Peter’s Primacy… and His Mother-in-law

Catholic Exchange ^ | March 2, 2010 | Michael Deem

[NYer]

Michael Deem is a founder and former contributor of the blogs Evangelical Catholicism and Vox Nova. He has written for the Houston Catholic Worker and his work has appeared on EWTN. He holds a BA in theology and philosophy from the Franciscan University of Steubenville and a M.A. in historical theology from Saint Louis University. Michael is currently a parishioner of St. Pius X Catholic Church in Granger, IN.

[NYer]

Ping!

[jagusafr]

“you’re fast approaching a toll booth and the rumble strips are telling you to slow down and pay attention”

Actually, we call that “Driving by Braille” here in Texas - keeps you in your lane.

Colonel, USAFR

[trisham]

That was really interesting.

[ArrogantBustard]

both times ...

[trisham]

Better twice than not at all. :)

[the long march]

And that’s why preists should be allowed to marry. Fact is most of the disciples had families ( including children and wives), certainly Paul did.

It is often easy to overlook the obvious-=-—Peter was married

[RnMomof7]

Bringing it all together, the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus moving his healing and teaching from the synagogues to Peter’s spaces (house and boat), and from Peter’s spaces to his family, before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter whose faith and ministry is to be the foundation of the Church. I suspect that the account of Peter’s mother-in-law is like a rumble strip, strategically placed in our path in order to grab our attention and prompt us to pay attention to what lies ahead. The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law as narrated in the Synoptics may give us stronger scriptural ties between the primacy of Peter and the Church’s missions of healing and teaching.

Pure isogesis

[ArrogantBustard]

Will the infallible interpreters of scripture and inerrant arbiters of doctrine please identify themselves?

I'd like to distinguish their comments from the vain babbling of mere fallible Men.

[RnMomof7]

I'd like to distinguish their comments from the vain babbling of mere fallible Men.

Me too that is why I pointed out that this is pure isogesis

[ArrogantBustard]

certainly Paul did.

Did what? Have a wife and children?

Would you like to tell us where you got that idea?

[trisham]

I’m afraid I must identify myself as one of the babblers. Oh, and a rabid Papist!

[ArrogantBustard]

I pointed out

Didja, now ....

That, apparently, is your intepretation of Scripture.

So tell me: Do you believe yourself to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture or an inerrant arbiter of doctrine?

[Campion]

The word you're looking for is "eisegesis," not "isogesis".

And it isn't.

[Campion]

certainly Paul did

Paul's kind of a strange case. There's a passage that indicates he thinks he has a right to have a wife (an odd thing to say if he actually did!), a passage that indicates he actually has a wife, and another passage that has him saying it's better to remain unmarried, "just as I am".

Something to ask the Boss about when you die, I guess.

[RnMomof7]

No the correct word is isogesis

Isogesis "Reading into the scriptures". . This merely means you start with a subject, and look for scriptures that pertain to it.

The author is looking desperately for scripture to support a tradition that lacks any biblical substance

[the long march]

Because he was a member of the Sanhedrin (when he was Saul the persecuter before the road to Damascus). The rules were very specific.

Learn some biblical context and history

[Campion]

Jesus moving his healing and teaching ... before finally transferring these powers to all the apostles and chiefly to Peter

If you think that's "isogesis," I gotta ask: have you ever actually read Acts?

[the long march]

I would ask if I actually cared one way or the other but I don’t so for me it is a nonissue

[Campion]

No the correct word is isogesis

Why don't you go to "dictionary.com", look up "isogesis," and report back on your findings.