Was Peter called Shepherd Already in John 20?

Here is the beginning of this chapter:

[1] And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] She ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. [4] And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.

[6] Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, [7] And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. [8] Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] The disciples therefore departed again to their home.

By allowing Peter to take precedence, despite arriving first as to speed, the Beloved says Peter is the more principal of them.

What were they both?

[8] And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. [9] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. [10] And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

[11] For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: [14] Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. [15] And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us.

[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.

As they heard a message of good tidings, they ran or came with haste.

That's what the shepherds did.

So, in the first announcing of the Resurrection, St. Peter stands out as a principal shepherd. And John the Beloved a subsidiary one./HGL

Questions by Matt Slick

In an oral debate with Rick Akins, he seems to have wanted to get yes and no answers without nuances or qualifications, to each of them.

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation? And when you repent you get it back? Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian; that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

Let's break this down. And this is a type of questioning that could come off as a Gish gallop, if one had any fear that Matt Slick were to interrupt. How I am glad to be answering in writing instead of, as Rick Akin, orally!

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation?

If one breaks the commandments:

• in an important matter (which cheating on the bus isn't for VIII)
• with full knowledge of what one was doing (like not just gliding on a slippery slope into following situation, but knowing exactly what one was in for)
• and full consent (let's not go into details on the one I was thinking of, but for instance, if you are inattentive at Holy Mass because someone else destroyed your sleep, that's certainly not full consent to being inattentive at Holy Mass)

then, yes. If one died before repenting, one would be going to Hell.

And when you repent you get it back?

Again, yes. The not yet baptised may not have had it in the first place, so would get salvation first time over when baptised, but the ones accessing Penance after Baptism with real remorse for sins for a supernatural motive (like one's sin displeasing God or earning and risking Hell), or even before the sacrament of penance, if the motive is God-centered rather than self-centered (one is really more concerned with the offense done to God than with where one goes oneself), one gets it back and a greater state of grace than one had before.

Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian;

To stay a practising Christian, to stay in a state of grace.

that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

We deny this is the only state in which one can be a Christian. A Christian in a state of sin (that is of mortal sin, venial sins do not constitute a state, they just strengthen an already existing state of sin or weaken the state of grace), is still a Christian, and has one huge advantage over the non-Christian (or Protestant semi-Christian) in a state of sin - he knows exactly what to do to get out of the state of sin.

In an oral debate, I would certainly avoid answering the above questions as put, especially if repeated while I am doing an effort to clarify, that is, before I had a chance to make my clarifying point.

He repeatedly ignored the questions and would ask me questions instead. He kept asking me what happens to the soul when we sin

Our Lord gave the example. He did not allow Pharisees to do all of the questioning. He sometimes instead of directly answering a question asked them a question in return. Rick Akin did right to do the same.

Well, I did not know what he meant by that.

This ignorance seems feigned.

So I asked for clarification. I asked what he meant by “what happens to the soul?” Was he saying there was a physical effect, a spiritual effect, an emotional effect, or a relational effect regarding God – or what?

Physical and emotional effects would be very varying from sin to sin. The question is, very obviously, and to me they are the same question:

Do you believe there is a spiritual effect when you sin?
Do you believe there is a relational effect regarding God when you sin?

And as Slick had given these alternatives, it was obvious he had understood the question and his demand for clarification was filibustering. An excuse to interrupt Rick Akin.

It would seem that the consistent version of OSAS would require, either that sinning in a saved person has no spiritual effect, no relational effect regarding God, or that this effect is always below the level of damning one to separation from God. And this would contradict the very words of ...

• John 14 ... vines being cut off (because cut off from God means damnation)
• the three soils (especially what is said about the soils where the seed started to grow, the stony ground and the thistled ground, but didn't make it to harvest)

and it would contradict the implication of St. Paul in Galatians 5:1. If he did not fear a Galatian could relapse under slavery of sin, he would not have had to say the verse like he did.

It is very simple, OSAS security is unbiblical. As applied to individual believers and apart from special cases to whom God reveals they are not going to fall into a state of sin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew Avellini
10.X.2022

Neapoli, in Campania, natalis sancti Andreae Avellini, Clerici Regularis et Confessoris, sanctitate et salutis proximorum procurandae studio praecelebris, quem, miraculis clarum, Clemens Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, Sanctorum catalogo adscripsit.

The page where Matt Slick referenced his debate with Rick Akin

CARM : Matt Slick and Richard Akins debate on Roman Catholicism
by Matt Slick | Jan 12, 2019 | Roman Catholicism, World Religions
https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/matt-slick-and-richard-akins-debate-on-roman-catholicism/

PS - Matt asked - "Can you become a Christian without obeying the commands"

You can become a believer who is still in a state of sin without obeying them at all.

But you cannot become justified, unless you agree to keep them henceforth, with whatever light about what that means that is available to you. Abraham was justified without previous works, but not without upcoming ones. Jacobus Latomus was right, Tyndale was wrong, on Romans 3. Once you are a Christian, and justified, you stay justified by keeping them./HGL

From Live Stream of Chat on a Video by Sungenis

Here is the video, it does not cover this question:

The Catholic view of Scripture | Robert Sungenis & Sam Shamoun
Robert Sungenis, 22 July 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs

Daivon

An interpretation I heard of 2 Thes. 2:14 (2 Thes. 2:15 in other translations) was that what they received that was spoken, was the preaching of the Epistle in defense of Sola Scriptura. Thoughts?

Daivon

In summary: 2 Thes. 2:14/15 is telling people to adhere to the oral teachings of the Epistle itself, not just oral teachings in general regarding the faith.

First, even if 2 Thess. 2, quoted verse, is referring to oral teaching contained in written form in the Epistle, this is just a material, but not a formal coincidence with Scripture alone. That's not sufficient.

Second, one cannot pretend that the whole epistle is in defense of Sola Scriptura. One would have to imagine something other than this epistle's content adding to it orally to say "sola scriptura" and that's not in scripture.

Third, the hypothesis is in fact just a hypothesis. If I hypothesised on 1 Cor 4:6 that "what is written" does not refer to Scripture books at all, but to a written list of clergy, saying that that one be not puffed up against the other for another, refers to the general rule, one should not accept leaders, especially into controversy, and then above that which is written refers to a written list of clergy in Corinth, as exception, yes, we should accept clergy as leaders, even in controversy, this would be a hypothesis.

I could still not claim that my hypothesis were Scripture.

Note, against this one could claim that Paul and Apollo both certainly were clergy, and this would invalidate the hypothesis - except that first part actually says

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn,

meaning according to some that St. Paul was hiding the real names. This doesn't make previous verses, with Paul and Apollo as pseudonyms rather than real names, not inerrant, since the subject of inerrancy is not each verse in isolation, but the passage, where this deviation from literal truthfulness is explained, and the verses in context of the passage.

But these persons are not alone on the field. Calmet actually says the factions are referring to Paul and Apollo.

Now, the point is, this conjecture is conjecture. Like the other one. But the ones that defend "sola scriptura" against passages that aren't saying that or that are sometimes saying the opposite, like this verse ...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

... these ones are in fact incompatible with Scripture. Or with Scripture alone. Or both.

If incompatible with Scripture, they are ipso facto false. If with Scripture alone, they are self contradictory, and false because of that.

So, I was reading a hypothesis which is rather more common among Protestants, namely this one: yes, in St. Paul's day, there was a Church which had direct access to oral tradition from him. Then, one needed to attend to oral traditions as well. But this Church being lost, what we have left of oral tradition is just Scripture.

This is:

• first incompatible with Matthew 28:16-20, where the preservation of the Church is promised, as also in Matthew 16:18 - but in verses 16 to 20 more specifically the Church would be here all days, representing the apostles all days, and teaching all that Christ had taught them all days, with Him assisting Her all days;
• second, incompatible with Sola Scriptura, as it is an explanation added from outside of Scripture. Therefore itself destructive of what it is meant to defend.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hubert of Tongres
3.XI.2022

Eodem die sancti Huberti, Tungrensis Episcopi.