Pastor Mike Winger<\/a>\u00a0is the featured teacher of\u00a0BibleThinker<\/a><\/em> online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a youth pastor. Mike has since transitioned into laboring full time with BibleThinker<\/em>\u00a0to provide free teaching content worldwide. He also has a thriving YouTube channel called\u00a0Learn to Think Biblically<\/em><\/a> (688K subscribers). Mike is strongly committed to a careful and thoughtful study of the Bible with a view toward answering skeptics\u2019 challenges with reason and Scripture. I use RSV for Bible verses. Mike\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m responding to Mike\u2019s video entitled, \u201cWhy Catholicism is WRONG\u201d<\/a> (8-24-15). It has received 316,481 views, as of 3-8-24.<\/p>\n 1:06 if their claim\u2019s accurate, then I can\u2019t interpret the Bible only they can<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, the Catholic Church has required one particular view of a Bible passages for only nine passages in the entire Bible<\/a>.\u00a0This is an annoying myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic interpret doctrines that he derives from Scripture with the help and guidance of the Church and sacred tradition, but so what<\/em>?\u00a0Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist, for example, can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God\u2019s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can\u2019t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. No Christian of any stripe could say that John 1:1 does not teach the deity and Godhood of Jesus.<\/p>\n 1:13 the Bible is extra it is not essential<\/span><\/p>\n This is sheer nonsense. The Catholic Church reveres the Bible as much as any Protestant denomination or individual. I remember reading\u00a0The Battle for the Bible<\/em><\/a> (1977) by Protestant scholar Harold Lindsell, back in the day (the early 80s) when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture \u2014 including after Vatican II, which changed no doctrines \u2014 that was as \u201chigh\u201d as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it). Catholics also think that sacred, apostolic tradition and the Church are infallible authorities, and we do because the Bible itself teaches this: notably in Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council<\/a>) and in 1 Timothy 3:15<\/a>: both of which \u2014 closely examined \u2014 teach the infallible authority of the Church (which is directly contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>). This is not sola ecclesia<\/em>, as it has been caricatured (by Mike and many others). It\u2019s a three-legged-stool rule of faith: Bible-Church-Tradition: all of which are in complete harmony with each other.<\/p>\n 1:19 Church statements are what\u2019s essential\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n They are, but not exclusively<\/em> so, as he makes out, and in a manner that is hardly different from each Protestant denomination, that has creeds and confessions that they adhere to, just as we have our doctrines that we believe. Lutherans have the Book of Concord. Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession. Anglicans have the 39 Articles, etc. No one can claim that they aren\u2019t \u201cessential\u201d too in their own domains.<\/p>\n 1:19 when the Catholic theologian uses the Bible to try to prove Catholic doctrine it\u2019s just an exercise. It\u2019s not that they think they have to [do]. They don\u2019t believe they have to use the Bible; they\u2019re just doing that to try to convince you to try to convince others<\/span><\/p>\n This is pure mythology. How would he even go about proving<\/em> such a ludicrous claim? You notice that he doesn\u2019t cite<\/em> anything to corroborate<\/em> his charge. It simply comes from his own cynical anti-Catholic bias. No Catholic decree or argument from a Catholic theologian or apologist has ever stated that the Bible is unimportant or merely optional in doing theology. To the contrary, official Catholic documents like Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, or papal encyclicals are literally filled<\/em> with Scripture (at least as much if not more than the typical Protestant sermon). It\u2019s clear from the sheer volume that Scripture is central in the whole enterprise.<\/p>\n 2:37 the Roman Catholic Church bases their case . . .\u00a0 for their authority [on] that single pillar that holds up all the doctrine of the church: \u201cwe declare it, therefore it\u2019s true.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, we don\u2019t say something is true simply because the Church declares it (which would be circular reasoning). What we actually say is that the Church declares it because it is based on the Bible and the history of doctrine and reason. Secondly, if there is any single \u201cpillar\u201d it\u2019s the Bible; particularly this verse: \u201c. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth\u201d (1 Tim 3:15). If the Catholic Church is indeed that, again, it\u2019s not because it merely makes the claim<\/em>, but because the Bible<\/em> said so, and we have many other biblical and historical reasons for identifying the Catholic Church as the one true Church of the Bible, that Jesus set up, with Peter as the first earthly leader.<\/p>\n 2:59 Matthew 16 . . . whatever it does teach it certainly does not teach that\u00a0Peter was the first pope\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 16:16-19<\/strong>\u00a0Simon Peter replied, \u201cYou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.\u201d [17] And Jesus answered him, \u201cBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n At the very least he was clearly intended to be the leader of the new Church, of which he was even said to be the foundation (\u201cRock\u201d). R. T. France, widely considered to be one of the best New Testament exegetes, stated: \u201cNot only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of \u2018keys\u2019 (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house\u2019s] administration . . . an authority derived from a \u2018delegation\u2019 of God\u2019s sovereignty\u201d (Vol. 1: Matthew<\/em>, in Leon Morris, General Editor.,\u00a0Tyndale New Testament Commentaries<\/em>, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press\/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256). That sounds pretty \u201cpapal,\u201d doesn\u2019t it? Yet it\u2019s a commentary from a Protestant on the New Testament text (words of Jesus). Here are what other Protestants say, along similar lines:<\/p>\n Craig S. Keener wrote: \u201cThe image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration \/ probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church\u201d (The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament<\/em> [Downer\u2019s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 256, 90). The great scholar F. F. Bruce stated that \u201cin the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward\u201d (The Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/em> [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144).\u00a0T. W. Manson, in his book, The sayings of Jesus: as recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke<\/em><\/a> (London: SCM Press, 1954 ed., p. 205 ) stated that Peter was \u2014 as shown by by Jesus\u2019 words \u2014 \u201cGod\u2019s vicegerent\u201d who would \u201cdeclare what is right and wrong for the Christian community\u201d and whose decisions would be \u201cconfirmed by God\u201d.<\/p>\n 3:31\u00a0\u00a0in fact 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16<\/span><\/p>\n First of all, the fathers aren\u2019t the ultimate authorities in exegesis, and if some of them got this wrong (from our Catholic perspective) it is no problem for our system at all. Biblical exegesis is an independent field of study and can be done today, regardless of what was believed about specific passages in the past. The above arguments from Protestant exegetes stand on their own. I have made the case from the Bible because both sides accept it as inspired, infallible revelation. Precisely because it is inspired, neither side can dismiss it. It has to be grappled with. The above is what some of the very best Protestant exegetes have stated about Matthew 16 and what it means (in a nutshell, Peter was given extraordinary authority by Jesus). Mike just whips up a negative bald sentence; I provided significant and solid Protestant scholarship. It\u2019s a huge difference in methodology.<\/p>\n There were, in fact, many Church fathers (far<\/em> more than 20%) who thought Peter was the rock, the foundation of the Church and its leader, based on Matthew 16. Here are 18 of them:<\/p>\n Tertullian<\/span><\/strong>, writing around 200-220, stated that \u201cPeter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built\u201d (Prescription against Heretics<\/em>, 22<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Hippolytus<\/span><\/strong> wrote around 225: \u201cBy this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established\u201d (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany<\/em>, 9<\/a>).<\/p>\n Origen<\/span><\/strong> writing around 230-250, called Peter \u201cthat great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church\u201d (In Exod. Hom<\/em>. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and \u201cUpon him (Peter)\u00a0 . . . the Church was founded\u201d (In Epist. ad Rom<\/em>. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and \u201cPeter upon whom is built Christ\u2019s Church\u201d (T. iv. In Joan. Tom<\/em>. v.).<\/p>\n St.<\/span><\/strong> Cyprian<\/strong><\/span>, c. 246, wrote about \u201cPeter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built\u201d (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7<\/a>).<\/p>\n Firmilian<\/span><\/strong>, c. 254, wrote about \u201cone Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock\u201d (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv<\/em>).<\/p>\n Aphraates<\/span><\/strong> (c. 336) stated that \u201cthe Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church\u201d (Homily<\/em> 7:15, De Paenitentibus<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Ephraem<\/span><\/strong> (c. 350-370) called Peter \u201cthe foundation of the holy Church\u201d (Homilies<\/em> 4:1).<\/p>\n St. Hilary of Poitiers<\/span> <\/strong>in 360 held that Peter was \u201cthe foundation-stone of the Church\u201d (On the Trinity<\/em>, Bk. VI, 20<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Cyril of Jerusalem<\/span><\/strong> (c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter \u201cthe foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church\u201d (Catechetical Lecture<\/em> 11, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Optatus<\/span><\/strong> (c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was \u201cto be preferred before all the Apostles\u201d and was \u201cThe Head of the Apostles\u201d (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Gregory of Nazianzen<\/span><\/strong> (370) stated that Peter \u201cis entrusted with the Foundations of the Church\u201d (T. i. or. xxxii<\/em>. n. 18).<\/p>\n St. Gregory of Nyssa<\/span><\/strong> (371) wrote that Peter was \u201cthe Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church\u201d (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Basil the Great<\/span><\/strong> (371) stated that Peter \u201creceived on himself the building of the Church\u201d (Adversus Eunomius<\/em> 2:4).<\/p>\n St. Epiphanius<\/strong><\/span> (c. 385): \u201cupon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God\u201d (Adv. Haeres<\/em>.).<\/p>\n St. Ambrose<\/span><\/strong> (c. 385-389): \u201cwhom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church\u201d (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide<\/em>, c. v. n. 56).<\/p>\n St. John Chrysostom<\/span> <\/strong>(c. 387): \u201cHead or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples\u201d (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit<\/em>. n. 4).<\/p>\n St. Jerome<\/span><\/strong> (385): \u201cPeter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church\u201d (Letters<\/em> 41, 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n St. Cyril of Alexandria<\/span> <\/strong>(424): \u201cthe church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd\u201d (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc<\/em>.).<\/p>\n Mike then brings up John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to \u201cfeed my sheep,\u201d etc., and then he claims:<\/p>\n 5:31 whatever Jesus is doing here, this says nothing about a papacy . . . if you didn\u2019t know about the papacy, you\u2019d never read the Bible and come up with that doctrine; it just would never happen. It would never occur to you. It\u2019s completely artificially foisted upon the Scriptures; pushed onto the Bible. We need clear teachings, not vague implications.<\/span><\/p>\n It is<\/em> clear teaching; I completely disagree. In the context of many Bible passages already indicating a profound leadership of Peter among the disciples and in the early Church (I found fifty such<\/a>), it\u2019s significant that Jesus uses an agricultural shepherd and sheep parallel, which is a metaphor for being a pastor. The word \u201cshepherd\u201d is used 15 times in the NT in this fashion. So what does Jesus do here? He was with seven of the disciples (Jn 21:2) in a post-Resurrection appearance.<\/p>\n But He singled out Peter and charged him to \u201cfeed my lambs\u201d (21:15) and \u201ctend my sheep\u201d (21:16) and \u201cfeed my sheep\u201d (21:17), which could quite plausibly be taken to mean His entire Church, since He uses the words \u201cthe sheep\u201d or \u201csheep\u201d 14 times in John 10: meaning, believers in the Church. There He was talking about Himself as the Ultimate Shepherd. But there are also earthly shepherds (pastors or priests or bishops). Jesus didn\u2019t say this to all seven disciples present. He said it to Peter only. That must<\/em> have some significance. It fits into the scenario of him being the leader of the Church.<\/p>\n After all, Jesus had already said (Mt 16) that He would build His Church upon Peter, as the Rock. This exhortation perfectly fits in with that. It\u2019s the same sort of thing in Luke 22:32, where Jesus says, \u201cI have prayed for you that your faith may not fail\u201d and \u201cstrengthen your brethren\u201d to Peter alone. I believe it\u2019s the only time Jesus is said to have prayed for one person, who is named. And guess who it is? Just a \u201ccoincidence\u201d: it\u2019s once again Peter.<\/p>\n Many Protestant commentators say that Peter was singled out and asked three times because he denied Jesus three times. That may very well be true, but if so, it doesn\u2019t follow that my interpretation is null and void. He still encouraged him to be a pastor of what is arguably the entire Church; and it goes along with Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:18-19. Moreover, the parallel to the denials would be when Jesus asked him three times, \u201cdo you love Me?\u201d But the other parts are not<\/em> parallels to the denials. Thus, this attempted dismissal of the larger \u201cpapal\u201d meaning of the passage fails in its evasive purpose.<\/p>\n Mike makes a bald analysis and a skeptical claim with no reasoning whatever. I reason through it, do exegesis, including cross-referencing, and make an actual argument. Which is the more impressive method of the two?<\/p>\n Pontus<\/a>\u00a0was in the north of Turkey and largely surrounding the Black Sea north of it.\u00a0Galatia<\/a>\u00a0was in the center of Asia Minor (Turkey),\u00a0\u00a0Cappadocia<\/a>\u00a0in its southeast, and\u00a0Bithynia<\/a>\u00a0in its northwest. \u201cAsia\u201d in the NT refers to Asia Minor.<\/p>\n So Peter was writing to Christians in a vast area.\u00a0The size of Turkey<\/a>\u00a0is about a thousand miles from west to east, and 300-400 miles from north to south. This is the area, and also east and north of the Black Sea, that was the recipient of Peter\u2019s first epistle.\u00a0The letter is filled with decidedly \u201cpapal\u201d commands: and Peter\u00a0assumes sublime authority<\/em>\u00a0throughout his epistle:<\/p>\n \u201cgird up your minds\u201d (1:13 [RSV]); \u201cbe holy yourselves in all your conduct\u201d (1:15); \u201clove one another earnestly from the heart\u201d (1:22); \u201cSo put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander\u201d (2:1); \u201clong for the pure spiritual milk\u201d (2:2); \u201cabstain from the passions of the flesh\u201d (2:11); \u201cMaintain good conduct among the Gentiles\u201d (2:12); \u201cBe subject for the Lord\u2019s sake to every human institution\u201d (2:13); \u201cHonor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.\u201d (2:17); \u201d wives, be submissive to your husbands\u201d (3:1); \u201cLikewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman\u201d (3:7); \u201chave unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.\u201d (3:8); \u201cDo not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling\u201d (3:9); \u201cin your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense\u201d (3:15: apologetics!); \u201d keep your conscience clear\u201d (3:16); \u201ckeep sane and sober for your prayers\u201d (4:7); \u201chold unfailing your love for one another\u201d (4:8); \u201cPractice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another\u201d (4:9); \u201cAs each has received a gift, employ it for one another\u201d (4:10); \u201cTend the flock of God that is your charge\u201d (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); \u201cyou that are younger be subject to the elders\u201d (5:5); \u201cHumble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God\u201d (5:6); \u201cBe sober, be watchful\u201d (5:8); and \u201cResist him, firm in your faith\u201d (5:9).<\/p>\n This is altogether the scope and nature of a bishop\u2019s teaching, with authority, and to Christians over an area a thousand miles wide and 400 miles from bottom to top. That\u2019s not \u201clocal church\u201d stuff!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 8:57\u00a0\u00a0the earliest interpretation where someone says that this is papal in John 21 is from 680 AD, over 600 years later. Then someone finally has the idea that this is papal and who is it? Pope Agatho; a very self-serving claim\u00a0\u00a0for his own power to increase by tying it to this scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n Nice try. Here his claim is much more broad: no Church father at all<\/em> thought the passage was \u201cpapal\u201d; that is, indicative of Peter being the leader of the early Church, and we have to get all the way to 680 AD to find anyone who thinks this way. One wonders if Mike did any<\/em> research on the matter. It\u2019s likely that he simply read this in an old anti-Catholic book (filled with the usual history-challenged myths) and passed it along. All I have to do is find one<\/em> Church father to refute this sweeping claim, but I have found nine:<\/p>\n Origen<\/span> <\/strong>(c. 216): \u201cthe Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter\u201d (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1<\/em>).<\/p>\n St. Cyprian<\/span><\/strong> (c. 246): \u201cto the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection,\u00a0 St. Ephraem<\/span><\/strong> (c. 350-370): \u201cThe Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.\u201d (HVirg<\/em>. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).<\/p>\n Ambrosiaster<\/span><\/strong> (c. 380-384): \u201cAfter the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord\u2019s flock\u201d (Quaest<\/em>. 75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August<\/em>. tom. iii. 2894).<\/p>\n St. Ambrose<\/span><\/strong> (385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock\u201d (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii<\/em>. [Mem] n. 3).<\/p>\n St. Epiphanius<\/span> <\/strong>(c. 385): \u201cHe heard from the same God, \u2018Peter, feed My lambs;\u2019 to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.\u201d (Tom. ii. In Anchorat<\/em>. n. 9).<\/p>\n St. John Chrysostom<\/span><\/strong> (c. 387): \u201cHe puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, \u2018If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren\u2019 . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.\u201d (In Joan. Hom<\/em>. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).<\/p>\n \u201cWhat advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0He said,\u00a0 St. Augustine<\/strong><\/span> (c. 400): \u201c. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended \u2014 and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.\u201d (Sermo. 295<\/em>).<\/p>\n \u201c[T]here are many other things which most\u00a0justly\u00a0keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the\u00a0Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by\u00a0miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by\u00a0love, established by age. The succession of\u00a0priests\u00a0keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His\u00a0resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present\u00a0episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of\u00a0Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many\u00a0heresies, the\u00a0Church\u00a0has thus retained; so that, though all\u00a0heretics\u00a0wish to be called\u00a0Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church\u00a0meets, no\u00a0heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.\u201d (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus<\/em>, ch. 4, 5<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cThe Lord, indeed, had told His disciples\u00a0to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this\u00a0sin\u00a0Peter should become a pastor of the\u00a0Church\u00a0was no more improper than that\u00a0Moses, after smiting the\u00a0Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.\u201d (Contra Faustum<\/em>, Book XXII, 70<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cAnd again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said,\u00a0 \u201cPeter generally stands for a figure of the\u00a0Church.\u201d (Sermon 25 on the New Testament<\/em>, 10<\/a>; cf. Sermon 96<\/a>; Sermon 88, 4<\/a>).<\/p>\n \u201cFor He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church;\u00a0 St. Peter Chrysologus<\/strong><\/span> (432): \u201cHe commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead\u201d (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix<\/em>).<\/p>\n Mike continues his comments on this passage from John 21:<\/p>\n 9:45 Peter did not claim to be the Pope. He\u2019s not treated as the Pope. He didn\u2019t wield the power of the papacy. If Peter wasn\u2019t the Pope, how can his successor be the Pope? If Peter\u2019s not the\u00a0Pope, nobody is; there is no Pope!<\/span><\/p>\n Well, we need only look at the above patristic passages regarding Jesus telling Peter to feed His sheep. How is Peter described<\/span>?:<\/p>\n Chief Authority;<\/em>\u00a0head; shepherd of the Lord\u2019s flock; presidency over the brethren; teacher . . . of the world;<\/em>\u00a0leader of the apostles; superintendence of these sheep; sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors;<\/em>\u00a0surpass the rest of the apostles; one is required to preside over the Church; entrusted with the care of so many souls;<\/em>\u00a0first among the apostles; charge to feed His sheep down to the present episcopate; pastor of the Church; the leader<\/em> [like Moses] ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/09\/Cover-432x653-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nFeed my sheep.<\/q>\u00a0And although to all the\u00a0apostles, after His\u00a0resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.\u201d (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church<\/em>, 4<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Peter, do you love me?<\/q>\u00a0and when\u00a0he confessed that he did, the Lord added,\u00a0
if you\u00a0love\u00a0me tend my sheep.<\/q>\u00a0The Master asked the\u00a0disciple\u00a0if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all\u00a0men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to\u00a0God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the\u00a0apostles, for His words were,\u00a0
Peter, do you love me more than these?<\/q> . . . one is required to preside over the\u00a0Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many\u00a0souls . . .\u201d (On the Priesthood<\/em>, Book II, 1-2<\/a>)<\/p>\n
I\u00a0love\u00a0you;<\/q>\u00a0
Feed My lambs,<\/q>\u00a0feed My\u00a0
little sheep.<\/q> In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .\u201d (Sermon 97 on the New Testament<\/em>, 2<\/a>).<\/p>\n
Peter, do you love Me?<\/q>\u00a0He answered,\u00a0
Lord, I do\u00a0love\u00a0You.<\/q>\u00a0
Feed My sheep.<\/q> \u201d (Sermon 87 on the New Testament<\/em>, 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n