Here, Peter was simply obeying the commission given to all of the apostles by Christ himself.
I’ll give you this. But that wasn’t the entirety of the point.
Peter was the one that gave the first sermon and the Jews asked Peter (not the rest of the twelve) “What shall we do”?, and Peter (not the rest of the twelve) answered.
Regarding the decision to replace Judas
This would merely seem to be a logical point, and would only constitute authority if Peter were somehow more involved in the decision making process than the other apostles, which isn’t the case according to scripture.
How did the other Apostles have any involvement in this decision. It seems the words and the decision to do this is stricly according to the whim of Peter. He doesn’t consult. He simply makes a decision and acts on it.
Regarding opening the Covenant to the Jews
Again, this is simple obedience to the commission given to all of the apostles – Christ said to go to every nation preaching and baptizing. Obedience to this is not a sign of leadership, or at least not of authority (yes, leadership and authority can be two different things).
If it was so obvious, why did it take so many years to do it? And why did it take a dream from an angel to kick it into gear?
Did the Angel come to the other Apostles and tell them to eat these unclean foods.
On the Jerusalem council:
And yet we see that it wasn’t until after James spoke that the discussion was closed, and moreover, we see that James exact suggestion was followed – they sent a letter back to Antioch (and other churches) detailing instruction as James had stated. Yes, Peter certainly provided very valuable (name removed by moderator)ut into the conversation, as I’m sure Paul did as well, but there’s no sign here of Peter exhibiting a singular authority above that of the group.
Three ponts:
- James acts on Peter’s words. “Peter has spoken, the prophets agree… THEREFORE…” James is coming to his decision because of Peter’s words.
- Peter’s words become dogma. His decision not to place the Mosaic yoke on the Gentiles is just as true today as it was in the 1st century.
- James’ words are simply a discipline. They certianly aren’t as binding on the faithful as Peter’s, for they were changed later on in the New Testament era.
And since this is a thread about the keys, I wonder if someone would answer the question I’ve been asking for a while now – exactly what are the keys? Are they symbols of binding and loosing authority, as would fit with the Isaiah analogy? If so, the rest of the apostles received these as well.
Yes, and they (the Apostles) represent the Magisterium. So what about this is confusing.
If not that, then what else are they keys? What unique purpose do they serve, aside from being a symbol of binding and loosing?
The power behind the keys has been demonstrated by the Council of Nicaea, Trent, and numerous other times.
Actually, I think the Church looks to the Magisterium and then the Pope’s authority only when issues can’t resolve themselves, as they should do. For instance, Nicaea came about only because the Arian Crisis would not resolve itself. Trent came about only because of the Reformation.