| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Randy Carson
USA
882 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2009 : 2:11:36 PM
|
Peter as Vicar of Christ Proved from Scripture
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of (poimanao) my sheep." 17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.
In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?
Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.
While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.
Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." 34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."
In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.
This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles ...and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.
In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.
In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus' ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.
Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd's crook or crozier, as well.
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79
"What is very clear from the best scholarship available is that the Jewish Biblical Canon was a Post-Christian development and not part of our patrimony from Judaism." - Dr. Art Sippo
|
Edited by - Randy Carson on 06/06/2009 2:12:36 PM |
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 4:08:15 PM
|
And another little point....
All Christians of the mainstream variety agree that Christian unity is essential for spread of the Gospel and doctrinal purity. The pope still heads a single Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, following Scripture alone has proven to be a failed experiment in producing a single Protestant faith among those groups who adhere to the idea of Sola Scriptura. Some of them even disagree as to what constitutes SS.
There is no single Catholic, from Peter to Benedict XVI, from among all the great theologians and doctors of the Catholic Church, that changed the Church or reshaped her according to his doctrine. We are not the Augustinian Catholic Church, or the Thomistic Catholic Church, or the Benedictine Catholic Church. On the other hand, every Protestant denomination can be traced to a particular man in a particular time and place who declared that everyone else had it wrong until his arrival on the scene. Luther claimed it; so did Calvin; so did Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell. And while these claims and counter-claims were and are being made, the Church has been and is still preaching the Gospel, offering Masses, founding and maintaining hospitals, schools and such to improve man's lot here on earth, while she brings Christ to men and men to Christ.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 06/06/2009 4:09:35 PM |
 |
|
|
john654
USA
1292 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 4:14:17 PM
|
yEA bUT!
It doesn't actually say "Pope" in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it does say "Churches", and the Bible doesn't call the Church "Catholic" yA kNow!
Sorry, I just wanted to have a little fun!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 6:11:33 PM
|
I'm not sure how much of a sense of humor Randy has left about this topic, since the guy at CAF has been belaboring it for so long. But his post and the other one here are both very well done, well-reasoned and articulate.
I expect that his friend at CAF will ignore all that, of course, and still claim it's all irrelevant because the pope just isn't in his interpretation of Scripture, which he can guarantee is infallible, yes?
Um, no....
A point of wisdom from my husband, whose perspective has been helpful in this situation: People who have an axe to grind, a premiere cause, are not there to dialog. They are there to make their points and refuse to interact with yours. You put up an elaborate and well-thought-out response and they'll blow it off as irrelevant. So, pretend you're the champagne waiter at the all-you-can-eat champagne buffet. Take your time responding and take breaks from responding from time to time. You owe him no extra champagne just because he's demanding it. And make sure that you get some really good prayer, family and leisure time in while you're away from filling his glass.
Have a great weekend!
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Avelino
USA
345 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 7:46:40 PM
|
Actually, in my opinion, the word pope is in the bible. Pope simply means father. (In Spanish it is more obvious since we call him the Papa). In Isaiah 22:21 it is written the key holder Eliakim "shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Israel." I don't think it is a far stretch to interpret that Peter, being the key holder of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, would be a Father/Pope to the members of the Kingdom.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by john654[/i]
[br]yEA bUT!
It doesn't actually say "Pope" in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it does say "Churches", and the Bible doesn't call the Church "Catholic" yA kNow!
Sorry, I just wanted to have a little fun!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen |
|
|
|
john654
USA
1292 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 9:08:17 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Avelino[/i]
[br]Actually, in my opinion, the word pope is in the bible. Pope simply means father. (In Spanish it is more obvious since we call him the Papa). In Isaiah 22:21 it is written the key holder Eliakim "shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Israel." I don't think it is a far stretch to interpret that Peter, being the key holder of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, would be a Father/Pope to the members of the Kingdom.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by john654[/i]
[br]yEA bUT!
It doesn't actually say "Pope" in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it does say "Churches", and the Bible doesn't call the Church "Catholic" yA kNow!
Sorry, I just wanted to have a little fun!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
I think the "other side", might say: Why didn't Jesus call Peter, Holy Father or pope? Why did Jesus call him "Little Rock"? I'm still trying to have a little fun, I'll go away for a while.
Avelino, your post is right on, I agree with it!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
Edited by - john654 on 06/06/2009 9:17:11 PM |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2009 : 9:24:20 PM
|
quote:
I'm still trying to have a little fun, I'll go away for a while.
Oh, don't go...! You are making me smile. 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Randy Carson
USA
882 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 8:23:11 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by john654[/i]
[br]yEA bUT!
It doesn't actually say "Pope" in the Bible, and sometimes in the Bible it does say "Churches", and the Bible doesn't call the Church "Catholic" yA kNow!
Sorry, I just wanted to have a little fun!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page
“Catholic Church” in the Bible
Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.
Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:
Acts 9:31 (Greek)
#7969; ìåí ïõí åêêëçóéá êáè#8125; #8001;ëçò ôçò éïõäáéáò êáé ãáëéëáéáò êáé óáìáñåéáò åé÷åí åéñçíçí ïéêïäïìïõìåíç êáé ðïñåõïìåíç ôù öïâù ôïõ êõñéïõ, êáé ôç ðáñáêëçóåé ôïõ #7937;ãéïõ ðíåõìáôïò åðëçèõíïíôï.
Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (http://www.russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)
Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.
åêêëçóéá êáè#8125; #8001;ëçò = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team - Class of '79
"What is very clear from the best scholarship available is that the Jewish Biblical Canon was a Post-Christian development and not part of our patrimony from Judaism." - Dr. Art Sippo
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2009 : 8:55:54 PM
|
Fascinating stuff. This shows (again) that Scripture never contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church and vice versa. A Dominican friar I know pointed to a possible reason when he said that "Catholic", along with "universal", also means "according to the whole". He went on to say that "heresy" is an English rendition of a Greek word that means "to pick and choose".
The Catholic Church has the whole of Revelation as given us by God through His Son and the Apostles. The Protestants in the sixteenth century picked and chose what teachings they liked, tossed out the rest as supposedly having been "added" by the Church, and invented their own theological nova to support their truncation of Revelation. One of their worst acts was to mutilate Scripture while discarding Tradition, resulting in man-made religions that multiply as time passes.
My husband still thinks the best way to prove which faith got it right is to open a dictionary and look up "Roman Catholic" and "Protestant". There's no "denominations" in Roman Catholicism, and it's a singular "church" instead of "a group of churches and denominations".
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Peter as Vicar of Christ Proved from Scripture
