When the scriptures say that Jesus said “Peter do you love me feed my sheep” Was he taking him back from denying him?
D-R Bible,Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 15. Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? That is, more than any one of these love me. Christ puts this question thrice to St. Peter, that this triple protestation of love, says St. Augustine, might correspond to his triple denial. St. Peter did not answer that he loved him more than the rest did, which he could not know, but modestly said: yea, Lord, thou knowest I love thee: and the third time, thou knowest all things, and the hearts of all men, thou knowest how much I love thee. At each protestation, Jesus answered, feed my lambs; and the third time, feed my sheep. To feed, in the style of the Scriptures, is to guide, rule, and govern. St. Ambrose and some others take notice, as if by the lambs, might be understood the people, and by the sheep, those placed over them, as bishops, priests, &c. but others make no such difference in this place, betwixt lambs and sheep, only as comprehending all the members of Christ’s Church, of what condition soever, even the rest of the apostles. For here it was that Christ gave to St. Peter that power which he had promised him, (Matthew xvi. 18.) that is, He now made St. Peter head of his whole Church, as he had insinuated at the first meeting, when St. Andrew brought him to our Saviour, when he changed his name from Simon to Peter: again, when he chose him, and made him the first of his twelve apostles; but particularly, when he said, thou art Peter, (a rock) and upon this rock will I build my Church, &c. Upon this account the Catholic Church, from the very first ages, hath always reverenced, and acknowledged the supreme power of the successors of St. Peter, in spirituals, over all Christian Churches. This appears also by the writings of Tertullian, of St. Irenæus, of St. Cyprian, of the greatest doctors and bishops, both of the west and east, of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, of St. Chrysostom, in several places, of the first general Councils, particularly of the great Council of Chalcedon, &c. (Witham) — Simon (son) of John. The father’s name is here added, to discriminate him from Simon Thaddeus, that every one might know that the chief care of the universal Church was not given to any other apostle but Peter. This Simon of John is the same as Simon Bar-jona. See Matthew xvi. 17. (Menochius) — St. Peter had three times renounced his master; and Jesus, to give him an opportunity of repairing his fault by a triple confession, three several times demanded of him, if he loved him more than these? That, as St. Augustine remarks, he who had thrice denied through fear might thrice confess through love. (Calmet)
Ver. 16-17. The lambs and the sheep of our Saviour here mean the faithful, who compose his Church, without any distinction of Jew or Gentile. St. Peter, by these words, is appointed to take charge of the whole flock, as being the chief and prince of the apostles. He is, in some manner, the pastor, not of the sheep only, but of the pastors themselves. They have each their own flock to look after; but to him is committed the care of all; he alone is the pastor of all. (Calmet) — Feed my sheep. Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; (St. Matthew xvi. 19.) and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his whole Church. (Challoner)
Thank you very much for that. Did you obtain this online? Is the DR the best catholic bible out there? I look sometimes at it NIV,KJV,and RSE-CE. Why the two protestant bibles I don’t know just usesd to them I guess. But the commentary is great. Is the RSE-CE directly off the Vulgate?
The RSV and RSV-CE are actually adapted and revised forms of the AV, which is an adapted and revised form of the KJV.
The Douay-Rheims is a great translation, as long as you don’t mind all the archaic language (thee, thou, and the like).
What’s truest to the Vulgate? And the liturgy of the Word. IS it from NAB ? There’s no old english I’ve seen.
Probably the Douay-Rheims. Though, the D-R has many adaptations that use better language, like the Confraternity Edition or the Knox Bible.
Nah, He always loved Peter. He already knew that Peter’s denying Him would be a part of Peter’s formation in ultimately strengthening his faith as he returned.
My personal fave. The Confraternity New Testament is simply excellent, with just enough of the “sacral language” carried over to let you know that you are reading scripture and not something written by your neighbor. If you find one from about 1948-1950, you get the straight D-R Old Testament combined with the Confraternity New Testament. It is the bible that we should be using, as it is 100% unapologetically Catholic. I have never paid more than $10 for good-to-excellent copies on eBay or in thrift stores.
As to the liturgy, we cannot buy the exact bible used in the US liturgy - that is a modified form of the NAB/RE that the vatican approved for liturgical use. The public version is too inclusive and otherwise squishy. It is the Pillsbury Doughboy of bibles.
Avoid the NAB. The footnotes are not good at all.
Or don’t read the footnotes.
The translation is also not so good. I haven’t seen any Catholic Answers members who have a good word to say about the NAB.
Yes, but the NAB is the bible the lectionary is based on, it’s the bible used on the UCCB website and one of the few approved by them, and it was translated from better, earlier manuscripts than the Vulgate.
The one used in the lectionary is a moderately revised version that is not available for purchase.
Yes, I understand that, but I’m not sure what difference that makes.
It means that the NAB that is available for purchase was not considered worthy of use in the lectionary, so the fact that a revised version of it is used is irrelevant.
Why not just base the lectionary on another, better, version then?
The closest NAB version you can get to the Lectionary in the US is the NAB that has the 1970 OT, the 1970 Psalms and the 1986 NT. So any NAB published between 1986 and 1990.
In 1991 the Psalms were changed (including a lot of inclusive language). The NABRE re-translated the OT and Psalms in 2010.
Did they get rid of the inclusive language in 2010?
No, but the Psalms are much improved. The 1970 NAB did not use inclusive language. In 1986, the NT was re-translated to make it more of a formal translation (as compared to the 1970 NT), but they added the inclusive language (though not to the degree that the NRSV did). In the US mass, we still use the 1970 OT and Psalms and the 1986 NT with some revisions added (like: ‘Hail, full of grace’, etc.).