Do the church fathers say Peter is the rock?

[Bishopite]

[NotWorthy;1696707]Kaycee,

You forgot to mention in your litany that:

a) Peter is the first one of the Church to heal someone.

b) Peter gave the first Sermon of the Catholic Church as well as the first Dogma - "Repent, and be Baptized… for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ".

c) Peter is also the first one of the Church to punish someone. Rather harshly, too!

d) Peter is the first to accept Gentiles into the Church (No councils, no debates, no consultations).

e) Peter is the first one to say that Gentiles should not be saddled with the Mosaic Law.

Thanks for the reply NotWorthy…it saves me from redundancy of answering the same questions. And if I may add another. Kaycee mentioned that James sends Peter and John in Acts 8:14 implying that they are both equal, but if John thought himself equal to Peter why would he wait for him to go into the tomb first in John 20:4-6? Someone will reply that John did so out of respect for Peter was older, however, if Kaycee is going to use Acts 8:14 to give gravity to the equal authority of John and Peter, then my argument in John 20:4-6 is just as valid!

Since Kaycee is using an argument from Scripture, I wonder if Montalban would accuse him of using a “sola scriptura” argument?

And I wonder if Kaycee has seen this from my earlier post about Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18…

1. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
2. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. Peter is the only one of the apostles who is given the keys of the kingdom. These keys are directly related to the power of binding and loosing of which Peter is given a singular prerogative not given to any other apostle. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)”

 

[Montalban]

Montalban wrote," …Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful** rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth**, Thou art the Son of the living God”"

Did I write that? I thought Hilary of Poitiers did.
-Hilary of Poitiers “On The Trinity, Book VI.37”
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-13.htm#P1388_859877
First cited in post #50

I am looking at “rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth”.
This statement may be tinged with Protestantism. They say that the rock upon which Jesus was to build His church was the “confession” of Peter and not on Peter the man. Other Protestants are very mixed up and say the rock is Jesus.

I can see that people might interpret those words that way (not mine, but Hilary’s though I’m in agreement).

The Bible says
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Having faith, means also to live according to that faith, for faith without works is dead (James 2:14ff)

It is actually the Catholic notion that lies closer to Protestantism, because it is believed that Jesus is building the ‘rock’ on Peter immediately after this declaration.

We don’t believe that, because our church was founded at Pentecost when all the Apostles understood.

“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge…,”
Irenaeus - “Against Heresies” Book III.I.I
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

See also John 13:7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will after this.”

The mere proclamation by Peter at this stage did not cause Jesus to confer upon him any papal power. Mere repeating the words is not good enough, Augustine said that the devils acknowledge Jesus is God. “For “the devils also believe and tremble,” as the Scripture tells us.”
Augustine - Homily X quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm#P4618_2490251

Please be clear and tell me just who is the rock that Jesus said he would build his church upon. Thanks.

All who shared that notion that Jesus is Christ. Our ‘faith’ is not simply learning a book, but living the life of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

Again, tell me how you KNOW the context of Ignatius?

By reading more than one verse, and looking at the other Fathers, commentaries etc. And looking to see if it is consistent. Your version is internally inconsistent; you have Ignatius at once acknowledging the Roman bishop as supreme, but then other times he says no one is above the Bishop. Period! Although when he speaks of absolutes you have to re-work him talking this way into some how talking about his own bishopric, and it still doesn’t work. As I’ve shown, even the local RC church is headed by the Pope. You’ve not addressed that at all, but merely want to plead a case of incredulity.

Earlier I said that anyone can read the Church fathers and even Scripture for that matter, and insert what they want if they approach the Church fathers with an a priori mentality instead of an a posteriori one. Your theology guides your methodology, instead of vise versa.

You don’t know that at all. You don’t know how I came to my conclusions. I could have read the evidence and THEN decided which church was closer to the truth.

Explaining away Ignatius’ statement about the Bishop of Rome who holds to the presidency of his own community doesn’t suffice since according to you all of the Apostles already knew they were all equal. For the question then becomes…why would Ignatius tell the Bishop of Rome something, that is well known throughout Christendom? It’s almost as Ignatius is telling the Bishop…guess what Bishop of Rome…you are in charge of your community!!! As though he didn’t already know that.

Why’s anyone write anything? Paul taught many a community and yet he writes to them after-wards. Why?

Why’s the Pope get declared infallible, if every Catholic already knew it? (and it’s argued that it was ‘always taught’)

Again, that’s an eisagesis instead of an exegesis.

Again, that’s you making assumptions; assuming I have come to conclusions the same way you have.

Your very arguments were based on quoting a large collection of singular instances of ‘proofs’ of the Papacy. You were showing that these are already accepted by you as proofs. I however have been at pains to go through the whole documents and look at these in context. We have not been working on the same method at all. The only thing common is we both make mistakes.

Ha…honestly I’m not the one who keeps saying that you’ve not responded to particular questions…if anyone says they aren’t getting a response it’s you, not me.

Tell me what elements of your ‘argument’ I’ve not responded to

But your evidence isn’t very persuasive, honestly.

Given that you think merely citing someone else’s argument is sufficient, I’m not at all surprised by your statements.

 

[Montalban]

Thanks for the reply NotWorthy…it saves me from redundancy of answering the same questions. And if I may add another. Kaycee mentioned that James sends Peter and John in Acts 8:14 implying that they are both equal, but if John thought himself equal to Peter why would he wait for him to go into the tomb first in John 20:4-6? Someone will reply that John did so out of respect for Peter was older, however, if Kaycee is going to use Acts 8:14 to give gravity to the equal authority of John and Peter, then my argument in John 20:4-6 is just as valid!

What’s the difference between showing ‘respect’ and having power over someone? Can you not show respect without demeaning oneself?

Since Kaycee is using an argument from Scripture, I wonder if Montalban would accuse him of using a “sola scriptura” argument?

At least, if Kaycee did, it wouldn’t be ironic. When you do, it is.

 

[kaycee]

Catholics have no problem with this statement. What is your point?

The point being that whenever the structure of the church is mentioned in scripture, there is no hint at the papacy, no mention of Peter being THE leader.

 

[kaycee]

Catholics have no problem with this statement. What is your point?

The point being that whenever the structure of the church is mentioned in scripture, there is no hint at the papacy, no mention of Peter being THE leader.

 

[NotWorthy]

The point being that whenever the structure of the church is mentioned in scripture, there is no hint at the papacy, no mention of Peter being THE leader.

Except maybe for the fact that Peter acts like a leader in so many cases…

Who did he consult when he declared that the Church was open to Gentiles?

Who did he consult before replying to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am”? Remember, Jesus asked the twelve this question, not Peter alone.

Who did he consult when asked by the Jews at Pentecost, “What shall we do, brother, in order to be saved”?

Who did he consult when he punished the husband and wife in Acts for lying to the Holy Spirit?

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

I disagree in part with your western-orientated perspective. The Roman Empire continued in the east until the mid-1400s.

The west was also more legalistic, and the east more metaphysical. This lead to the west ‘developing’ new doctrines and teachings by speculation (scholasticism), such as Limbo, The Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, etc.

There is a mix of ‘evidence’ from the early church that one can see would eventually lead to the idea of the Papacy as it is known today.

But it is a ‘development’, that is, it is different from the early church. For instance Jerome sees Peter as the boss, but because he was older. So the element of “Peter is the leader” is there, just not as it is known today.

Europe, Africa, Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece fell to other kingdoms as the roman empire slowly collapsed starting in the 400’s. The political environment did cause an evolution from co-leadership to a figurehead. I believe we agree on this.

Before the change, the bishop of Rome did exercise influence on other churches. The same was true about the four other bishops in the Pentacrhy. The Apostles governed the church in a way that was as foreign to the people of that time as it is to us today. We are used to presidents, kings, and emperors. It is not surprising that the church fell back on what people know best as time went on.

I appreciate your honesty in this broad discussion stating some teachings are in fact “speculation”. I just finished reading a Catholic apologetic on many misconceptions that “Christians AND Catholics” have about the Catholic church. The theologian took the same position that you do. It is my personal conviction as well. The theologian, while being very careful to not overstep previous church teaching and traditions on matters such as Peter, Mary, etc, also stated these understandings are based on traditions that are secondary to gospel or can not directly contradict scripture. Some traditions although accepted are questionable.

I accept the “best guess” of Catholic theologians is (insert topic here). Where I do have a problem is when the guess leaves no room for other possibilities. I believe some best guesses are partially or wholly wrong by no deliberate fault of those who came up with the theology. Should we re-examine every dogma, every doctrine, or every tradition? In some ways that would be pointless and counterproductive. In other ways, if you believe the Holy Spirit continues to bring us into all truth, then I believe no idea church theologians came up with no matter how old should be exempt from clarification or reform.

Back to Peter:

One of the “best guesses” is peter was the first pope. I have no problems grasping that he was the apostle in charge of Rome or that he had authority over churches outside Rome. It’s certainly possible and probable though no first hand account exists. However, scripture backed by tradition also records Paul being the co-founder of the Roman church. Paul was also in Apostolic authority over Rome concurrently with Peter. As demonstrated by the council of Jerusalem and by accounts in the epistles, the apostles governed as a group. Sometimes James was the face/leader, sometimes it was Peter, sometimes Paul, sometimes John, etc, etc… That model of church government is a first hand account, written by those who were involved. Ignatius, Clement, and others sometimes generations removed from the time base their ideas on assumption, their best guess, and influenced by popular ideas and the culture/times in which they live. The same obviously applies to our own guesses.

I believe some theologians and laypeople alike have tried to prove the Churches authority based on a foundation of second hand accounts. In my mind this raises more questions instead of resolving them. I believe Catholics fear if these foundations are not correct, then that somehow opens everything else in the faith to be false, including papal authority. I hold fast to the scriptural truth that states “the truth will set you free”.

How I have made peace with this issue in coming to the Catholic faith is:

I don’t care (to a certain extent) if we have history right or wrong. It doesn’t matter to me if the church in several hundred years evolved from a council with no permanent leader to a council with an elected figurehead. What can be agreed upon concerning the Roman church is that it was founded by Apostles. The church did pass its authority from bishop to bishop from early Christianity to the present. And the fruits I witness today in how the church functions validates its place in Christendom. Where I pause is “we’re the only church because Peter was our Bishop”.

 

[Redbandito]

Europe, Africa, Palestine, Asia Minor and Greece fell to other kingdoms as the roman empire slowly collapsed starting in the 400’s. The political environment did cause an evolution from co-leadership to a figurehead. I believe we agree on this.

Before the change, the bishop of Rome did exercise influence on other churches. The same was true about the four other bishops in the Pentacrhy. The Apostles governed the church in a way that was as foreign to the people of that time as it is to us today. We are used to presidents, kings, and emperors. It is not surprising that the church fell back on what people know best as time went on.

I appreciate your honesty in this broad discussion stating some teachings are in fact “speculation”. I just finished reading a Catholic apologetic on many misconceptions that “Christians AND Catholics” have about the Catholic church. The theologian took the same position that you do. It is my personal conviction as well. The theologian, while being very careful to not overstep previous church teaching and traditions on matters such as Peter, Mary, etc, also stated these understandings are based on traditions that are secondary to gospel or can not directly contradict scripture. Some traditions although accepted are questionable.

I accept the “best guess” of Catholic theologians is (insert topic here). Where I do have a problem is when the guess leaves no room for other possibilities. I believe some best guesses are partially or wholly wrong by no deliberate fault of those who came up with the theology. Should we re-examine every dogma, every doctrine, or every tradition? In some ways that would be pointless and counterproductive. In other ways, if you believe the Holy Spirit continues to bring us into all truth, then I believe no idea church theologians came up with no matter how old should be exempt from clarification or reform.

Back to Peter:

One of the “best guesses” is peter was the first pope. I have no problems grasping that he was the apostle in charge of Rome or that he had authority over churches outside Rome. It’s certainly possible and probable though no first hand account exists. However, scripture backed by tradition also records Paul being the co-founder of the Roman church. Paul was also in Apostolic authority over Rome concurrently with Peter. As demonstrated by the council of Jerusalem and by accounts in the epistles, the apostles governed as a group. Sometimes James was the face/leader, sometimes it was Peter, sometimes Paul, sometimes John, etc, etc… That model of church government is a first hand account, written by those who were involved. Ignatius, Clement, and others sometimes generations removed from the time base their ideas on assumption, their best guess, and influenced by popular ideas and the culture/times in which they live. The same obviously applies to our own guesses.

I believe some theologians and laypeople alike have tried to prove the Churches authority based on a foundation of second hand accounts. In my mind this raises more questions instead of resolving them. I believe Catholics fear if these foundations are not correct, then that somehow opens everything else in the faith to be false, including papal authority. I hold fast to the scriptural truth that states “the truth will set you free”.

How I have made peace with this issue in coming to the Catholic faith is:

I don’t care (to a certain extent) if we have history right or wrong. It doesn’t matter to me if the church in several hundred years evolved from a council with no permanent leader to a council with an elected figurehead. What can be agreed upon concerning the Roman church is that it was founded by Apostles. The church did pass its authority from bishop to bishop from early Christianity to the present. And the fruits I witness today in how the church functions validates its place in Christendom. Where I pause is “we’re the only church because Peter was our Bishop”.

So essentially you’re saying you have a problem with Catholicism. If you want to create your own idea of what Catholicism should look like, that’s one thing. However, then it would cease to be CATHOLICISM.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

So essentially you’re saying you have a problem with Catholicism. If you want to create your own idea of what Catholicism should look like, that’s one thing. However, then it would cease to be CATHOLICISM.

I didn’t say that at all! What I did say (in a long winded reply) was that I’m glad to know that the early church history is accepted as tradition but not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture.

What is Catholicism? To me it is (simplistically) the Universal (catholic) & Apostolic church founded by Peter & Paul.

Is there more to it? Absolutely.

Is Catholicism the church that only follows Peter? No.

Is Peter’s involvement the Churches ONLY claim? If it is, there is a problem.

Was there nothing else besides the Apostolic foundation or was there a lot more to it? Of course!

Is the church also built on Peter’s confession of faith? Yes!

This argument has been around before the death of Peter and Paul and exists today. We are one body baptized in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We were not baptized in the name of Peter, Paul & Mary (although they were a great folk group).

All kidding aside, I think I could have said it better but then I wouldn’t have hit the 5000 character limit.

 

[Redbandito]

I didn’t say that at all! What I did say (in a long winded reply) was that I’m glad to know that the early church history is accepted as tradition but not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture.

What is Catholicism? To me it is (simplistically) the Universal (catholic) & Apostolic church founded by Peter & Paul.

Is there more to it? Absolutely.

Is Catholicism the church that only follows Peter? No.

Is Peter’s involvement the Churches ONLY claim? If it is, there is a problem.

Was there nothing else besides the Apostolic foundation or was there a lot more to it? Of course!

Is the church also built on Peter’s confession of faith? Yes!

This argument has been around before the death of Peter and Paul and exists today. We are one body baptized in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. We were not baptized in the name of Peter, Paul & Mary (although they were a great folk group).

All kidding aside, I think I could have said it better but then I wouldn’t have hit the 5000 character limit.

LOL! Good stuff. In all seriousness though, you might be better served to read what the Catechism teaches about the identity of the Church. My perception of your posts is that you are speaking partial truths. I don’t completely reject what you say, but I can’t completely accept it either. It seems to me that you making Christianity relative. To be the Universal, Apostolic Church has real meaning. It is not merely a title used to distinguish between the myriad of Christian denominations we have today.

And as far as tradition, you are correct to say it is not elevated to the inspired, infallible status of the Scripture. However, the Tradition is seen being at the same level. “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age” (CCC, 80).

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

LOL! Good stuff. In all seriousness though, you might be better served to read what the Catechism teaches about the identity of the Church. My perception of your posts is that you are speaking partial truths. I don’t completely reject what you say, but I can’t completely accept it either. It seems to me that you making Christianity relative. To be the Universal, Apostolic Church has real meaning. It is not merely a title used to distinguish between the myriad of Christian denominations we have today.

And as far as tradition, you are correct to say it is not elevated to the inspired, infallible status of the Scripture. However, the Tradition is seen being at the same level. “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age” (CCC, 80).

I don’t disagree with the Catechism’s statement whatsoever. The Author of the book I read put it in another way that to me (being from the other side of the tracks) said it in a way that I understood. Putting the two side by side, they essentially say the same thing.

 

[Redbandito]

I don’t disagree with the Catechism’s statement whatsoever. The Author of the book I read put it in another way that to me (being from the other side of the tracks) said it in a way that I understood. Putting the two side by side, they essentially say the same thing.

Okay. Well, that’s good to know. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying. However, I’m confused in light of this statement you previously made. “What I did say (in a long winded reply) was that I’m glad to know that the early church history is accepted as tradition but not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture.” I am fallible, so again I am leaving the door open for a possible misunderstanding I my end here. However, aren’t you saying on the one hand that Scripture and Tradition are the “same thing,” and on the other hand that “tradition” is “not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture?” If not, please explain more. If you are discussing little “t” traditions, they would not be applicable when discussing the papacy, and the nature of the Church. These would be big “T” Traditions. Big “T” Traditions are of Apostolic origin.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;1697274]

Originally Posted by Bishopite
Explaining away Ignatius’ statement about the Bishop of Rome who holds to the presidency of his own community doesn’t suffice since according to you all of the Apostles already knew they were all equal. For the question then becomes…why would Ignatius tell the Bishop of Rome something, that is well known throughout Christendom? It’s almost as Ignatius is telling the Bishop…guess what Bishop of Rome…you are in charge of your community!!! As though he didn’t already know that.

Why’s anyone write anything? Paul taught many a community and yet he writes to them after-wards. Why?

“Why’s anyone write anything?” I’m not sure…that’s a complicated philosophical question. But why would Ignatius write the Bishop of Rome and say “to the church which holds the presidency” acccording to you Ignatius was simply affirming the Bishop of Romes ‘presidency’ over his own community. Since you know the patristics better than I, do you know if Ignatius told other Bishops that their church holds to the presidency?

Why’s the Pope get declared infallible, if every Catholic already knew it? (and it’s argued that it was ‘always taught’)

Always taught doesn’t mean that it was clearly understood or defined or there wouldn’t have been any need of councils. The council of Ephesus 431 defined “theotokos” Mary as “God bearer” so why have councils if everyone already knew it all.
You believe that everything was taught to the Apostles and they knew and understood everything, so why would you accept any council if the everything was completely understood? Why need Ephesus?
That Jesus was God, the Father was God and the Holy Spirit was God was always taught after Jesus’ mission on Earth, however HOW they were all God (in a Trinity) wasn’t clear it needed clarification in the council of Nicea 325 against the Arian heresy.

Originally Posted by Bishopite

Ha…honestly I’m not the one who keeps saying that you’ve not responded to particular questions…if anyone says they aren’t getting a response it’s you, not me.

Tell me what elements of your ‘argument’ I’ve not responded to

I must say, this is irony. I don’t require nor ask you to answer every question I’ve posed, however, you are the one who says that I don’t answer particular questions of yours.

Originally Posted by Bishopite
Thanks for the reply NotWorthy…it saves me from redundancy of answering the same questions. And if I may add another. Kaycee mentioned that James sends Peter and John in Acts 8:14 implying that they are both equal, but if John thought himself equal to Peter why would he wait for him to go into the tomb first in John 20:4-6? Someone will reply that John did so out of respect for Peter was older, however, if Kaycee is going to use Acts 8:14 to give gravity to the equal authority of John and Peter, then my argument in John 20:4-6 is just as valid!

What’s the difference between showing ‘respect’ and having power over someone? Can you not show respect without demeaning oneself?

Sure, I suppose you can show respect without demeaning oneself but I’m not sure I see your point? As a Catholic I don’t dissagree with you that in one sense that John is showing respect to Peter, that’s perfectly acceptable, but it seems that Kaycee is trying to show Peter as equal to John in Acts 8:14 where he said James sent for Peter and John, (that’s why he highlighted them both) seeming to make a point that John was in Scripture, equal to Peter, which isn’t a problem in one sense because both were Bishops but Peter in other areas is singled out as the head Bishop, if you will (cf Mt 16:15-19); this is a very important verse since Peter is getting a new name, Rock which signifies something important is happening, just like when Abram became Abraham. And note that it is God the Father that changes Abrahams name and it is God the Son that changes Peters to Rock (kepha).

 

[steve_b]

Is the Catholic position “we are the only true denomination because Christ said ‘upon this rock’ Christ would build his church”?

As you know, the CC is

• Not a denomination. It is THE Church
• headquartered in Rome because that’s where Peter the leader was bishop and where he died

fromthecrossroa:

Peter also founded the church in Antioch. If the same interpretation is applied, shouldn’t the church in Antioch or any other church that Peter founded also be on equal footing with Rome?

We’ve got 2000 years of history to look back on. And today you can’t hardly find Christians living in any of the early sees of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch or Constantinople/Istanbul.
Not so with Rome. Why?

fromthecrossroa:

Paul admonished both Peter and John for errors in doctrine. To me this suggests that Paul functioned as the first guardian of the faith and Christian theologian (a duty now taken on by the office of the pope).

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

1. • Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   • In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   • Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
     Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
   St Jerome points out.
   
   “O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
   for hypocrasy because he withdrew himself from the
   Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
   James, why are you, not withstanding your own
   doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
   Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
   
   Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
   according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

 

[steve_b]

Another assumption with no proof!

James Leads the council
Acts 15:13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name… 19 "**Therefore it is my judgment **that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:7 "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe

You say that the reference to James’s “judgment” in Acts 15:13-21 indicated that he had more authority than Peter.
Acts 15:13-14, 19-21 “After they had fallen silent, James responded, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name… 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the
synagogues every sabbath.”

James begins by referencing Peter and his declaration. James agrees to what Peter says, and then he just offers his best pastoral judgment on how to implement Peter’s decision.

Peter’s voice was not just one of many because he gave his decision “after much debate”. Peter took the floor and the debate was over… Peter doesn’t just voice his decision, he rose up to do so.

Compare Galatians 2 and Acts 15. It was the people who " came from James" that had difficulty accepting the Gentiles in Galatians 2: 12. Cf. Acts 11:2-4

Since it was the members of James’s own community that had the trouble of accepting the Gentiles, it would have been significant to them that James’s decision was to follow Peter. Presumably, James’s community would have to get in line behind Peter as well. Therefore, It was Peter who had the supreme authority at that first Council.

 

[Montalban]

Except maybe for the fact that Peter acts like a leader in so many cases

Which is not to say “Pope” but perhaps “Bishop” for Paul also leads, as does James

 

[Montalban]

“Why’s anyone write anything?” I’m not sure…that’s a complicated philosophical question. But why would Ignatius write the Bishop of Rome and say “to the church which holds the presidency” acccording to you Ignatius was simply affirming the Bishop of Romes ‘presidency’ over his own community. Since you know the patristics better than I, do you know if Ignatius told other Bishops that their church holds to the presidency?

Because the writing is a letter. It is addressed to that church that is the head of the church in the region of the Romans. It’s an ‘address’. I’m sure even in America you add the person’s title when you write to them. The letter is saying who it’s for.

You’d get a letter “Dear Mr Bishopite” and ask “Why are they calling me “Mr”, I know I’m a Mr! They know I’m a Mr! Why are they calling me something that’s already understood?”

Always taught doesn’t mean that it was clearly understood or defined or there wouldn’t have been any need of councils. The council of Ephesus 431 defined “theotokos” Mary as “God bearer” so why have councils if everyone already knew it all.

Again, why have them in the Catholic church? I noted before your church has stated that they always believed it. Perhaps you’ve not realised that you’ve touched upon the answer yourself; ‘defined’.

You believe that everything was taught to the Apostles and they knew and understood everything, so why would you accept any council if the everything was completely understood? Why need Ephesus?

See above.

I must say, this is irony. I don’t require nor ask you to answer every question I’ve posed, however, you are the one who says that I don’t answer particular questions of yours.

It’s because you didn’t answer, when I’ve said you haven’t. You make a (what now appears) a blanket statement, because you’re not willing to show where I’ve not answered you. And thus it’s not ‘irony’, especially as you’ve moved even further away from addressing the points I made re: the modern RC Church’s idea of Papal supremacy -even of the bishopric.

Sure, I suppose you can show respect without demeaning oneself but I’m not sure I see your point?

So John could show respect to Peter without in anyway lessening his position in relation to Peter.

As a Catholic I don’t dissagree with you that in one sense that John is showing respect to Peter, that’s perfectly acceptable, but it seems that Kaycee is trying to show Peter as equal to John in Acts 8:14 where he said James sent for Peter and John, (that’s why he highlighted them both) seeming to make a point that John was in Scripture, equal to Peter, which isn’t a problem in one sense because both were Bishops but Peter in other areas is singled out as the head Bishop, if you will (cf Mt 16:15-19); this is a very important verse since Peter is getting a new name, Rock which signifies something important is happening, just like when Abram became Abraham. And note that it is God the Father that changes Abrahams name and it is God the Son that changes Peters to Rock (kepha).

James did send Peter. It’s not to me a matter that James was the supreme head of the church, but he was the first bishop. His role was such that in his bishopric, of Jerusalem, he is the head.

 

[NotWorthy]

Which is not to say “Pope” but perhaps “Bishop” for Paul also leads, as does James

A) the claim was made (by others) that no where in Scripture does Peter exert leadership.

B) Yes, all Bishops are leaders, but Peter by far shows an authority to make binding decisions on the Church as I’ve illustrated in a previous post.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Okay. Well, that’s good to know. Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are saying. However, I’m confused in light of this statement you previously made. “What I did say (in a long winded reply) was that I’m glad to know that the early church history is accepted as tradition but not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture.” I am fallible, so again I am leaving the door open for a possible misunderstanding I my end here. However, aren’t you saying on the one hand that Scripture and Tradition are the “same thing,” and on the other hand that “tradition” is “not elevated to the same level of truth as scripture?” If not, please explain more. If you are discussing little “t” traditions, they would not be applicable when discussing the papacy, and the nature of the Church. These would be big “T” Traditions. Big “T” Traditions are of Apostolic origin.

I believe we’re talking about the same thing. Big “T” to me would be the doctrine of the Trinity. Little “t” would be Peter is generally considered by Catholic historians to be co founder of the Roman church and its first Bishop. In my understanding, there is no room (for lack of better wording) for personal discernment without breaking from the faith where big “T’s” are concerned. Its also not fair to make a generalized statement about smaller “t’s” as each contain at least partial truth based on careful speculation. Although I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m 100 percent on board with everything I’ve learned in conversion (or as I consider it as coming into fuller fellowship), I do approach with an open heart, open mind and accept some things as a matter of faith when I lack convincing evidence or understanding.

If I blindly accepted everything without discernment, then I have not made “the faith” personal or tried to understand it. On the other hand, I am completely fallible and more than capable of mis-speaking what I believe and misunderstanding what I hear.

Trying to get this back to the original topic… Is it your understanding that the church fathers understood “the rock” had a single meaning? My understanding is the scripture has more than one meaning. Christ’s church was also built on Peter’s confession of faith. I consider both interpretations to be equally true and inseparable. Even if the accepted tradition lacks a contemporary statement (such as peter declaring himself the first pope); history also affirms both interpretations are true. Based on my discernment I can accept this little “t” without reservation.

I hope I clarified what I meant in joining the discussion. If not, we will have to extend the other some grace and continue the dialog.