Peter and Rome

[vooke]

Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.

Ok.
So Peter did not found the Roman church nor was he its first leader. He visits Rome, finds a functioning congregation and starts leading it as its bishop. Elsewhere they ordained bishops but in Rome, he opted to lead it. Is this your understanding of Peter being the 'first' pope?

[Bella]

kadame,
You are exaggerating. Silence when Peter spoke is a matter of order and etiquette. This is exactly why Paul said that even when prophesying, two at most should speak. And you can bet when Paul and Barnabas spoke, there was the same silence. Ama? Tell me what you can say of Peter's speech in Acts 15 that you can't say of Paul and Barnabas. Peter just had a unique, first experience in Cesarea in Acts 10 and that showed BOHS preceding circumcision complete with several heavenly warnings against calling Gentiles unclean.

vooke, I'm not exaggerating at all, I think you are just not seeing what I'm seeing. Where did the "dispute" go, after Peter rose to speak? Acts describes "much dispute" and then Peter rises and speaks. Then it says "all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul". Peter speaks and the "much dispute" vanishes into thin air, never to rise again...where was the debate? It is clear to me Peter ended the debate, simply by virtue of the fact no one dared contradict his doctrine once he had spoken.

Whatever Peter experienced, James decision was final and it carried the day as evidenced by the contents of the letter.

This makes sense if James decision was contradictory instead of confirmatory of Peter's teaching. James actually cited Peter and the Prophets in his own opinion. Also, it is simply not true that he made "a decision", he made a suggestion, based on Peter and the Prophets (Peter and scripture!), about how gentiles should be treated. Then 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren. And wrote the letter, stating, Acts 15:22
They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia Acts 15:23

So, a hot dispute, Peter stands up and speaks and contrary opinions are never heard again. Paul and his companion speak. James speaks, citing Peter and the Prophets. All these are in agreement and then all the apostles together write a letter in their collective name and authority that agrees with what these have said. I'm sorry, but in my view, the decision here is by the apostles, and as far as I can see, Peter ended the debate. Once he spoke, no one had anything contrary to add. Those who spoke after only agreed, while before he spoke, there had only been a heated debate.

In Galatians 2 just shared did you notice Paul and Peter are in Antioch and still some guys are sent from James in Jerusalem. James was not a leader in Jerusalem temporarily, it was permanent.

but vooke, No one said James ever left his bishopric in Jerusalem before his death, though. Its just that that's not really the issue. Before Peter fled Jerusalem, James just didn't feature anywhere as the prominent leader of the Christian community in that city except in the list of apostles, Peter was the dominant figure.

Those words have been DIFFERENTLY understood ever since they was uttered. That is enough to minimize dogmatism over them. Even Catholicism is at pains to explain how ONLY Peter had the keys. Look up the encyclopaedia on the keys entry.

Let me digress a bit.
The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.

Note the words in red. On the day of Pentecost, when Peter gave his first sermon, he said that BOHS was nothing more than what Joel had prophesied and he quoted these very words. But on that day, the blood,fire and smoke and moon turning to blood was never recorded like literally. Yet Peter had the confidence to claim it stood fulfilled.

A skeptic like Termie may have aksd, 'Where is the blood, smoke and moon turning red?'
What am saying is, the fact that Jesus gave Peter the keys and called him rock should be interpreted cautiously, especially with the excessive evidence of leadership prominence by others in Jerusalem when Peter was still alive which is contrary to a particular prediction of one understanding of that verse.

I appreciate that you read it differently, but I disagree. That verse has been given layered meanings, not contradictory meanings. In our church it is called a both/and approach. In my reading, there is just not getting away from the fact that Jesus himself changed Simeon's name to Cephas which is rock and declared in the same sentence that he would not only build his church on him but that he would give him the keys of the kingdom (which signifies authority). The church is not at pains to explain why Peter got the position, we just accept that he did. All the apostles share in the power of the keys through the unity of the apostles, and even today we believe bishops do have the power of the keys but through union with the pope. Besides, Jesus told him that he had prayed for him (Satan was hunting him down) and that when he had turned back, he should strengthen his brethren. Moreover, after Peter repents, Jesus tells him to feed his lambs/sheep. It just seems so clear to me that Jesus was holding Peter to be responsible over the whole church, not just the disciples but even the others who would be apostles. And then, in Acts, after Jesus leaves, we see Peter being the leader, up until he drops off the radar in Luke's story after Luke decides to follow the stories of Paul probably because he was some sort of companion to him or something after this point and knew more about the activities of Paul after Acts 15 than of any other apostle.

Where was James when Peter decided a new apostle was needed, spoke for Christians in Jerusalem after Christ had left?

That's a good question. All of them was there together with Mary and Jesus brethren as recorded in acts 1.

The most important point is, what should we make of this? Remember the appointment of the new apostle happened BEFORE Pentecost which happened 10 days after ascension. So Matthias was appointed within days of ascension, under 10 days. During this time, the apostles had been instructed to do NOTHING until they received power. So there was basically no opportunity for James to demonstrate leadership here.

Note, I don't for a second insist Jesus made him a leader. I only say like Paul, he SEEMED to be a pillar, and since he continued after Peter left Jerusalem, I think we can conclude he was a leader. There is evidence of him acting as a leader.

I don't dispute that st. James was a leader, that goes without any question. He is officially the first Bishop of Jerusalem per the early church, though his authority is never invoked beyond his own church in Jerusalem, like st Peter, or even st Paul, by the early church. I just think he wasn't a more prominent leader than Peter, which is what some evangelicals have been using as an antipapal argument since only the 1990s, that's what I'm disputing. All the apostles were leaders and the companions of Jesus were leaders, not just apostles. But none of them held Peter's position.

Besides, like I said, James was basing his "Judgment" on Peter's declaration, but again, ok.

Not on Peter, but on ALL that had been shared. Please don't attempt to water down Paul's conversion speech in that meeting. That is a bit dishonest.

Its not dishonest, vooke, unless this particular citation is in error, but here goes:



James cites Peter and Prophets, and then says "I judge" which is a Greek word that means both "I think" or "I judge", so he is giving his own conclusion on the dispute and basing it on Peter and scripture.

Do me a favor, try to dig the same historical references on what they had to say about James the Lord's brother. The funny thing and this beats me is, James was not exactly an apostle (am not hinting at nepotism!!) in fact at some point in John, they appeared to have doubted Jesus ministry. James the disciple had been beheaded. How James rose to prominence is....is puzzling but we know he did.

I will do the digging, but James could be one of the apostles called James who were Jesus' relatives themselves. If he was not an apostle, his position as "leader" is even more tenuous, coz his authority would then be more sentimental than actual besides that of being bishop of Jerusalem.

[Bella]

Rome had "some leadership" whom no one ever called Bishops until they were ordained so by the apostles Peter and Paul. Bishops presided over Presbyters/priests. They still do. They were also the chief celebrants of the eucharist and represented unity for Christians in a particular city/area. In fact, I recall a thing about st. Ignatius in Antioch appealing to the Bishop of Rome so far away to return him to his see in Antioch from which he had been wrongly deposed. Should find that quote and post.

Ok.
So Peter did not found the Roman church nor was he its first leader. He visits Rome, finds a functioning congregation and starts leading it as its bishop. Elsewhere they ordained bishops but in Rome, he opted to lead it. Is this your understanding of Peter being the 'first' pope?

[vooke]

kadame,
The best interpretation of keys and rock is the ACTUAL recorded life of the apostles.
Paul is quite clear, Peter,John and James SEEMED as pillars. That is quite telling.

Acts 15. I hope you realize Peter's experience with Gentiles had been shared before the Council. That was a milestone. Read about it in


Peter simply recounted that and on that basis opined the Jews not be bothered. James does not take Peter's opinion as such, he takes his narrative/experience which means it could have been anybody there not necessarily Peter. After this, he gives his judgement and to show you his authority, the letter is worded exactly as he proposed. That means his judgement which you call 'opinion' was much weightier. And he spoke LAST.

Peter's conclusion was the same as Paul's. So if Peter's conclusion is mentioned in the Prophets, so is Paul's. It strains the scriptures to suggest Peter's position as superior there. Unless you have existing bias.

James specifies what should and should not be binding and that is it. Next, if the decision was still arrived at by all the elders and apostles, not only would this prove James as 'just another apostle' but so would it be for Peter!



James authority stretched BEYOND Jerusalem. It was his decision on what to and not to bind disciples of Gentile origin. It reaches Antioch and evidence of this is, the letter from Jerusalem was binding on Jews in the place. And he sent some Jews from Jerusalem to Paul much later.

In any case, my understanding is in the first century, leaders were over specific regions. James being a leader in Jerusalem while Peter lived suffices to show that Peter was not superior in ANY way to other apostles. Else Jerusalem was the seat of Jewish church of which Peter was an apostle. What better place to be bishop than Jerusalem

[Bella]

kadame,
The best interpretation of keys and rock is the ACTUAL recorded life of the apostles.

Of course, its also interpreted in a way that does not deny what Jesus plainly says, only to Peter and never to anyone else, except as a collective, three different occasions, in the whole bible.

Paul is quite clear, Peter,John and James SEEMED as pillars. That is quite telling.

Acts 15. I hope you realize Peter's experience with Gentiles had been shared before the Council. That was a milestone. Read about it in
Acts 11:1-4,18 (ESV)

I do note it. The way I see it, when God wanted the church to accept gentiles, something they would never have done without serious authority given the beliefs of Judaism so strong in the church, he knew who the church would listen to based on what he had already established among them, so he went to Peter and not to James or to Paul. When they criticized Peter, they thought he was being disobedient. When he taught them, they understood it was the doctrine that had changed and understood Peter's behavior. They never challenged that teaching, just as the didn't in the Jerusalem council later on.

Yes, the letter is worded as st James proposed: ONLY st James proposed actual decrees/instructions in terms of gentile practices. Peter just taught a doctrine: the works of the torah do not save either the gentiles or the Jews thus are useless, only grace saves all (another thing against the sola fide doctrine, but I digress). It is James who suggests clear instructions: Lets tell the gentiles dont do this, or that...decrees. Peter just doesn't bother except to say don't yoke gentiles, no specifics. Those being "yoked" are Paul's flock whom he's in Jerusalem advocating for, thus no one is heeding Paul on this issue.

Peter's conclusion was the same as Paul's. So if Peter's conclusion is mentioned in the Prophets, so is Paul's. It strains the scriptures to suggest Peter's position as superior there. Unless you have existing bias.

I'm just stating what I see: before peter, there is debate. Paul in fact is one of the complainants who has brought the dispute before the church, he himself is involved in the debate therefore, he would like his flock to cease being harassed by James' flock in Jerusalem.

James specifies what should and should not be binding and that is it. Next, if the decision was still arrived at by all the elders and apostles, not only would this prove James as 'just another apostle' but so would it be for Peter!

This only shows you don't understand catholic belief on primacy. It doesn't mean only Peter or the pope exercises authority, bishops do exercise a collective authority, (in fact, the popes authority is exercised very rarely) but always in union with the head-bishop, not in contradiction. That Peter was present and among the collective, and the decrees agreed and did not contradict him, was enough. The reason I highlight his influence on the Jerusalem debate is because antipapal arguments are based on a false idea that James in this one, single instance, supposedly had authority over Peter, (whom he cites, not the other way around) which is simply not the case. In other words, I am arguing against the idea that James was the "likely pope, if any" based on Acts as previously argued, Acts shows a collective decision and in my view, the influence Peter had over the church's beliefs, infact, the decision did not restate the doctrinal base taught by Peter, only the decrees proposed by James.

[vooke]

kadame,
As a Protestant, I have little to lose,adjust if Peter was a super apostle or not. For me, it would just be archived somewhere at the back of my mind. It is of little consequence, no more than knowing who got to the tomb on Resurrection Sunday FIRST. You on the other hand as a Catholic has some serious chunk of faith at stake and probably everything.

This obviously means you are likely to be extremely cautious or skeptical of anything pointing you away from your convictions. What I will advise on this matter is take your time and if you are interested, look outside Catholicism for more objectivity on this subject.

I came across this site accidentally and it's quite interesting. On apostolic succession  I found this paragraph worth sharing here;

I believe that apostolic succession was in place from the earliest days. Luke represents leadership succession in Paul's ministry in Acts 19. Paul represents the same in the Pastoral epistles. I think Peter and Paul probably laid hands on the man (or men) who would take over as bishop(s) of Rome once they both were handed over to death. I do believe leadership was passed from bishop to bishop in each generation in each major city or region.

The problem: leadership was not always clear and unanimous. There were many conflicts over who was the rightful bishop in many locations and in numerous timeframes (see the examples below). THIS is why I do not agree with using apostolic succession as evidence to give legitimacy to a particular movement, Catholic or Orthodox. Remember, when the original fathers used apostolic succession it was an apologetic against Gnostics. When Catholics or Orthodox believers use apostolic succession it is to show that their branch of faith is more legitimate than Protestants (or one another). I do not think either branch would say that NO others are Christian, yet that WAS the original use of apostolic succession.

This site is quite rich, I will make time and go through its articles

With that, I wish to bring this debate to an end with this parting shot;
I know you are Roman but had you lived during the East v West squabbles with both claiming to the the real deal, on what basis would you have picked Rome over the other?

[Bella]

vooke, sawa sawa 

But honestly the idea that I'm more likely to be biased than you is an unfair assessment. Because if you are wrong, it means your own protestant assumptions and central doctrines are wrong, so you have as much to lose, you certainly are not free of propensity for bias therefore. You yourself read everything under the assumption that protestant central doctrines are true, you cant look at any evidence, scriptural or historical, that shows they are not, so you are not able to notice your own biases. I shall look at the site but also ask you to look at your own assumptions about what is established and what is self-consistent about the central Protestant doctrines you take for-granted.

That site mentions that leadership was not always clear and there was much bickering, but it shows a misunderstanding of the doctrine it proposes to discuss. That has nothing to do with apostolic succession which just means receiving ordination from a validly ordained bishop, all the way to the apostles. The only clearly preserved list of succession is that of popes, incidentally, the Bishops of Rome, only, which is not a matter of apostolic succession but of the see of Peter which is not a matter of ordination but rather presumes it. The early church wasn't keenly concerned on maintaining an exact list of who was ordained by whom. The Bishops have always been ordained by bishops of a valid church. The question of invalid ordinations never ever came up until the reformation when bishops stopped ordaining bishops and after a few centuries, some protestant churches like Lutheran and Anglican who claimed it, could not be verified as having been ordained by someone who was actually a bishop himself. No amount of bickering has every put in question who is ordained bishop in any of the apostolic churches for 2,000 years. We don't need to know who in the year 1500 ordained who till my bishop. We just need to know it has been done in an apostolic church that has never broken the succession by CEASING entirely for a century or even less, to ordain bishops (thus broke the succession) as happened with some protestant churches after the reformation. However, the church always needed to know who was pope at any one time, which is why we have a 2,000 year list of Roman Bishops but not necessarily of all the ancient sees.

As to your question, East/West, I would do as the early church did and as I myself did when I was forced to pick among the apostolic churches: Obey Peter's successor whom the early church believed preserved the church's unity and orthodoxy. Just sticking to the beliefs and practices of the first Christians who were taught by the apostles or by the direct disciples of the apostles and their disciples, has proven a very easy tool of discernment for me. They read the same scriptures I read today and virtually none of them saw in them what protestants see, and I believe its because they were not reading them through the culture of mideaval Europe or our own modern 21st century biases, but rather spoke Greek, Aramaic, understood all the idioms, motifs, metaphors, assumptions of that era, and whats more, learned the faith directly from the apostles or those taught directly by them, and the disciples of those ones. I would prefer their interpretation over any televangelist or European reformer that came later, that's just my honest assessment, and to me, the early church is undeniably catholic in all the areas that protestants fight Catholics over.