G
guanophore
Guest
Several of the parishes here have 4: 30 pm Masses. Why must we strain at a gnat?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Jesus clearly said that those who did the will of his father were his mother, brothers, etc. He was not interested in bloodlines. But entrusting Mary to John does not mean that James was any less of a pillar. Why didn’t he entrust her to Peter, if he was the head of the church?
I wish I could understand why you think the person inquiring should NOT get a good reception on a Catholic forum! He posted in the non-catholic forum, and asked a legitimate question in a polite manner!
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems to me that Jesus might have known that John was going to have a much longer sojourn on earth than James, who was martyrd relatively early. it is also possible that James was closer in age to Mary, whereas John was the youngest of all the apostles, barely of adult years at the time.
M
MrS
Guest
are you implying that you know that Mary was going to also live a long life???
how about just accepting that Jesus knew what He was doing.??
A
ALotLessThumb
Guest
I am confused as to why you highlighted this particular portion of my original message; because what I wrote does not necessarily contradict what you said. It is rather selective as such; because my original message made mention of the four acceptable, commonly held beliefs that: Peter was the rock, Peter’s faith was the rock, the apostles were the rock, Christ is the rock. There is truth in all of these; but nowhere will you find that James alone was considered the rock.
Which is what this discussion is about- whether James was “head”- which doesn’t take into account what that means. One can find plenty of discussions on what that means between Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox throughout this messageboard. But a general consensus can be seen that if any honor as head (whatever that entails) exists, it exists with Peter. And it exists because of oral tradition, scripture, and the four major sees with the fingerprints of Peter. So it makes it particularly odd to say that Peter heading the church with John (as seen early in Acts) being subordinate to James, whom he seems to leave in charge in Acts 12 when he needs to flee.
P
Pax
Guest
BrianH,
I trust that you have read my post # 79. Do you have a response?
I trust that you have read my post # 79. Do you have a response?
P
Pax
Guest
BrianH,
Here are a couple of more references for your perusal:
EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO JAMES
CHAP. I.–PETER’S MARTYRDOM.
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect, and associate at table and in the journeyings of Christ; the excellent and approved disciple, who, as being fittest of all, was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to accomplish it,
CHAP. XV.–INTRODUCTION TO PETER.
But having spent same days, and not having been able to recover the whole debt, for the sake of speed I neglected the balance, as being a hindrance, and myself also set sail for Judaea, and in fifteen days arrived at Caesarea Stratonis.(1) And when I had landed, and was seeking for a lodging, I learned that one named Peter, who was the most esteemed disciple of the Man who had appeared in Judaea, and had done signs and wonders, was going to have a verbal controversy next day with Simon, a Samaritan of Gitthi. When I heard this, I begged to be shown his lodging; and as soon as I learned it, I stood before the door. And those who were in the house, seeing me, discussed the question who I was, and whence I had come. And, behold, Barnabas came out; and as soon as he saw me he embraced me, rejoicing greatly, and weeping. And he took me by the hand, and conducted me to where Peter was, saying to me, “This is Peter, of whom I told you as being the greatest in the wisdom of God, and I have spoken to him of you continually. Therefore enter freely,(2) for I have told him your excellent qualities, without falsehood; and, at the same time, have disclosed to him your intention, so that he himself also is desirous to see you. Therefore I offer him a great gift when by my hands I present you to him.” Thus saying, he presented me, and said, “This, O Peter, is Clement.”
Here are a couple of more references for your perusal:
EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO JAMES
CHAP. I.–PETER’S MARTYRDOM.
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect, and associate at table and in the journeyings of Christ; the excellent and approved disciple, who, as being fittest of all, was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to accomplish it,
CHAP. XV.–INTRODUCTION TO PETER.
But having spent same days, and not having been able to recover the whole debt, for the sake of speed I neglected the balance, as being a hindrance, and myself also set sail for Judaea, and in fifteen days arrived at Caesarea Stratonis.(1) And when I had landed, and was seeking for a lodging, I learned that one named Peter, who was the most esteemed disciple of the Man who had appeared in Judaea, and had done signs and wonders, was going to have a verbal controversy next day with Simon, a Samaritan of Gitthi. When I heard this, I begged to be shown his lodging; and as soon as I learned it, I stood before the door. And those who were in the house, seeing me, discussed the question who I was, and whence I had come. And, behold, Barnabas came out; and as soon as he saw me he embraced me, rejoicing greatly, and weeping. And he took me by the hand, and conducted me to where Peter was, saying to me, “This is Peter, of whom I told you as being the greatest in the wisdom of God, and I have spoken to him of you continually. Therefore enter freely,(2) for I have told him your excellent qualities, without falsehood; and, at the same time, have disclosed to him your intention, so that he himself also is desirous to see you. Therefore I offer him a great gift when by my hands I present you to him.” Thus saying, he presented me, and said, “This, O Peter, is Clement.”
R
Revelation13_16
Guest
BrianH, have you read Eisenman’s book “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”?
If so, what did you think of it?
God Bless,
Rev
If so, what did you think of it?
God Bless,
Rev
B
BrianH
Guest
I thought it was a very detailed, which is obvious based upon size. I thought the connections to the DSS were tenious but isn’t EVERY thing you read on the DSS?
A good read even if we may not agree with all of the theories.
B
BrianH
Guest
I have to ask this in a nonabrasive manner? Have you read the books? Eusebius contains quotes which in context greatly support I believe the Orthodox viewpoint. Overall, and granted that is an opinion. He contains early quotes that say quite a bit to my original viewpoint. Overall though, IF I were to base my decision on Eusebius alone, I would run to the nearest Orthodox church obviously. Eusebius…long long discussion don’t you think?
P
Pax
Guest
Brian,
I’m all for non-abrasive questions and answers. My main concern, however, is with the answers to questions and points that are raised for your consideration.
Thus far I am disappointed in the responses.
I asked in an earlier post about the double standard you have applied in using Eusebius while not accepting Cyprian. Your answer was that Eusebius was quoting “earlier” individuals. Please be advised that this is not logically acceptable. You chose to use Eusebius as a “source” and he is from the late third to early fourth centuries. He does not meet your own criteria of being from the first or second century. You did not use a primary source from the first or second century yet you are demanding that others do so. You are applying a double standard and your answer to this point is IMHO of no consequence.
I also mentioned in another post that your position on Peter and James could be examined by looking at secular scholarship which has no catholic axe to grind. Secular scholarship overwhelmingly supports the contention that Peter was the first head of the Church. So far you have ignored this point.
I then pointed to additional quotes from Eusebius that clearly show that he did not believe the view that James was the head of the Church and you attempted to evade my point in your latest post by stating:
I also gave you a primary source in Clement. He defintely meets your criteria for an ECF within the first two centuries that supports the view that Peter was the chief apostle. You have yet to address that point.
Frankly, I believe that your OP has been answered and that any suggestion that James was the head of the universal Church by way of scripture or the ECF’s from any era is erroneous.
I’m all for non-abrasive questions and answers. My main concern, however, is with the answers to questions and points that are raised for your consideration.
Thus far I am disappointed in the responses.
I asked in an earlier post about the double standard you have applied in using Eusebius while not accepting Cyprian. Your answer was that Eusebius was quoting “earlier” individuals. Please be advised that this is not logically acceptable. You chose to use Eusebius as a “source” and he is from the late third to early fourth centuries. He does not meet your own criteria of being from the first or second century. You did not use a primary source from the first or second century yet you are demanding that others do so. You are applying a double standard and your answer to this point is IMHO of no consequence.
I also mentioned in another post that your position on Peter and James could be examined by looking at secular scholarship which has no catholic axe to grind. Secular scholarship overwhelmingly supports the contention that Peter was the first head of the Church. So far you have ignored this point.
I then pointed to additional quotes from Eusebius that clearly show that he did not believe the view that James was the head of the Church and you attempted to evade my point in your latest post by stating:
This answer in not on point. Eusebius clearly does not believe that James was the head of the universal church and the quotes I gave you prove that. Moreover, I have read the books and I am convinced that your position is untenable. If you wish to discuss Eusebius and the Orthodox viewpoint, then you should start another thread because it has nothing to do with the discussion of your original post.… Have you read the books? Eusebius contains quotes which in context greatly support I believe the Orthodox viewpoint. Overall, and granted that is an opinion. He contains early quotes that say quite a bit to my original viewpoint. Overall though, IF I were to base my decision on Eusebius alone, I would run to the nearest Orthodox church obviously. Eusebius…long long discussion don’t you think?
I also gave you a primary source in Clement. He defintely meets your criteria for an ECF within the first two centuries that supports the view that Peter was the chief apostle. You have yet to address that point.
Frankly, I believe that your OP has been answered and that any suggestion that James was the head of the universal Church by way of scripture or the ECF’s from any era is erroneous.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Well, I guess BrianH didn’t get the historical or scriptural support for his man as “head of the early Church.”
Maybe he found out that in Aramaic and Hebrew there is NO word for cousin, nephew or in-law.
Or that James is mentioned in passing throughout his (sola scriptural) Bible and in ALL the writings of the early Church.
Or that he knew St Peter was chosen by Jesus all along and thought to catch us Catholic zombies with some fishin’ expedition.
Pax Christi
Maybe he found out that in Aramaic and Hebrew there is NO word for cousin, nephew or in-law.
Or that James is mentioned in passing throughout his (sola scriptural) Bible and in ALL the writings of the early Church.
Or that he knew St Peter was chosen by Jesus all along and thought to catch us Catholic zombies with some fishin’ expedition.
Pax Christi
G
guanophore
Guest
The suggestion was made that you started out with the assumption that James was the head of the early church, not Peter,and were looking for evidence to support this assertion. That is clear from your very first post, and from the title you chose for this thread. Personally, I don’t have a problem with doing research in this manner. Most people formulate a hypothesis, then try to confirm it. The critical question is, are you open to change your mind if the evidence should demonstrate that your initial hypothesis is not correct?I do not see evidence of this in Paul, the ECF’s for the first two hundred years, 1st or 2nd Peter, James, Mark, Luke, etc. I do see it in Matthew 16, possibly. Anyway, back to our topic. Thanks for the free analysis of my motives
G
guanophore
Guest
I think that this is a misrepresentation of Peter. I don’t think that Peter ever saw himself as having “control over the whole church”. I don’t think that attitude is carried on, either, in the current successors of Peter (though, historically, there have been some popes who have been arrogant) Peter saw himself as a servant of the servants of God. You can see this attitude plainly in his letters, and in the gospel of Mark, which was written by one closest to Peter. He took seriously Christ’s injuction to feed His lambs, and give care to the flock. He accepted this a most sacred charge, just as our recent popes have done. It is not about control, but about carrying on the mission of Christ, who is the Head.
B
BrianH
Guest
Pax
Your “source” according to a Catholic source is 4th century.
divested of a few Jewish husks" (Hist. of Dogma, I, 310).
As far as me using a 4th century source that directly quotes sources from the second century as not logically acceptable…I don’t know what to tell you bud…I see it as consistent. I tell you what, if you can find a 19th century source that directly quotes a 1st or 2nd century source because it has it right in front of them, I would have no problem with that either.
Your “source” according to a Catholic source is 4th century.
divested of a few Jewish husks" (Hist. of Dogma, I, 310).
newadvent.org/cathen/04039b.htm
As far as me using a 4th century source that directly quotes sources from the second century as not logically acceptable…I don’t know what to tell you bud…I see it as consistent. I tell you what, if you can find a 19th century source that directly quotes a 1st or 2nd century source because it has it right in front of them, I would have no problem with that either.
B
BrianH
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
It’s amazing to what lengths one must go to get an answer from you!I knew that. I am not sure why they would have used those words for his brother though…seems rather odd…
Are you suggesting I am Sola Scripture? We already talked about that.
The Sola Scriptura is a dig (you’re pretty good at dishing it out sometimes, so precedent being set and all…)
As to the use in NT manuscripts about Jesus’ ‘brother’ James, why is the same word used in the Septuagint manuscripts (and later Jewish redactions of it at Jamnia) for Abraham’s nephew?
And why is the word in its masculine and feminine forms used exclusively for ALL people closely related in both the OT and NT books? Especially in the NT Gospels and Acts when discussing the ‘followers of Jesus-Messiah’?
Read in context (James and the other shadow ‘siblings’) and understanding that NO ONE in early Church writings accepted by councils and individual Bishops, spoke of James et alii as the blood or law relations of Jesus of Nazareth.
Look to what references are made about Jesus’ teaching in the Temple at age 12: only Joseph and Mary are with him when they lose him, never are siblings mentioned (there goes the Joseph’s children’s theory). At the Cross, contrary to Jewish custom (and Jesus was first and foremost a Jew) Jesus gives his mother, Mary, to his ‘beloved disciple’ John, for safekeeping and filial responsibility.
No where else in Jewish scriptures or Midrash is a similiar situation described as being proper in Jewish Law and custom when a LIVING SON by blood related is available to assume the care and protection of a parent upon the death of an elder son. There goes the same mother, different father theory.
It’s a straw man that always pops up in Catholic forums as an attempt to discredit Catholic tradition and belief and scriptural authority (if the Catholic Church is wrong here, then they are probably wrong everywhere else…)
Glad you’re back.
Pax Christi
B
BrianH
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
- Status