B
bengal_fan
Guest
unless we think of Jesus as the priest/king He was and this is His institution of peter as His “prime minister”, then it would take on just such a meaning of “rule”.
- Status
A
Aris
Guest
If this was purely a passage to illustrate the Lord’s love and forgiveness, then why aren’t the other Apostles included. They all ran away except for John. The passage and the verses immediately following it tend to show something more than just love and forgiveness.
Again you would have to take this and compare this with other verses in the Bible and Tradition.
Lastly, you study the Bible based on the guidance of the Church. I guess that’s why we haven’t strayed from the original teachings after 2000 years!
P
prodromos
Guest
As I said before, this view has no patristic support whatsoever. It is something new, an innovation with the sole purpose of trying to provide biblical support for the papal claims of juresdictional supremacy. If Jesus had said “shepherd my people” you might have had an argument, although it would still need to be backed up by patristic consensus, however precisely because Christ uses the word “shepherd” in the context of “sheep” it cannot take on the meaning of “rule”.
P
prodromos
Guest
Only Peter denied knowing Christ, so only Peter needed special treatment as his situation was by far the more serious.
“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in [the] heavens.” (Matt 10:33)
Can you show us where the church taught your version prior to the 7th century?Lastly, you study the Bible based on the guidance of the Church. I guess that’s why we haven’t strayed from the original teachings after 2000 years!
A
Aris
Guest
Ahhh, that “You can not rule sheep” argument.
This seems to be missing the point.
There was already a metaphor of the shepherd and the sheep. The sheep follows the shepherd because they will die without him. If it is agreed that Peter was being assigned by the Lord to be His surrogate shepherd till his second coming, then it becomes immaterial whether rule is applicable to sheep or people.
This seems to be missing the point.
There was already a metaphor of the shepherd and the sheep. The sheep follows the shepherd because they will die without him. If it is agreed that Peter was being assigned by the Lord to be His surrogate shepherd till his second coming, then it becomes immaterial whether rule is applicable to sheep or people.
P
prodromos
Guest
Show us the Church Fathers that support your claims and I will listen.
P
prodromos
Guest
It is not agreed. Peter was being reinstated or restored to his Apostolic ministry. A ministry shared equally by all the apostles.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
except for the fact that peter was given the keys which none of the other apostles were given, therefore he held a different position than the other apostles, that of prime minister or viceroy. it is obvious even in the council at jerusalem in acts that peter spoke for everyone (when he said “we” and the entire assembly stopped to listen). as soon as peter spoke, the situation was settled. augustine, in the 5th century so well before the 7th, said, “rome has spoken, it is settled”. no one really had to write about it until later because no one in the early church questioned peter and his successor’s authority (even paul submitted himself to peter when he was first beginning his ministry).
M
mercygate
Guest
When I was a Protestant, I read Mt. 16:18-19 and found it to be in accord with Catholic teaching. Protestant detractions of it fell logically short of the mark and did not square with other passages such as the one MariaG has brought to this thread, or with Lk. 22:32.
Why should the Church be held to a Protestant standard? Catholic apologists, however, frequently do state the Catholic position on many issues without recourse to extrabiblical resources in order to accommodate the Protestant view.
M
mercygate
Guest
Only those those who reject Our Lord’s choice of Peter as the centerpiece of the Apostolic fraternity disagree. Whatever quarrels one may have with the development of papal authority in history, it is disingenuous to claim that Peter never held a special position among the Apostles – both in Scripture and in the early Church.
M
MariaG
Guest
Hi Matt,
To me, it seems that you have all the Bible verses in front of you. I personally think that the only thing that can help you is the Holy Spirit. I would suggest asking God to show you definitively whether or not the Catholic intrepretation is right or not. If you already have, I would say you ask Him to help your unbelief. Throw yourself at His feet and beg for an explanation and do not leave until you have it.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
To me, it seems that you have all the Bible verses in front of you. I personally think that the only thing that can help you is the Holy Spirit. I would suggest asking God to show you definitively whether or not the Catholic intrepretation is right or not. If you already have, I would say you ask Him to help your unbelief. Throw yourself at His feet and beg for an explanation and do not leave until you have it.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
P
prodromos
Guest
You read far too much into my post mercygate. I was responding specifically to Aris’ post which I believe implied that the shepherding of the church was handed exclusively to Peter. Are you of the opinion that the other Apostles were not also shepherds of the church? I would expect not. Orthodox in no way reject the primacy of Peter. He has always been recognised as the first among equals, never the first over equals and this is borne out by scripture, not the least by Peter himself.
Can anyone provide Patristic support for the interpretation of John 21:15-19 provided in the OP? I don’t think it is appropriate to move on to other passages until this point is addressed. Either accept that it is an innovation or provide evidence to the contrary.
John
M
mercygate
Guest
Point understood and taken, Prodromos. And I appreciate the correction. I believe the OP was citing this passage as having personal persuasive power for herself and asking whether the passage had struck others that way also.
I apologize if my statement appeared to be contentious. I have, however, encountered among Eastern Christians those who reject any idea that Peter ever held any special place among his apostolic brethren. As an Anglican for many years, I very well understand the “first among equals” argument. Moreover, Rome today, with all it’s developed sense of papal primacy, is extremely cautious about exercising Petrine privilege. Gosh! A lot of us wish “Peter” would crack down a little harder on some of his wayward brethren (at least here in the U.S.).
P
p90
Guest
If you’re trying to convince a Protestant, it’s best to either provide evidence that meets the Protestant’s standards or to challenge the way the Protestant views and judges information.
Do you mean they don’t quote early church fathers or scholars to support their positions when in discussion with Protestants? I am not aware of the Protestant view excluding such sources from discussion.
~Matt
P
p90
Guest
Would you think it’s reasonable for me to ask a Catholic to do the same for a Protestant interpretation of the passage?
~Matt
M
mercygate
Guest
And a good-faith Catholic apologist will do just that. My caveat was towards the idea that the Church should consider herself limited by that restruction or that she should give the impression to a non-Catholic that such a position is entirely valid.
We often hear: “Show me where it says X in the Bible – without using any of your man-made Catholic traditions.” While decent, mid-level Protestant apologists are usually above this, run of the mill anti-Catholics frequently impose a Bible-only condition as the sine qua non condition of engagement.
M
MariaG
Guest
As the OP (took me a minute to realize that meant me) I am a revert of 5 years. It wasn’t until 2 months ago I read those verses and saw that they said 3 different things. As a Catholic Christian, it was an awesome thing to see it. Before I had always read feed my sheep 3 times. And it was a personal inspiration to me. And I am still Protestant enough to say and mean it when I say, The Holy Spirit led me to this. Is this official Church Teaching? No clue. It is listed as one of the verses showing the primacy of Peter from CA. So clearly, others with greater minds than mine agree also.
When you read this verse, along with the keys to the kingdom, once again, I see no other way to interpret the primacy of Peter.
Support of the Church Fathers?
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Here are many quotes of the early Church put together by our host CA. Have you read it? Please do. Which one do you disagree as showing the primacy of Peter?
Truly, I just wish to understand anothers point of view.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
When you read this verse, along with the keys to the kingdom, once again, I see no other way to interpret the primacy of Peter.
Support of the Church Fathers?
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Here are many quotes of the early Church put together by our host CA. Have you read it? Please do. Which one do you disagree as showing the primacy of Peter?
Truly, I just wish to understand anothers point of view.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
Actually Matt, I would. I am sorry if I offended you or thought I was in some way disrespecting you or your faith. That was not my intent. I did not get to the Catholic Church through study of Church Fathers. I got here through the leading of the Holy Spirit and personal interpretation of the Bible. So when a Protestant asks me to do that, I can honestly say I have and God led me to the Catholic Church.
It is only through sites like this, study at church, and study at home that I have discovered the Church Fathers and such. I make no apologies or excuses for the fact that I am a Catholic who still likes to find it in the Bible. My saving grace sermon was “Either you believe the Bible 100% or we have nothing else to talk about” These words still guide me today. (2 Thes 2:15 hold fast to tradition oral or by letter is one that as a Catholic Christian I love and thank God for inspiring men to write.)
In fact, when I learn more and more about the Catholic Faith, if I find a point that I don’t agree with, I ask God to show me why it is right. I certainly do research, but ultimately for me it must be a conviction of the Holy Spirit to set things right. I can disagree with the Church as long as I sincerely believe she is right and seek to conform my mind and heart to her teachings. I do that.
Truly, Matt, my heart aches for those who must have all the duck in a row before making such a leap. I am a simple person who God has blessed with a simple faith. I was blessed with a conversion to the Catholic Church truly as simple as the moment God grabbed ahold of my heart in a Nazarene Church. My walk has been led by the Holy Spirit grabbing ahold of my heart and the head catching up later.
So to answer your question again. Yes it is reasonable for me to ask you to ask the Holy Spirit to help your unbelief. In fact, I challenge my own Catholic brothers and sisters to do the same. I sometimes make *some *of my Catholic brethran uncomfortable.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
P
p90
Guest
You didn’t offend me, so there is no need to apologize. Also, thanks for the rest of your post.
~Matt
M
Malachi4U
Guest
Whilst I was attending Baptist Bible studies I was told that this passage was ‘symbolic’ of the three time St. Peter/Kephas denied Jesus.
OK, I’ll admit it, I never stopped to question what the verse really meant for those years in protestant opinions. I just accepted whoevers opinions I listened to that week. It was not until my search for truth that I finally realized that this verse might not be ‘symbolic’ at all. I read it for the first time and saw that it might acctually mean what it ‘literally’ said.
How odd, my Baptist Bible study took the Bible as only ‘symbolic’ while my Catholic study of Sacred Scripture took it as ‘literal’. Who’d a ever thunk that?
OK, I’ll admit it, I never stopped to question what the verse really meant for those years in protestant opinions. I just accepted whoevers opinions I listened to that week. It was not until my search for truth that I finally realized that this verse might not be ‘symbolic’ at all. I read it for the first time and saw that it might acctually mean what it ‘literally’ said.
How odd, my Baptist Bible study took the Bible as only ‘symbolic’ while my Catholic study of Sacred Scripture took it as ‘literal’. Who’d a ever thunk that?
- Status