Peter, the keys and feed my sheep? Help

[MariaG]

In another thread (Hath the church erred?forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12928 ) it was brought up that a common misconception is that Peter was given the authority in Mt 16:18 but the authority was actually conferred in John 21

posted by CANman
I think this is a common misconseption. Jesus did not give Peter the keys here, but later in John 21 when he is told to feed all of Jesus’ sheep… Jesus still had much more time on earth. He is the ultimate key holder. Peter holds them in His absence.

I had been taught (Yes it was in a Protestant Bible study while still Protestant) that the feed my sheeps part was that Peter had denied Christ 3 times, and Christ had to ask the question 3 times to restore him to being an apostle. Proof of this is when it says the apostles and Peter, ie Peter was no longer an apostle.

What is the full Catholic Scoop. It wasn’t until reading CANman, that I realized I may have to clear anything up.

God Bless,
Maria

P.S. I tried to insert a link to the other thread with the tools, but it was a no go. Sorry.

 

[germys9]

MariaG:

In another thread (Hath the church erred?forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12928 ) it was brought up that a common misconception is that Peter was given the authority in Mt 16:18 but the authority was actually conferred in John 21

I had been taught (Yes it was in a Protestant Bible study while still Protestant) that the feed my sheeps part was that Peter had denied Christ 3 times, and Christ had to ask the question 3 times to restore him to being an apostle. Proof of this is when it says the apostles and Peter, ie Peter was no longer an apostle.

What is the full Catholic Scoop. It wasn’t until reading CANman, that I realized I may have to clear anything up.

God Bless,
Maria

P.S. I tried to insert a link to the other thread with the tools, but it was a no go. Sorry.

I think both points are incorrect. First, Peter was given the keys in Mtt. 16. That’s very clear. It is there he is given authority because of the Old Testament symbolism for the keys. Peter was always an apostle, even after he denied the Lord. John, writing his gospel long after Jesus had ascended, puts Peter at the very end of the Gospel. Yes, I would say that Jesus asked Peter if he loved him 3 times for the 3 times Peter denied him. However, I would also say that there is an importance of Peter that John shows at the end of his Gospel. Jesus has one flock and Peter was the head shepard.

 

[Sherlock]

I believe that yes, Jesus asked Peter if he loved him three times for the three times Peter denied him. But obviously Jesus didn’t just ask the question three times and leave it at that—he also added a “mission statement”, and that is significant.

 

[MariaG]

So was he always an apostle or did he lose that only to regain it after the 3 times denial and 3 time affirmation? Are you both agreed that he was always an apostle? If so, why did he have to reaffirm it 3 times after his denial?

 

[Emmaus]

Maria,

Go to these posts from another thread on the question you are asking.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=29719#poststop

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=29727#poststop

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=29732#poststop

 

[MrS]

MariaG:

So was he always an apostle or did he lose that only to regain it after the 3 times denial and 3 time affirmation? Are you both agreed that he was always an apostle? If so, why did he have to reaffirm it 3 times after his denial?

He was always not only an Apostle, but had/has primacy among the apostles.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd… and it is no coincidence that the analogy of shepherd, feeding sheep etc is used as Jesus directs Peter to be the Vicar of Christ.

However, there is more… Jesus did not simply use love… Do you love me…
Rather it was agape. This is the love that one possess only if one is willing to die for you… to follow in your footstep… to pick up the Cross of Christ. Peter’s answer was yes to this kind of love. Powerful stuff.

MrS

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The term Apostle simply means one who is sent.
It is used whenever anyone is sent on a mission.
The real point is that Peter is still one of the twelve.
It is true that Peter denied knowing Jesus, but there is no indication that Jesus ever denied Peter.
In fact, when Jesus prophecied that Peter would deny him, he also prophecied that Peter would return. It was after Peter’s re-turning that he was to “strengthen” his brethren – i.e. the rest of the 12.

See: Lk 22:31-34

It is important to notice that Peter is to strengthen his “brothers” after the three denials. Jesus does not deny Peter his role.

This role shows up in Jewish table rules. The brothers sat around the table from youngest to eldest. Who were, therefore, next to the head of the family. Jesus followed the same pattern, as heir to the throne of David. His was the most honorable seat, with the oldest and youngest next to him.
(Peter and John).

Knowing this helps in John 21 as well.
The reference to sheep in Jn 21 has extra significance since the words used are found in the greek to indicate a progression from lambs to adult sheep. (youngest to oldest).
This may be seen in two ways, Peter is responsible for the entire flock, or Peter is responsible for all of his brothers.
In either event Peter is head of the whole church.
Peter loves Jesus, by tending the entire church.

 

[mercygate]

germys9:

I think both points are incorrect. First, Peter was given the keys in Mtt. 16. That’s very clear. It is there he is given authority because of the Old Testament symbolism for the keys. Peter was always an apostle, even after he denied the Lord. John, writing his gospel long after Jesus had ascended, puts Peter at the very end of the Gospel. Yes, I would say that Jesus asked Peter if he loved him 3 times for the 3 times Peter denied him. However, I would also say that there is an importance of Peter that John shows at the end of his Gospel. Jesus has one flock and Peter was the head shepard.

Hope this is not off-topic but the relationship between Peter and John has always intrigued me. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is the Evangelist who most clearly indicates Jesus’ paradoxical choice of Peter, the disciple who loved Jesus (do you love me, Peter?), as shepherd.

In the epistles of Peter, one senses a deep consonance with the Gospel of John.

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Emmaus
Jesus tells Peter, “**feed my lambs…, tend my sheep…, feed my sheep.”
**He is appointing Peter as the Shepherd of his flock. But he does not address the several other Apostles who are present. It is clear that Peter is to shepherd not only the flock of lambs but also the other sheep. This has been interpreted by some to refer to the laity as lambs, and the clergy as sheep. All including Peter himself are sheep of Christ’s flock with Jesus the ultimate shepherd. But again Jesus is here delegating His authority to Peter to be a shepherd of the flock and the other shepherds.

I never before noticed that the three affirmations came with three **separate **directives. #1 feed my lambs, #2 tend my sheep #3 feed my sheep. I have always “read” feed my lambs, 3 times . I always love it when new meaning of the Scripture comes to my attention (coming from a Bible alone church, I have never lost my desire to “find it in the Bible”).

 

[MariaG]

originaly posted by MrS

He was always not only an Apostle, but had/has primacy among the apostles.

I certainly understand Peter has primacy over the other apostles. Now better than ever, thanks to everyone!, but I guess the teaching of Peter not being an apostle, from his denial until his re-affirmation, makes sense to me. Peter denies Christ 3 times, Peter has to affirm 3 times. Mk 16:7 But go, tell His disciples- and Peter - that He is going… It separates out Peter, not for a leadership capacity, but because he was no longer a disciple.

In another thread, it was also alluded to that Peter had “given up” being an apostle by his denial. And he had to confess/repent an equal number of times to restore it. (And I thought that person was also Catholic.)

So if Peter was/has always been an apostle in Catholic teachings, is there anything more in depth, or do I just need to push aside a false interpretation that has been put on this Scripture?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Kalona]

Maria, in a search for an answer to your question I looked in the Catechism and found #1427-1429. It talks about The Conversion of the Baptized. Our first conversion happens at Baptism. But there is a second conversion:

1428 "Christ’s call to conversion continues to resound in the lives of Christians. This second conversion is an uninterrupted task for the whole church who, “clasping sinners to her bosom, [is] at once holy and always in need of purification, [and] follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” This endeavor of conversion is not just a human work. It is the movement of a “contrite heart,” drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first.

1429 St. Peter’s conversion after he had denied his master three times bears witness to this. Jesus’ look of infinite mercy drew tears of repentance from Peter and, after the Lord’s resurrection, a threefold affirmation of love for him. The second conversion also has a communitarian dimension, as is clear in the Lord’s call to a whole Church: “Repent!” (Rev 2:5, 16)

We constantly need to repent and be forgiven—it’s an ongoing thing. I don’t think that we stop being followers of Christ each time we sin or fail; as sinful human beings we make stupid mistakes and wrong choices, but we recognize the sin, repent and ask for His forgiveness and He is always faithful to forgive us. Peter was just like us, sinning, repenting and being forgiven, even as an apostle and as head of the Church.

Not sure if this helps answer your questions, but thought I’d share it.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mercygate:

Hope this is not off-topic but the relationship between Peter and John has always intrigued me. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” is the Evangelist who most clearly indicates Jesus’ paradoxical choice of Peter, the disciple who loved Jesus (do you love me, Peter?), as shepherd.
.

An intriguing point indeed. Scripture and the patristic writings point to the Primacy of Saint John the Beloved.

Primacy of St John the Divine

pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/primacyofjohn.htm

 

[prodromos]

MrS:

However, there is more… Jesus did not simply use love… Do you love me…
Rather it was agape. This is the love that one possess only if one is willing to die for you… to follow in your footstep… to pick up the Cross of Christ. Peter’s answer was yes to this kind of love. Powerful stuff.

Actually Peter’s answer was not “yes”. Peter responded with “filio” instead of “agape”.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Kalona

We constantly need to repent and be forgiven—it’s an ongoing thing. I don’t think that we stop being followers of Christ each time we sin or fail; as sinful human beings we make stupid mistakes and wrong choices, but we recognize the sin, repent and ask for His forgiveness and He is always faithful to forgive us. Peter was just like us, sinning, repenting and being forgiven, even as an apostle and as head of the Church.

Not sure if this helps answer your questions, but thought I’d share it.

Makes complete sense and helps to answer my questions. Thank you. As a person who frequently runs to my Catechism to get the real Catholic scoop, I honestly did not even think of doing it over this question Maybe there were others out there who needed this infor too?!

I think part of my confusion comes from where a big chunk of my Bible learning came from. In the fundmentalist groups I was in, someone who sinned was backslidden, with the understanding that due to the sin, they were no longer a follower of Christ. The Scripture on Peter, therefore, followed this line of thinking. Thanks for helping me to clear this up.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Kalona]

Maria, I’m happy if my answer was helpful to you. It helps me when people post questions likes yours, because I’m still seeking and learning, too. Thanks for your kind response.