Petrine Primacy: Matthew 16:19 and 18:1-5, 20:20-28

[Peter_J]

In all honesty, was this question a test to see our logic to see how we see things or are you asking out of your own self-righteous, the Orthodox Church is RIGHT!, zealousness? I’d like to believe the former, so I will, but, I want to know that I am right in this.

Okay … that’s not offensive.

 

[adstrinity]

Okay … that’s not offensive.

Thank you for pointing out your interpretation of this. It’s an honest question. I’m pretty sure that Isa, in his original post, wanted knowledge, but, it seems like in subsequent posts he just wanted to be right (but, I could be misreading how he wrote). A valid question that he doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to.

In the meantime, for all the Catholics following along on this thread…or anybody else, does the logic I used hold up?

 

[excaliber]

Thank you for pointing out your interpretation of this. It’s an honest question. I’m pretty sure that Isa, in his original post, wanted knowledge, but, it seems like in subsequent posts he just wanted to be right (but, I could be misreading how he wrote). A valid question that he doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to.

In the meantime, for all the Catholics following along on this thread…or anybody else, does the logic I used hold up?

It don’t understand how Jesus could say he was building his church on Peter. Then the Apostles argue over who was the greatest. A 12 year old could understand that building an organization on an individual…makes that individual the leader.

How could the Apostles Not have understood this. This is not something that needs years of development.

 

[Bwsherman]

It don’t understand how Jesus could say he was building his church on Peter. Then the Apostles argue over who was the greatest. A 12 year old could understand that building an organization on an individual…makes that individual the leader.

How could the Apostles Not have understood this. This is not something that needs years of development.

We have the convenience of two thousand years of hindsight. You are assuming much when you think that the disciples should have understood anything. It may have been because our Lord was not ready to reveal the truth yet or maybe it was not misunderstood in the context you think it is. Subsequent Church Fathers help clarify the issue some as with other tenants of the faith.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thank you for pointing out your interpretation of this. It’s an honest question. I’m pretty sure that Isa, in his original post, wanted knowledge, but, it seems like in subsequent posts he just wanted to be right (but, I could be misreading how he wrote). A valid question that he doesn’t have to answer if he doesn’t want to.

In the meantime, for all the Catholics following along on this thread…or anybody else, does the logic I used hold up?

Actually your last sentence is why I posted this thread. I didn’s specify in the OP that is was someone here, in communion with the Vatican, who made the observation. I was struck because I’ve never heard this brought up before, and was curious as to others reactions. Nothing more.

As for being right, I can’t help the Orthodox Church over that.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This pretty much does it for me about Petrine Primacy, that is, that other Apostles were still alive, but, they went out of their way to go to the Petrine Papacy to settle a dispute

when did that happen?

…it shows that clearly, Peter’s Chair has something the others cannot and do not have.

I believe it was Isa who commented that Peter’s name is mentioned so many times because he denied our Lord. I don’t think that adds so significantly to the fact that Peter’s name is listed so many times in the New Testament, but, let’s just, for the sake of arguement, accept this premiss.

Jesus tells Peter, and the rest, that Peter will be the one who will deny him before the next morning. Jesus doesn’t say who will betray him, but, he says Peter, specifically Peter, will deny him. Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him, he doesn’t do this to anybody else. Peter is the one who speaks at the Transfiguration.

All these together = so what? but, included here to illustrate how many times Peter was called as opposed to the rest.

This being said, let us go with Peter is named so many times because he denied Jesus. …He was the proactive one here. He was the one who made the decision TO deny Jesus. The others were with Jesus until the Cross (save Judas and John), but, Peter was the one who, when asked (and note HE was the one who was recognized amongst them all), he denied. He acted. None of theo others were even so great as to be recognized and so they weren’t tested. If one has never made a mistake, then one has never done anything. Peter was the one who did something, the rest just kind of accepted what Jesus said and did. Peter was always one who reacted. St. Peter is so great because he denied Jesus and came back. St. Peter accepted that it is not by him but by God he held that Office, that Office that is the greatest of all.

Furthermore, if one keeps reading, Jesus asks, if they can drink the cup He will? There is a footnote: “10 [22] You do not know what you are asking: the Greek verbs are plural and, with the rest of the verse, indicate that the answer is addressed not to the woman but to her sons. Drink the cup: see the note on Mark 10:38-40. Matthew omits the Marcan “or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized” (Matthew 10:38).” nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew20.htm#foot10

Indeed they do, but, who dies crucified, like Jesus? Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Jude, and Simon. Who was the first to die? James the Greater. Does this mean, because James was first he got prominence in the Kingdom of Heaven? Wont say, but, seems as though Jesus was more concerned about his Kingdom here on Earth giving it to Peter to take care of until He got back.

Furthermore, getting back to the original post the 10 who became indignant also includes Judas. Judas didn’t have the right to a prominent place in the Kingdom of God…and he didn’t get one, but, he was upset at the brothers for asking. Point? If one is going to get technical that nobody knew of Peter being the Supreme, then it can be equally reasoned that nobody knew Judas being the betrayer at this time, but, history shows that Peter is supreme and is the Leader of all of Christ’s Church and Judas is the betrayer. Hind sight is 20/20.

I’m missing your line of reasoning here.

In all honesty, was this question a test to see our logic to see how we see things or are you asking out of your own self-righteous, the Orthodox Church is RIGHT!, zealousness? I’d like to believe the former, so I will, but, I want to know that I am right in this.

Answered above.