www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Roman Catholic Church is not the One True Church

??

I would assume it was singlar - he was talking to one man - Peter. We use the singular when we talk to one person. We use the plural when we talk to a group. The singual here is appropraiate and not unusual or odd so as to make it special.

But from where comes the assumption that only Peter should help his fellow bishops and no other bishop should help another bishop? Just - Peter ... ??

Should they not stregthen each other ('love one another') and Peter was incapable of doing that until after his conversion. He left to go back to fishing. The others had to bring him back )stregthn him). So it seems to me that the Lord was advising him to do (later) what he failed to do so far. This is not a special assignment.

Inconclusive.

-ray

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/ajalat_primacy_episcopacy.htm

A good example of Orthodox perspective.

-ray

Ray,

What Highlander is referring to is:

"Simon, Simon, Satan has demanded to sift you'all like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, and thou, when thou hast returned, strengthen they brethren."

All the apostles will be tempted; Simon's special task is to strengthen them.

Best,
Michael

Right Michael, thanks for pointing that out. Really.

But listen� cast your mind on the gospels and especially on Peter � no one goofed up more than Peter. Peter tried real hard � and that was often his stumbling block. He tried too hard.

Especially read Mark (supposedly Peter�s gospel written by Mark). Get the full picture of Peter. Think about when the tax collectors confronted him and Peter lied - and when Peter returned Jesus was very charitable and apparently knew all about the event - and had Peter go and pull a coin out of a fish and give it to the tax collector - to make Peter right again. Now I do not remember it verbatim � but Jesus covered Peter. Jesus pulled him out of the hole Peter had made for himself.

Peter always needed special help. Special guidance. Extra guidance � personal one on one help.

Why should we take �Satan will tempt you all - but I have prayed for you Peter �� to mean exclusive (no one else) � that Jesus did not pray for any of the others? Certainly he must have (don�t you think?) else they none of them would have survived the crucifixion. John did not flinch for the crucifixion - did he do that on his own?

And so this passage can just as well be in the context that Jesus did pray for them all (and not Peter exclusive) but Peter needed the extra support of being personally told about it. �I prayed for you - Peter� does not assume Jesus prayed for no one else. Why (I ask) do we take it as exclusive??

No offence here Michael .. I am just asking myself some hard questions lately. And our RC assumptions while looking through the �goggles of Infallibility� make me uncomfortable. Are we wearing �goggles of Infallibility� which distort some things in its favor??

I do not know yet. But I suspect yes in some cases.

It is clear that Peter often thought of himself as the leader. But maybe that was only Peter's opinion ... maybe that was something Jesus was trying to disolve. Cutting off the ear ... etc... taking for himself a leading role ... gget behind me Satan ... and a ton more goof ups than the others. But maybe that is exactly why Jesus told him that He simply wanted his human freindship and not super-scarifical love.

"Cool it Peter - you are not special - but you do need personal attention and personal help. Now you help the others like I have helped you."

But why do we assume that "feed my sheep" and "strengthen your brothers" ... is anything more that what all of them were expected to do for each other - but Peter needed the extra face to face time ... and does it not fit the gospel histories that Peter needed special help and attention to get up to speed. That actually would fit the gospel history like a glove ... that Peter needed more coaching than the rest.

Peter goofed up the most - Peter needed special help to keep up. Things were explined more personally to Peter - because Petere need than done ... not because Peter was getting management training but because Peter was alsways scoreing lower than the other class mates. Let us not mistake Christ's extra chairty for the needy as some kind of special election.

-ray

In other words, you say that interpretations are subjective, but the subjective Eastern Orthodox and Protestant interpretation of Pope Gregory's writings is correct while the interpretation of the Roman Church is wrong. Oh yeah, very nice.


I have too, and have not come up with the same conclusions. whose right and whose wrong? What authority should we appeal to to settle this? By the way I wonder where you researched at. Was it from protestant sources? Jack Chick?


I see, a "Roman Catholic" that departs from Tradition and places their modern interpretation above the Fathers, why am I not surprised?



Oh no, I guess they are car keys then. Very nice.


It doesn't take a Scripture Scholar to figure out that the Keys were not handed to Peter immediately, since they were going to be handed at Pentecost in the form of a charism of the Holy Spirit. They were not literal physical keys, but a special grace granted by God for the purpose of Church governance. And of course the binding on earth is to be simply confirming what was proclaimed in heaven, since Peter and his successors are guided by the Holy Spirit.


With all due respect Professor, there is also no indication that the keys would've been given to others. In fact, although Jesus gave the other apostles the power to bind and loose collectively (cf. Matt. 18:18), he only gave the keys to Peter. These keys indicate that he has a special office distinct from the other apostles.


Where on earth would you come up with this? Of course Peter wasn't given the keys immediately, the apostles weren't sent on their final mission yet!



If you don't want to argue interpretation, then why did you post in the first place? That's kind of odd. I thought forums were for having frank discussions and exchange ideas.


Of course, the brothers are to strengthen each other. But, Peter as the leader is supposed to lead in the effort to strengthen everyone.

Now as for taking into consideration Peter's weakness. All of the apostles were weak. I don't judge who is weakest, it is up to God to judge. Plus, as is the case in the Old Testament, God tends to pick the most unlikely people to do his work. Just like Jacob a grave sinner who stole his brother's birthright, and David who was a weakling and even committed murder and adultery.


As for your "feed my sheep" comment, the sheep is intended to mean all People. Christ is Pastor of all the sheep, and in the passage he gave Peter the office to be pastor on earth in Christ's stead, to feed all peoples whether laity, religious, or clergy. And at the same time, with Peter's repetitive response of love overturned his repetitive denial.


Yes of course, that's precisely why the Pope has the title "Servant of the servants of God."


Again, it seems there is no concept of infallibility in your theology. The liberal modernist interpretations are better than those of the people in the past.

Now your analogy about the President and the congress, doesn't apply to the Church, sorry. It is apples and oranges. In Acts 15, Peter clearly asserted his primacy, explaining his doctrinal position, and the council of Jerusalem followed it.

What do I think is going on? Well, of course since Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, were all started by Peter, they are one apostolic see in which Rome is head. As Gregory said about Rome: "For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life." The other Sees, Peter merely adorned and established.

Fr. Anthony,

I agree it was uncharitable. I appologize. But, unfortunately it doesn't let me edit it now.

Ray,

I sincerely appologize for being uncharitable in my last post to you. I'm usually more charitable, that wasn't really me. There's no excuse for that. I appologize.

As a result of this, I'm voluntarily leaving the site.

I don't see how "cool it Peter You are not special" can be justified.
1-Peter was just praised that the Father in Heaven revealed something to Simon alone!
2-Simon (meaning wavering ) just had his identity changed to Peter the Rock. Name changes are few, special and important!
3-He alone was just promised the keys! Special! (When would he get the keys? -probably on the death of Jesus)
4-Who else did Jesus say he prayed for? Are Jesus' prayers effective?
5-Who else was told to strengthen the brethren? You can assume that each should do it but here Peter is given that job!

How can you say he is not special? You might deny a lot of things but not that he is special!

I really find the comparisons between the matthew and Isaiah text to be pretty compelling. The wording is almost identical in some parts.
also that Peters name is listed first on all the lists with Judas' last and the sheer amount of times it is mentioned, and some of the early events in acts seem to definitelly compell me.
Definitely this is something we need to try to resolve amongst ourselves. There must be room somewhere to find common ground.
Someone had a nice post showing how much all the apostles were needed and given authority and how much Peter needed help. The bible really has a great picture of how things should be. For I think that tohugh I am in favor of an authority that Rome has, I think that it is not to the exclusion or devaluing of the other Bishops who are clearly necessary for the church to exist as well. I agree that nowhere do these texts or do Catholics hopefully say that the pope is the only Bishop with authority or the only person who's ideas are important.

anyway, I am in over my head in this matter, and merely learning, so forgive the weankness of my post.

Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter (and of all the other Apostles as well) through the mystery of Episcopal consecration; and so, the bishop of Rome does not have a unique doctrinal position in relation to St. Peter, and there is no mystery (i.e.. sacrament) of primacy distinct from episcopacy. Nevertheless, the bishop of Rome does have a historical connection to St. Peter, but even this historical connection to St. Peter is not unique to his Episcopal see, because he shares it, as St. Gregory the Great himself admitted, with the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria. That said, the Eastern Churches accept the idea that the bishop of Rome has a primacy within the worldwide synod of bishops (i.e., the universal episcopate), but they reject the idea that he has supremacy over the Church, or over any other bishop for that matter, because all bishops are sacramentally equal.

A 'scriptural support' that I too used to use. In fact I will take your side (tonight) and improve your arument - but then I will surround it with context and we will see what happenes to it.

Ultimatly the claim of Petrine Infallibility and judicial primacy rests - upon itself. Catch 22.

-ray

By any chance do you know the citation for the passage in Isaiah and also, are there any other related OT passages?

Joe

RomanArmy's interpretation is certainly a possible one, though I don't see how the presence of the word "exalted" necessarily means "exalted over the others."

How do others understand this passage?

Joe