M
Mickey
Guest
You and I can also be like St Peter if we confess that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.
Blessings!
- Status
Blessings!
S
steve_b
Guest
Don’t you just love St John!
I wonder what you think he is trying to say in the above quote.
As he said,
“He (Jesus) moderates him(Peter), that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he (Peter) should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he (Peter) might know himself.”
That’s a fair assessment.
S
steve_b
Guest
Sure, but being like someone is not being THEM.
H
Hesychios
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
They succeed Peter.
H
Hesychios
Guest
All bishops succeed Peter.
S
steve_b
Guest
reference please
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
The Pope does succeed St. Peter in an analogous sense. Just as Peter was first among the equal apostles and coordinated their affairs in peace and concord, the Pope is first among the equal bishops and coordinates their affairs in the same spirit of Christian charity. However, it is incorrect to assume that St. Peter held more ontological power (grace) than the other apostles, since the Fathers affirm that St. Peter was singled out to be the representative of the episcopacy/Church and was not raised above the other apostles in grace. He was only their leader in service and as an icon of their oneness. The same applies for the Pope.
God bless,
Adam
S
steve_b
Guest
Analogous?
As an example, Do presidents of the U.S A. succeed each other in an analogous way or a real way?
If one is 1st all are not equal. If all are equal, no one is 1st. With all due respect, It’s a nonsense term.
When Jesus says He prays for you specifically, do you have an advantage?
Let’s see if that’s true.since the Fathers affirm that St. Peter was singled out to be the representative of the episcopacy/Church and was not raised above the other apostles in grace. He was only their leader in service and as an icon of their oneness. The same applies for the Pope.
I’d like to draw your attention to 2 specific incidents. One was at the last supper.
Re: The greatest among the apostles. .
- Lk 22: (at the last supper)
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. … 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (this is plural meaning all of them) as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you,(singular) Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you (singular) have turned back, strengthen (in Greek *sterizo) your brothers.”
*sterizo
1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2) to strengthen, make firm
3) to render constant, confirm, one’s mind
- Jesus affirms that one apostle was the greatest
- Jesus affirms that one of them is to rule
- Does Satan ever really stop sifting? No
Jesus says Peter is the one who will provide stability, strength and consistancy for the others. And since he is to provide this, it presumes all will stay united to Peter, because that is what Jesus prayed for also…
After the resurrection, Jesus AGAIN, in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, and told Peter alone in front of the others that it is Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there which means rule*) [Jn 21:16]** *
P
prodromos
Guest
Still at it with your ‘dictionary’ knowledge of Greek. Why is it that not one of the bible translations I have looked at so far both in English and other languages, translate “poimaino” in this passage as “rule”?
New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
Young’s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Wycliffe New Testament
Douay-Rheims
New Jerusalem
La Nuova Diodati
La Bible du Semeur
Elberfelder
Dios Habla Hoy
Reina-Valera Antigua
Vulgate
Apparently Steve is wiser than all of the translators of those bibles combined
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I used “analogous” because the only ontological succession from St. Peter that the Pope possesses is the Roman episcopacy. All other successions, like that of the primacy, are analogous because they aren’t passed on sacramentally.
Is the patriarchal system, which existed in the East even before the Great Schism, nonsense? It clearly operates on the basis of “first among (ontological) equals” and was embraced by the ancient Church as well suited to the Church and not an exercise in futility.
It shows that you are singled out from among a group. This could signify a superior status, or it could signify that someone is a representative of a larger group of equals. For example, if I had a group of men before me and I wanted to emphasize the oneness of human nature, I could pick one man out of the group and point to him as having one nature, thus showing that despite the multiplicity of equal men, that they all share one nature. In this case, the chosen man becomes a principle/icon of the oneness of human nature. According to the Holy Fathers, especially St. Cyprian of Carthage, Christ singled out St. Peter in order to show forth the unity and oneness of the equality of the apostles.
The theme of these verses end with verse 30, which states that the apostles will sit on (apparently equal) thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Christ’s words to St. Peter, beginning in verse 31, are of a different topic. You shouldn’t conjoin two different Gospel discussions in order to lend the impression that Peter is the greatest, as this is poor biblical exegesis.
I don’t disagree. Practically, Christ strengthened St. Peter in leading the apostles. Doctrinally, all the apostles were given constancy and stability in their apostolic mission, as this was demanded of their work. However, all the successors of the apostles, including the Pope, can lose this constancy in both practical and doctrinal realms as can be seen in history and through the long tradition of papal fallibility in East and West.
After the resurrection, Jesus AGAIN, in front of ALL the apostles, singled out Peter, and told Peter alone in front of the others that it is Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there which means rule*) [Jn 21:16]** *
Once again, I don’t disagree with you. However, St. Augustine interpreted these words in the Gospel of John to refer to Peter being the representative of the Church and the unity of her shepherds:
“What now on this occasion? The Lord questions him, as you herd when the gospel was read, and says to him, Simon son of John, do you love me more than these? He answered and said, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. And again the Lord asked this question, and a third time he asked this question. And every time in reply he affirmed his love, he entrusted him with the care of his flock. Every time, you see, that Peter said I love you, the Lord Jesus said to him, Feed my lambs, feed my sheep (Jn. 21:15-17). the one man Peter represents the unity of all the shepherds or pastors of the Church—but of the good ones, who know how to feed Christ’s flock for Christ, not for themselves” - Sermon 147, 2.
(cont . . .)
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
and
“We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor” - Sermon 229, 1-3.
According to St. Augustine (and also Sts. Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nyssa, the author of the Areopagitica, etc.) St. Peter is the image of the oneness of all the shepherds (bishops) of Christ’s flock. Thus, I don’t think you should interpret the repeated instances of the singling out of St. Peter in the Gospels as being anything more than Peter being singled out as the representative of the Church.
God bless,
Adam
“We all love Christ, you see, we are his members; and when he entrusts the sheep to the shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the body of one shepherd. Just to show you that the whole number of shepherds is reduced to the one body of the one shepherd, certainly Peter’s a shepherd, undoubtedly a pastor; Paul’s a shepherd, yes, clearly a pastor; John’s a shepherd, James a shepherd, Andrew a shepherd, and the other apostles are shepherds. All holy bishops are shepherds, pastors, yes, clearly so. And how can this be true: And there will be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10:16)? Then if there will be one flock and one shepherd is true, the innumerable number of shepherds or pastors must be reduced to the body of the one shepherd or pastor” - Sermon 229, 1-3.
According to St. Augustine (and also Sts. Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nyssa, the author of the Areopagitica, etc.) St. Peter is the image of the oneness of all the shepherds (bishops) of Christ’s flock. Thus, I don’t think you should interpret the repeated instances of the singling out of St. Peter in the Gospels as being anything more than Peter being singled out as the representative of the Church.
God bless,
Adam
S
steve_b
Guest
Do you have trouble with definition?
:console: That’s okay John, I know this bugs you. But the fact is, “poimaino” has the following definition.Why is it that not one of the bible translations I have looked at so far both in English and other languages, translate “poimaino” in this passage as “rule”?
New International Version
New American Standard Bible
Amplified Bible
King James Version
Contemporary English Version
New King James Version
New Century Version
Young’s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Wycliffe New Testament
Douay-Rheims
New Jerusalem
La Nuova Diodati
La Bible du Semeur
Elberfelder
Dios Habla Hoy
Reina-Valera Antigua
Vulgate
Apparently Steve is wiser than all of the translators of those bibles combined
Poimaino
Definition
*]to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
a)to rule, govern
*]of rulers
*]to furnish pasture for food
*]to nourish
*]to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
*]to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
To pick 2 translations off your list. This is how “poimaino” gets translated and the number of times (NT).
Translated Words
KJV
(11) feed, 6; feed cattle, 1; rule, 4;
NAS
(11) - caring, 1; rule, 3; shepherd, 5; tending sheep, 1; tends, 1;
Therefore, when Jesus instructs Peter to poimaino, [Jn 21:16]is rule eliminated? NO!!! It’s part of the job.
S
steve_b
Guest
And what is a sacrament but an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. The papacy was instituted by Christ. Will He give the papacy the grace to complete the job till the end? I’ll bet on it
At the time of Ignatius, c 100 AD, when he writes to Rome, as well as 6 other Churches, in his letters, he says Rome holds the presidency. If there was another presidency, who held it at the time?
Jerusalem was destroyed 30 years prior.
Ignatius is the bishop of Antioch but he doesn’t say he holds it
There was no Constantinople at the time
what about Alexandria?
This is a distinction without a difference. That is NOT what Jesus did for Peter.
What Jesus spends so much time doing for Peter would be alot of nothing if everyone was Peter. Peter had special authority. That’s what so much of this is about.
This is not about the other apostles being less of an apostle than Peter. Which would be untrue
Did this all take place at the last supper? Yes.
Nothing is being disjointed.
the context is they ALL will be sifted by Satan. NO ONE is immune. But who does Jesus say He prays for? All of them? No. He says He prays for Peter so that after Satan has sifted Peter, that Peter is the one who will make right his brothers after THEY have been sifted also.
Do you think this sifting stopped, or will it continue till God calls an end to it?
I certainly think the sifting will continue til God calls the end.
As an aside, no pope in history has ever taught the Church to believe in a truth, that was later found to be heresy.
J
JJR1453
Guest
Hello Adam,
For me, St. Cyprian is a very interesting subject. I’ve talked with a few Orthodox about Cyprian and I must admit; they have had some intersting things to say. Also, I’ve observed all too many Catholic that would jump at the chance to prove Cyprian’s unquestioned loyalty to the papacy. Both, to me, seem like extremes. Perhaps we can start a new thread on St. Cyprian
As for your “example” of St. Peter, I must disagee. Before I go on further; let me pose to you a question: Do you believe Peter to be a figure that is coincidentely chosen, and that other Apostles could have been used interchangably in his place? Also, do you believe the Fathers speak of Peter as a representative of unity, or a source of unity?
Just a few questions so I dont misunderstand your position.
God bless,
JJR
A
Allyson
Guest
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
I would like to know the Orthodox opinion on the Tome of St. Leo. It seems to me that this is a good example of Papal Infallibility. However I don’t see any reason to argue over that as we are not talking about the post Vatican I Church, we are talking about the post Great Schism Churches.
L
LilyM
Guest
‘Three in one’ is fine - three branches in one vine, three people in one family, three parts of man (mind, soul and body), three sides in one triangle. It’s not the same as saying that each of the three individually is precisely the same as the One that forms from their union. And we don’t say Jesus is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, do we?So is “three in one.”
“First among equals”, on the other hand, is actually a literal contradiction in terms. “First” by definition means superior, not equal.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Hmmm. Do you then believe the papal coronation/installation ceremony is a sacrament?And what is a sacrament but an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. The papacy was instituted by Christ. Will He give the papacy the grace to complete the job till the end? I’ll bet on it
I haven’t said that Rome didn’t possess the universal primacy in the ancient Church. She clearly possessed it. My point was that the concept of first among ontologically equal bishops was not nonsense in the early Church because the ancient patriarchal system was built around this concept.
Why do you say that Christ didn’t do this for St. Peter?
Everybody isn’t St. Peter as far as the primacy is concerned. Peter obviously has a unique, analogous successor in the primacy in the person of the Bishop of Rome. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the Pope, like Peter, has a role of service among equals and is not superior to them in grace.
It would be untrue. I would also add that limiting the apostolic gifts of grace (like the keys to the kingdom) to Peter is making the other apostles “less of an apostle” as authority can be exercised in the midst of equal (at least in the area of grace) members, as the patriarchal system of ancient and modern Orthodox Church shows.
I think differently. I’ve never seen these two discourses conjoined before. However, to each his own.
This example of Christ singling out St. Peter for prayers reflects that Peter was the leader of the apostles. Nobody is arguing against this. This promise of prayer for leaders in the Church continues today. And the continuation of this prayer is reflected in the ultimate sense in those who have the chief role of service in the Church, i.e., the holders of universal primacy. I don’t think anybody is arguing against this either. What about these words of Christ prove the uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papacy?
This is rather immaterial, as the tradition of papal fallibility clearly allows for Popes to become heretics. Certainly, the principle is possible, thus rendering application rather meaningless, as something that can happen can always soundly be argued to have happened.
God bless,
Adam
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Good point. If all the Apostles were equal there is no possible way that one could be first and have a Primacy as well. One does not give equals power over the others.
I believe that someone also stated that Galatians proves that St. Peter was not Infallible because of St. Paul’s argument with him. However, St. Peter’s own personal problems have nothing to do as Papal Infallibility and the actions of Popes are not Infallible.
- Status