Papal Supremacy

[steve_b]

Hmmm I never saw an approach of Luke 22 that way (Luke 22:24-34). I find it unique that Satan demands to have Peter only (no mention of the other apostles) so that he can sift him like wheat. [snip]

Jacob,

I probably wasn’t clear enough on that. The Greek for “you” in that passage, is in the plural the 1st time and singular the 2nd time.

iow Jesus

• tells Peter directly in front of the others, Satan has been permitted to sift all of them like wheat
• During the sifting, Jesus prays especially for Peter (singular) so that his faith never fails
• After the sifting, and Peter regains himself after he has been sifted, it’s Peter to strengthen the apostles after they have been sifted

Bottomline, Again, Jesus is singeling out Peter for his role. Jesus validates “one” of them (Peter) will be the greatest among all of them ending their argument. A lousy time for them to get in an argument…true? Right after receiving the Eucharist? But satan is sifting.

Notice the words Jesus used in my previous post, and the definition of those words. Peter is to “rule and strengthen”
J:

Because, if you want to destroy the Church (which of course will never happen), you start from the Head. Afterwards Jesus only speaks about praying for Peter…

I would suggest Satan started sifting Peter at Ceserea Philippi when Jesus gave Peter the keys and told Peter He would build His Church on him. Peter didn’t want to hear that Jesus was going to die, that’s why Jesus said, “get behind me Satan”
J:

Then Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren (after his fall). This is related with John 21. Just a bit later (Luke 54-62) Peter denies Jesus 3 times. But after his resurrection, the 3 denials are somewhat annulled when Jesus asks: Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” The word “these” refers to the other apostles. And we know Peter answers he loves our Lord 3 times, and for each time Jesus says “Feed my sheep/lambs”.

Yeah, Bottomline, no one was surprised when Peter denied Jesus except Peter. Jesus told Peter in advance what he would do. And Jesus told Peter in front of all the others so they knew it too.

In Jn 21, Jesus uses [poimaino = rule] the 2nd time, rule/tend my sheep.
J:

Something unique which Jesus didn’t say to an other apostle. Here Jesus is leaving Peter as the Shepherd of the Whole Church. Because it is the Shepherd that feeds the lambs/sheep. Feeding them is a way of “strengthening them”. And the sheep follow the Shepherd. Of course Jesus is the good Shepherd (John 10:11) who lays down his life for the sheep. But Jesus makes Peter also shepherd of the visible Church by saying “Feed my sheep”. In the same way, Jesus is Rock, and makes Peter the Rock (Matt 16:18). Because there must be a visible authority. According to my interpretation, if we see Genesis 49:24, Jacob called his Lord “Shepherd and Rock”. So if Peter is Shepherd, Matt 16:18 is certainly referring to Peter as Rock (or else the name change wouldn’t make sense). The sheep are of Jesus (Feed my sheep he says), but they are entrusted to Peter.

Feed & rule.
J:

All this is my interpretation, hopefully in accord with the Catholic Church.

I just think that this language we find applied to Peter, is quite meaningless without papacy. If papacy was a lie (in the sense that it is an invention by the RCC), id see this language quite irrelevant. It just wouldn’t make sense to me…

It is possible then, that Jesus is talking of Peter in Luke 22:24-30 knowing that a bit after he says: “behold, Satan has demanded to sift you…”

After Jesus told Peter “Feed my Sheep/Lamb” he then spoke to him about how he was going to die. This of course, in Rome. I think its all related.

Yes it’s all related. As were the keys only mentioned being given to Peter.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

While I could never offer anything close to the level of scholarship associated with many of the posts in this thread (and countless thousands of others on this same and other related, popular subjects over which Catholics and non-Catholics differ), I am amazed by the amount of Scriptural reference associated with many posts.

So much for the theory that Catholics pay no attention to Scripture (which I’ve read here on CAF in general several times in the last few visits)!

Keep up the good and learned debate, always with great charity and mutual respect, of course!

 

[mardukm]

While I could never offer anything close to the level of scholarship associated with many of the posts in this thread (and countless thousands of others on this same and other related, popular subjects over which Catholics and non-Catholics differ), I am amazed by the amount of Scriptural reference associated with many posts.

So much for the theory that Catholics pay no attention to Scripture (which I’ve read here on CAF in general several times in the last few visits)!

Keep up the good and learned debate, always with great charity and mutual respect, of course!

I think it’s ironic that someone can only focus on the concept of “ruling” immediately after our Lord says that “serving” is more important than “ruling.”

For all the exegesis on the plural/singular “you” in verses 31 and 32, there is a conspicuous absence of exegeting the “you” in verses 28 and 29. Here, our Lord is giving the Kingdom to ALL the Apostles. There is to be a co-rulership, and St. Peter’s role is to strengthen and confirm the brethren as their head.

This is the High Petrine standard of collegiality from the Scriptures, not the one-man-show monarchy of the Absolutist Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jacob50]

Dear brother Jacob,

Thank you for your patience.

Before giving advice, I want to repost the following statement I made from another thread on the papacy a few months ago so you can better understand my point of view:

The thread in which I stated the above is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599730

Please take the time to read posts #1 - 4 and #53 - 57 in that thread.

That said:
(1) Avoid utilizing the term “supremacy” when addressing EASTERN (i.e., Byzantine) apostolic Christians - utilize the term "primacy." The term “supremacy” is really foreign to the Eastern Byzantine Tradition as far as ecclesiology is concerned - it is something very different from “primacy.” The Oriental Tradition, on the other hand, utilizes the term “supreme” of its head bishops regularly - it is practically identical to “primacy” since the term “supreme” in the Oriental Tradition is ALWAYS taken in the context of collegiality (if you have time, try to familiarize yourself with the families of Churches that constitute the Eastern Orthodox Churches as distinct from the Oriental Orthodox Churches). Whenever you use the term “supremacy” or “supreme” in discussing matters of the papacy with an EASTERN apostolic Christian. he/she will almost surely assume you are presenting the Pope as an absolute monarch whose mere will overrides any other consideration. Even if you try to deny that, the fact that you even use that term "supreme will foil all your efforts at explanation - you are speaking with “forked tongue” if, despite all your explanation that you don’t intend to present the Pope as an absolute monarch, you are still using “supreme” in your language.

NOTE: Absolutist Petrine advocates who really seem not too concerned about unity with our Orthodox brethren love to flaunt that term “supremacy.” They really don’t care if the term has connotations of absolute control to Eastern apostolic Christians because that really is the manner in which they want to present the papacy.

(2) Before launching into a defense of the papacy, be MORE ready to acknowledge the points of agreement first. For example, in your discussion on Acts 15, you should have acknowledged first that you recongize that St. James was indeed the bishop of the Jerusalem Church, and thus its head. Presenting your immediate argument in support of papal primacy/supremacy is an indication that you are denying this. By using this method, not only are you establishing common ground, but you can show that the claims of the non-Catholic really do nothing to diminish the Catholic position.

Another example is post #68 in this thread. Our Orthodox brother Dcointin proferred:
“The difference is that I haven’t yet seen it demonstrated that the Pope is the bishop of all churches.”
Did you read the response of 1AugustSon7? It was completely inappropriate. The only proper response should have been agreement with brother Dcointin, because the Catholic Church NOWHERE teaches that the Pope is “the bishop of all Churches.”

CONTINUED

Reading what you posted could we then say that:

1- The Catholic Church holds to the High Petrine view
2- The Orthodox hold to the Low Petrine view
3- And I guess neither hold to the Absolutist Petrine position?

 

[Jacob50]

Jacob,

I probably wasn’t clear enough on that. The Greek for “you” in that passage, is in the plural the 1st time and singular the 2nd time.

Ooh I see. Ok, so then when Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat…",

Even though he says at the beginning “Simon, Simon” he isn’t referring only to Peter in his next statement, but to all the apostles. Because the Greek “you” is plural and refers to all of them. He is simply speaking to “Simon, Simon” and telling him (while all the other apostles were listening I’m sure) that Satan demanded to sift them all like wheat.

But then he says:

"but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

The next “You” in Greek is singular (so hes referring to Peter here). Still one has to ask himself. If Satan demanded to sift all of them, And if all the apostles were present when Jesus said this, why would Jesus tell Peter only “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”. Why would he only pray for Peter? Why not for all of them?

Again something unique for Peter.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jacob,

Reading what you posted could we then say that:

1- The Catholic Church holds to the High Petrine view

OFFICIALLY. However, it must be admitted that there are many who POPULARLY adhere to the Absolutist Petrine view. The High Petrine view is the OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church according to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 and the teaching of Vatican 2. The Absolutist Petrine view is a POPULAR INTERPRETATION of the Vatican 1 decrees. There is actually a historic name for the Absolutist Petrine view, NEO-ULTRAMONTANISM. It was first popularized by an English author only several decades before Vatican 1. It was officially repudiated at Vatican 1 by two additions to the original text of V1’s Pastor Aeternus: (1) paragraph 3 of Chapter 3 on the Primacy (“The power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction of the bishops…”) ; (2) the historic Proem of the section on Infallibility (which asserted that according to Sacred Tradition “papal infallibility” is only exercised as a response to the request of the episcopate, and that the Pope is himself bound by Sacred Tradition). However, as a result of the liturgical mess that ensued due to individualistic misinterpretations of the decrees of Vatican 2, and despite the clear collegial (i.e. High Petrine) teachings of Vatican 2, there was a resurgence of neo-ultramontanism within the Latin Catholic Church as the best hope of re-establishing liturgical order in the Church.

2- The Orthodox hold to the Low Petrine view

Actually, many Orthodox also hold to the High Petrine view. You need to understand this when engaging our Orthodox brethren in discussions. You will find that many Orthodox are really only objecting to the Absolutist Petrine (mis)interpretations of Catholic teachings. For example, Absolutist Petrine advocates are very fond of flaunting the fact that only St. Peter was given the keys by Christ. But Catholic Tradition holds that just as much as the keys were given to Peter, these keys were undoubtedly SHARED by Peter with the rest of the Apostles. Whereas Absolutist Petrine advocates focus exclusively on the GIVING of the keys in their support for an absolute papal monarchy, High Petrine advocates focus EQUALLY on the SHARING of the keys with the rest of the Apostles, which partly forms the basis for the Catholic principle of collegiality (btw, no less an authority than Pope St. Leo the Great explicitly taught that the keys were shared by St. Peter with the rest of the Apostles). You will find that many Orthodox will be in agreement with you if you yourself can admit that the keys were SHARED with the other Apostles.

3- And I guess neither hold to the Absolutist Petrine position?

As noted, the Absolutist Petrine view is held by many Latin Catholics, and also the SSPX.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jacob,

Ooh I see. Ok, so then when Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat…",

Even though he says at the beginning “Simon, Simon” he isn’t referring only to Peter in his next statement, but to all the apostles. Because the Greek “you” is plural and refers to all of them. He is simply speaking to “Simon, Simon” and telling him (while all the other apostles were listening I’m sure) that Satan demanded to sift them all like wheat.

But then he says:

"but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

The next “You” in Greek is singular (so hes referring to Peter here). Still one has to ask himself. If Satan demanded to sift all of them, And if all the apostles were present when Jesus said this, why would Jesus tell Peter only “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”. Why would he only pray for Peter? Why not for all of them?

Again something unique for Peter.

This is St. Peter’s divinely appointed responsibility (to strengthen and confirm the brethren), which was handed down in the Apostolic Succession to the bishops of Rome.

But remember the entire context - Jesus had JUST exhorted them that (1) it is better to serve than to rule, and (2) he was giving ALL of them the Kingdom. The role given to St. Peter (and to the Popes) as confirmer of the brethren is one of service first and foremost.

Would you agree with that?

Another set of verses that is often overlooked by Catholic apologetics is Matthew 24:45ff. It is where Jesus states “Who is the servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” It is by all accounts an exhortation given in the same set of sermons as the Luke 22 verses and is complementary to the intentions of the Lucan passages. St. John Chrysostom specifically and exlicitly applied the Matthew 24 verses to St. Peter and his successors.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Reading what you posted could we then say that:

1- The Catholic Church holds to the High Petrine view
2- The Orthodox hold to the Low Petrine view
3- And I guess neither hold to the Absolutist Petrine position?

Those terms are one persons creation on this forum, as are their definitions.

This is the primary document, that defines the Church view.

Lumen Gentium
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

if you like searching for terms, “pope” is used 7 times and “pontiff” is used 30+ times. “supreme” is used 35 times in a variety of ways etc etc.

for quick reference, to the subject at hand scroll down to
**CHAPTER III **
**ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH **
**AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE **

covered in paragraphs 18-29

Also, scroll down the page for various definitions & explanations in the following section

*APPENDIX **
From the Acts of the Council
***‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL ***
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964

and
***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***

 

[steve_b]

Ooh I see. Ok, so then when Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat…",

Even though he says at the beginning “Simon, Simon” he isn’t referring only to Peter in his next statement, but to all the apostles.

J:

Because the Greek “you” is plural and refers to all of them. He is simply speaking to “Simon, Simon” and telling him (while all the other apostles were listening I’m sure) that Satan demanded to sift them all like wheat.

J:

But then he says:

"but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

The next “You” in Greek is singular (so hes referring to Peter here).

J:

Still one has to ask himself. If Satan demanded to sift all of them, And if all the apostles were present when Jesus said this, why would Jesus tell Peter only “But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”. Why would he only pray for Peter? Why not for all of them?

Again something unique for Peter.

One might be tempted to think the apostles were a little slow on the uptake. For 3 years they’ve been with Jesus, and for 3 years they’ve witnessed Jesus constantly single Peter out as His main guy.

• Jesus preaches from Peter’s boat.
• Jesus askes Peter to pay the tax for he and Jesus.
• Jesus changes Peter’s name to Rock.
• Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
• etc etc etc.

So after 3 years of being taught by God incarnate, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, why did the apostles get in an argument over who is greatest among THEM, at the last supper of all places? It’s like they just threw 3 years of teaching right out the window. Satan has been already sifting them. And it shows how powerful that sifting can be. Jesus saw Satan in the room with them. Satan already entered Judas that evening. Satan has been tagging along for the last 3 years. He was sifting Peter already at Ceserea Philippi. So Jesus settled their argument that night. Jesus connected the dots for them. He told them what satan was allowed to do, and that Peter is the “one” who is the greatest among the apostles. Jesus never said “one” of them wouldn’t be greatest. He confirms “one” would be greatest. And Jesus prayer for Peter will be answered.

:coffeeread: And people are still arguing about this 2000 years later. Why? Because Satan is sifting like crazy. And he has pleanty of participants cooperating with him to keep the argument going…true?

 

[Jacob50]

Dear brother Jacob,

This is St. Peter’s divinely appointed responsibility (to strengthen and confirm the brethren), which was handed down in the Apostolic Succession to the bishops of Rome.

But remember the entire context - Jesus had JUST exhorted them that (1) it is better to serve than to rule, and (2) he was giving ALL of them the Kingdom. The role given to St. Peter (and to the Popes) as confirmer of the brethren is one of service first and foremost.

Would you agree with that?

Agreed.

Another set of verses that is often overlooked by Catholic apologetics is Matthew 24:45ff. It is where Jesus states “Who is the servant whom the Master will set over his household to feed it when he leaves?” It is by all accounts an exhortation given in the same set of sermons as the Luke 22 verses and is complementary to the intentions of the Lucan passages. St. John Chrysostom specifically and exlicitly applied the Matthew 24 verses to St. Peter and his successors.

Blessings,
Marduk

Indeed.

 

[Jacob50]

Those terms are one persons creation on this forum, as are their definitions.

This is the primary document, that defines the Church view.

Lumen Gentium
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

if you like searching for terms, “pope” is used 7 times and “pontiff” is used 30+ times. “supreme” is used 35 times in a variety of ways etc etc.

for quick reference, to the subject at hand scroll down to
**CHAPTER III **
**ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH **
**AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE **

covered in paragraphs 18-29

Also, scroll down the page for various definitions & explanations in the following section

*APPENDIX **
From the Acts of the Council
***‘NOTIFICATIONES’ GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL ***
OF THE COUNCIL AT THE 123rd GENERAL CONGREGATION,
NOVEMBER 16, 1964

and
***Preliminary Note of Explanation ***

Thx for the info

 

[Jacob50]

One might be tempted to think the apostles were a little slow on the uptake. For 3 years they’ve been with Jesus, and for 3 years they’ve witnessed Jesus constantly single Peter out as His main guy.

• Jesus preaches from Peter’s boat.
• Jesus askes Peter to pay the tax for he and Jesus.
• Jesus changes Peter’s name to Rock.
• Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
• etc etc etc.

So after 3 years of being taught by God incarnate, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, why did the apostles get in an argument over who is greatest among THEM, at the last supper of all places? It’s like they just threw 3 years of teaching right out the window. Satan has been already sifting them. And it shows how powerful that sifting can be. Jesus saw Satan in the room with them. Satan already entered Judas that evening. Satan has been tagging along for the last 3 years. He was sifting Peter already at Ceserea Philippi. So Jesus settled their argument that night. Jesus connected the dots for them. He told them what satan was allowed to do, and that Peter is the “one” who is the greatest among the apostles. Jesus never said “one” of them wouldn’t be greatest. He confirms “one” would be greatest. And Jesus prayer for Peter will be answered.

:coffeeread: And people are still arguing about this 2000 years later. Why? Because Satan is sifting like crazy. And he has pleanty of participants cooperating with him to keep the argument going…true?

True.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

But this is all a presentation on papal authority from a decidedly Latin ecclesiological viewpoint. It contributes nothing to our understanding of primacy from the Eastern Christian POV and, frankly, I find that these Latin posts should be removed from here and relegated to another thread.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alex,

So very well said, and very true.

Would I be correct to understand the intent of your statement to be “The idea that the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time in its current form at the time of St. Clement is simply ahistorical?” The difference is that I took out the term “and” in your original statement. I can agree with your statement 100% without the “and.” With the conjunction, it seems you are implying that the first clause (“the Petrine Ministry of the Pope was established for all time”) can be taken on its own as “ahistorical.”

Agreed. Of course, as you know, I am one who believes that the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy is God-ordained. The debate and realignment applies only to the (1) interpretation of that dogmatic teaching (there is still way too much of an Absolutist Petrine current in the minds of too many Catholics ) and (2) its canonical application (our canons still reflect a siege mentality on the part of the papacy, though this one can’t really be helped given the state of schism with our Orthodox brethren).

Blessings,
Marduk

I agree that the “and” should be removed sir!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alex,

Here’s the sequence.

Ignatios said
Originally Posted by I
*Easy??? Is that why the RCC been trying to assert this for well over a millennium and every time they try a schism happens should I remind you that one of the reasons that the schism happens because of this assertion not to mention the schisms that took place prior to this one. *

I responded to Ignatios

The chair of Peter is still here and 1.3 B people are in communion with Peter’s successor.
Those that broke away from the chair of Peter… Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc . … how are they doing today?

A bit different than you state it,…agreed?

You misrepresent what I said, and somehow I’m at fault?

So I’m not allowed a view? Who says Ignatios is correct? You act as if we’re trying to invent the papacy that has never existed from the beginning, and if somehow I don’t accept an opposing perspective, I’m not allowed to express it? And if I do the cards have been tampered with in my favor?

We’re talking about 2000 years of history here. So far only the first 180 years are being discussed. A pattern is being laid out. A sequence of events is being presented and discussed. We know where it is going, but there is still the origin to examine.

Did I jump to all the schism activity? No.Who is doing the accusing? Ignatios brought that up.

Not the topic

Not the topic.

Are you somehow upset with quotes from Clement’s letter to the Corinthians that I posted ~90’s a.d.? I think it was around post 80

Those quotes are on topic.

My question in response to Ignatios was, how is Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople Jerusalem ……doing?

Dear Steve,

I am not upset with St Clement (who is a founding Father of the Church of Kyiv and Ukraine/Crimea for starters).

As for not being on topic, my topic was an attempt to respond to what you had said about Orthodoxy. I’m not against discussion, but I do think we need to have a greater ecumenical breadth that is, after all, in keeping with the spirit of ecumenism as evinced by Rome today. (It shouldn’t matter to us, as Catholics, about who said what - we are to act and speak as Catholics in the spirit of current Roman ecumenical teaching - no?).

To me, what you said suggested that Rome was somehow more successful and the Eastern patriarchates less so for having “broken communion with” Rome.

If I am correct in assessing the intent of your words, then my response stands.

If I am not correct, then I apologise and withdraw my response.

I’ll let you decide on this since they are your words and they have to do with what you intended to say.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Dear Steve,
I am not upset with St Clement (who is a founding Father of the Church of Kyiv and Ukraine/Crimea for starters).

The Clement I quoted, is Bp of Rome, ~90’s a.d.
A:

As for not being on topic, my topic was an attempt to respond to what you had said about Orthodoxy. I’m not against discussion, but I do think we need to have a greater ecumenical breadth that is, after all, in keeping with the spirit of ecumenism as evinced by Rome today. (It shouldn’t matter to us, as Catholics, about who said what - we are to act and speak as Catholics in the spirit of current Roman ecumenical teaching - no?).
To me, what you said suggested that Rome was somehow more successful and the Eastern patriarchates less so for having “broken communion with” Rome.
If I am correct in assessing the intent of your words, then my response stands.
If I am not correct, then I apologise and withdraw my response.
I’ll let you decide on this since they are your words and they have to do with what you intended to say.
Alex

You didn’t understand the exchange.

Ignatios said

Easy??? Is that why the RCC been trying to assert this for well over a millennium and every time they try, a schism happens should I remind you that one of the reasons that the schism happens because of this assertion not to mention the schisms that took place prior to this one.

You can see that Ignatios is blaming the RCC for all the schisms. Really? Because of asserting the perogatives of the papacy?

So here was my response to Ignatios for that comment he made… certainly taking into account the last 2 "milleniums "

*The chair of Peter is still here and 1.3 B people are in communion with Peter’s successor. *
Those that broke away from the chair of Peter… Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc etc . … how are they doing today?

I merely put the ball back in Ignatios court. Did I make any accusations about Orthodoxy? No. Now go back and look at my 25 posts so far on this thread. Have I made any accusations against Orthodoxy? No. I have spent the entire effort defending the papacy which is the subject of the thread.

 

[dcointin]

One might be tempted to think the apostles were a little slow on the uptake. For 3 years they’ve been with Jesus, and for 3 years they’ve witnessed Jesus constantly single Peter out as His main guy.

• Jesus preaches from Peter’s boat.
• Jesus askes Peter to pay the tax for he and Jesus.
• Jesus changes Peter’s name to Rock.
• Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
• etc etc etc.

So after 3 years of being taught by God incarnate, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, why did the apostles get in an argument over who is greatest among THEM, at the last supper of all places? It’s like they just threw 3 years of teaching right out the window. Satan has been already sifting them. And it shows how powerful that sifting can be. Jesus saw Satan in the room with them. Satan already entered Judas that evening. Satan has been tagging along for the last 3 years. He was sifting Peter already at Ceserea Philippi. So Jesus settled their argument that night. Jesus connected the dots for them. He told them what satan was allowed to do, and that Peter is the “one” who is the greatest among the apostles. Jesus never said “one” of them wouldn’t be greatest. He confirms “one” would be greatest. And Jesus prayer for Peter will be answered.

:coffeeread: And people are still arguing about this 2000 years later. Why? Because Satan is sifting like crazy. And he has pleanty of participants cooperating with him to keep the argument going…true?

Explain again how Jesus is actually saying in that passage that Peter is the greatest among them.

 

[steve_b]

Explain again how Jesus is actually saying in that passage that Peter is the greatest among them.

Do you agree that Jesus is saying one of them is the greatest? Who is the only apostle Jesus mentions next by name? Peter.

24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules(ἡγέομαι hēgeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you(singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

ἡγέομαι hēgeomai(Jesus is referring to Simon)

definition

1. to lead
   a) to go before
   b) to be a leader
2. to rule, command
3. to have authority over
4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel,

Sterizo ( Simon is )

1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix the apostles
2. to strengthen, make firm the other apostles
3. to render constant, confirm, the apostles

That’s how Jesus ended their argument.

It goes with the keys Jesus gave Peter

Besides serve, he is to also rule, command, have authority over, controlling in council, etc.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

Ironically, immediately after informing you that I hardly spend any time in the Traditional Catholic Forum, I was invited by a poster to engage in a discussion on Collegiality in the Traditional Catholic Forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=650806

I would like to invite anyone who is interested to peruse the thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Explain again how Jesus is actually saying in that passage that Peter is the greatest among them.

I understand your concerns. I would like to repeat my response in post #103.

Mardukm:

I think it’s ironic that someone can only focus on the concept of “ruling” immediately after our Lord says that “serving” is more important than “ruling.”

For all the exegesis on the plural/singular “you” in verses 31 and 32, there is a conspicuous absence of exegeting the “you” in verses 28 and 29. Here, our Lord is giving the Kingdom to ALL the Apostles. There is to be a co-rulership, and St. Peter’s role is to strengthen and confirm the brethren as their head.

This is the High Petrine standard of collegiality from the Scriptures, not the one-man-show monarchy of the Absolutist Petrine view.

I would also like to repeat a statement I made in the thread from the Traditional Catholic Forum that I referenced in my prior post:

Each bishop is fully a representative of Christ as well. A bishop has no equal in his diocese and his word is law (in accord with Sacred Tradition, of course). A bishop indeed rules monarchially. If this were comparably true of the Pope on the universal level, then he should have the authority to interfere in the affairs of any diocese at any time (in accord with Sacred Tradition, of course). But V1 says that is not within his power to do (“BY NO MEANS stands in the way of the ordinary and immediate jurisdiction of other bishops”). Whatever type of authority the Pope possesses, it is not monarchial because it must NECESSARILY respect the authority of his brother orthodox bishops. We can call it primatial or presidential, but monarchial would be the wrong word to describe it.

A monarchy is rule by ONE. But the Catholic Church is a co-rulership with one having the primacy. Do you see the difference?

When I made this very last statement, I had the CONTEXTUAL understanding of the Luke 22 verses specifically in mind (i.e., verses 28 and 29 taken WITH verses 30 and 31, not 30 and 31 taken on their own).

Blessings,
Marduk