James half brother of Jesus

[Petergee]

Ghosty:

At most, James was step-brother of Jesus, not half-brother. Even then, he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, not of Rome. In the homily by St. John Chrysostom, quoted in my signature below, this distinction is drawn. Peter, consequently, was never the Bishop of Jerusalem, as in Apostalic times that would imply founding, or succeeding, the See in question.

Peter did indeed found the See of Antioch, and every Bishop of Antioch ordained going back to the first is a successor of Peter in that See, but they are not the successor of the Petrine Office, which is the voice of the Apostles and Holder of the Keys. That position was passed on in Rome, upon the death of Peter. The difference is between Peter as a bishop, and Peter as The Rock; the fact that the Rock is also called the Bishop of Rome is incidental.

Peace and God bless!

The Acts of the Apostles mentions in many places, eg chapters 5, 10 and 15, that Peter was headquartered in Jerusalem in the earliest years of the Church, and that Antioch had a thriving Christian community before Peter moved there. Peter seems to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem, then the first bishop of Antioch, then the first bishop of Rome. If you think James founded the See of Jerusalem, where was Peter at the time? He wasn’t in Antioch.

 

[LSK]

viktor aleksndr:

This morning we have a speaker and i dont know their religion but i know they are christian. The speaker say that James, the HALF BROTHER of Jesus Christ is the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME. Is this true for i know that Peter is the first bishop of rome and he is a cousin of jesus and not his hlf brother.

You are correct. This is an old debate that many misguided Protestants have tried many times to bring up. Today on Catholic Answers, Patrick Madrid will be discussing St. Peter in Rome.

James was a cousin of Jesus’. If you try just to do the math of the number of people who were waiting at Pentecost, and look at how many Protestants would have you believe were related as brothers and sisters of Jesus, Mary would have had to have been in perpetual labor rather than have been the Perpetual Virgin that she chose to remain.

 

[Ghosty]

Petergee: The fact that Peter was there hardly means he took the See. Peter went a lot of places, after all. Likewise, just because there was a Christian community in Antioch before he arrived doesn’t negate the fact that he was the first Bishop there.

When Peter was in Jerusalem, he was not the standing guide over the local hierarchy in the direct sense, just like the Pope doesn’t become the Bishop of New York when he visits. A Bishop’s job is altogether different from the job Peter was doing at the time the See of Jerusalem was founded.

As for how we know that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, that’s a matter of Church record. In fact, the Melkite Patriarch in Antioch has addressed his letters to the Pope “from the successor of Peter in Antioch, to the successor of Peter in Rome”. No such tradition exists for Peter chairing the local Church of Jerusalem.

Peace and God bless!