link)
Now I realize that if John MacArthur says something, it doesn’t make it true. But I would at least like to make an appeal. Pay heed to the claim on which opposites agree. At least try to understand why many understand Peter to have had primacy among the apostles.
Anyway, thank you all for your answers. I do not think they are bad answers per se. I do think the non-Catholic explanations I have seen so far contain “holes”. It is all good food for thought anyway.
S
steve_b
Guest
I’m not following your last points.Not sure why you are asking this but let’s not just use small snippets of scripture to try and make a point. You forgot to add the next few lines.
31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32 But I have pleaded in prayer for you, Simon, that your faith should not fail. So when you have repented and turned to me again, strengthen your brothers.”
33 Peter said, “Lord, I am ready to go to prison with you, and even to die with you.”
34 But Jesus said, “Peter, let me tell you something. Before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me.”
I think Jesus is saying hey you are going to deny me. But then when you repent and come back to me be a source of strength for your brothers. Probably the Apostles.
If you are trying to imply Peter’s primacy here I would ask that you read a sentence or 2 just prior to that:
24 Then they began to argue among themselves about who would be the greatest among them. 25 Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’ 26 But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. 27 Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.
Anyone know what a synonym for Lordship is??
Answer: Primacy.
- Jesus isn’t denying one would be the leader. He says again who the leader will be. Jesus is the one again who identifies Peter as the leader.
- It’s important to note, Peter didn’t make himself the leader. He didn’t lobby for the title, nor was he head because of a vote among the apostles. He didn’t usurp the position later.
- Jesus ended all debate among THEM over this point, AND as an extension, for ALL those who would argue over this point in the future, or deny there is a head apostle, or who selected him as the head. There is no question that Jesus strengthen’s Peter, makes him the leader, and Peter then would strengthen THEM (the apostles and extended to the Church) after THEY fell…
- There is hierarchy here. One special leader is established by God. Which means it (this special leadership of Peter) is divinely ordered, and only over when God says it’s over, not before.
And it is expressly understood from this that since Peter is the one to strengthen the others, it’s a given that the others are to follow Peter. This is primacy, divinely established.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Gosh, all that work I did with translating parts of the Greek passage, and people overlook it! 
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I noticed.Gosh, all that work I did with translating parts of the Greek passage, and people overlook it!
Alaha minokhoun
Andrew
- Status