James, head of the early Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrianH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What Jesus did or did not say in his native language is conjecture. You know that. We only have what we have.
No, we have other documents and writings nearly contemporaneous to the Gospels and Letters (non Pauline).

And we have Sacred Tradition (from the Apostles to their disciples to their disciples to their disciples…) before the discerning of the canon by the bishops and Pope Damasus I in the late 4th century.

Of course, your statement (being a Protestant and all) begs the question: why then believe in Sola Scriptura?

After all, “we only have what we have.”😉

Pax Christi
 
1 Paul, an apostle–sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead– 2 and all the brothers with me,

To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel– 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

P

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth* and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles–only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

6 As for those who seemed to be important–whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance–those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles,* just as Peter had been to the Jews.* 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter* and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
 
No, we have other documents and writings nearly contemporaneous to the Gospels and Letters (non Pauline).

Good, what do they say about James or what additional phrases from Christ do they have?
And we have Sacred Tradition (from the Apostles to their disciples to their disciples to their disciples…) before the discerning of the canon by the bishops and Pope Damasus I in the late 4th century.
 
Sorry, BrainH, your underlined passages do not support your statement: :“In factt, Paul states clearly about not being beholden to Peter in any way.”

After your initial underlinings, you skipped over line 18.

Why would St Paul go to visit St Peter for 15 days to become acquainted with him? Why not go visit James, your titular head of the early church?

According to your reasoning, Jesus sent him.

And why would that be? Because St Peter was the HEAD of the Apostles (and thus the new, forming ekklesia, or, church) on earth after the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus.

Pax Christ
 
Sorry, BrainH, your underlined passages do not support your statement: :“In factt, Paul states clearly about not being beholden to Peter in any way.”

of course they do

After your initial underlinings, you skipped over line 18.
Why would St Paul go to visit St Peter for 15 days to become acquainted with him? Why not go visit James, your titular head of the early church?
 
Good, what do they say about James or what additional phrases from Christ do they have?
You should know, I believe you referenced one of them: the Gospel of Thomas. The Didache contains the teachings of the early Christians: complete ban on abortion; structure of prayers and the Mass; worship on the Lord’s Day, not the Jewish Sabbath.
Sacred Tradition, those things from the ECF that agree with your current theology, yes I am familiar.
How unkind, BrianH, and coming from someone who has benefited from that Sacred Tradition. Tsk tsk, :tsktsk:
You do believe in the Trinity, right? One of those pesky Catholic “current theology” things. Or Mary as the Mother of God? Another dogma du jour. Or worship on Sundays instead of Saturday evenings? Jesus as 100% divine in nature and 100% human in nature? Dang Catholics!

BrianH, don’t confuse Sacraments with sacramentals, or Dogma with Discipline. All male priesthood is a Discipline. Belief in the Trinity is a Dogma. Disciplines can change and have over the centuries. Dogmas do not.
Me think thou dost assume too much.
No, methinks you need to answer the question I posed a few (quite a few) postings back: where in Galatians does St Paul state that “In fact, [he] in not beholden to Peter in any way.”

I just assumed a common sense approach would elicit a common sense answer. Shame on me, must be that crafty Catholic shifty “current theology” thing!

Pax Christi
 
You should know, I believe you referenced one of them: the Gospel of Thomas. The Didache contains the teachings of the early Christians: complete ban on abortion; structure of prayers and the Mass; worship on the Lord’s Day, not the Jewish Sabbath.
Worship on the Lord’s day is not mandatory. I should know, plenty of Catholics go Saturday at 4 pm just like Methodists 🙂
Anyway, none mention James so I am not sure what this is about…
How unkind, BrianH, and coming from someone who has benefited from that Sacred Tradition. Tsk tsk,
You do believe in the Trinity, right? One of those pesky Catholic “current theology” things. Or Mary as the Mother of God? Another dogma du jour. Or worship on Sundays instead of Saturday evenings? Jesus as 100% divine in nature and 100% human in nature? Dang Catholics!
BrianH, don’t confuse Sacraments with sacramentals, or Dogma with Discipline. All male priesthood is a Discipline. Belief in the Trinity is a Dogma. Disciplines can change and have over the centuries. Dogmas do not.
Are we still talking about James…I cant tell…
I just assumed a common sense approach would elicit a common sense answer. Shame on me, must be that crafty Catholic shifty “current theology” thing!
I gave an answer. “Shifty”…please
 
It is established in Acts 1:15 Peter “stood up in the midsts of his brothers.” Later in Acts 3:1 and 8:9-25 it is shown that Peter and John are leading the faithful of Jerusalem. And even with both there, it is Peter who rebukes Simon Magnus in Acts 8:9-25 and it is Peter who Paul goes to confer with in Galatians 1:18. And after the death of James, the brother of John, Peter is targeted by Herod in Acts 12; and after his escape, he leaves instructions for James (verse 17.)

The evidence seems to suggest that James was left in charge by Peter. Which would make it very odd for James to head the early Church when he is essentially appointed by others. Futhermore, it would disingenuious to ignore that all the apostles had a role in growing and tending to the Lord’s flock- they all led the flock in various ways.

But of the four original Sees of the Apostles, all are recognized to have either be blessed, exalted, administered, and honored by the Apostle Saint Peter.

This of course is a huge issue between us Catholics and our Orthodox bretheren is what role Peter played and if such a role was passed down. But even in an Orthodox viewpoint, where the idea of Papal Supremacy is not accepted- I believe you would find few that share your viewpoint as James being the “head of the Church.” The Early Church Fathers speak of:

All the apostles being the Rock
Jesus Christ being the Rock
Peter himself being the Rock
Peter’s faith being the Rock

And though I cannot find the exact numbers to each statement (and there is truth to each statement) I have never come across an early Church Father who disagreed with one of the positions above and speculated that James was head of the Church.

So I cannot see how valid such a position is when your evidence largely points to the apparently unclear Council of Jerusalem and the spurious Gospel of Thomas…
 
Worship on the Lord’s day is not mandatory. I should know, plenty of Catholics go Saturday at 4 pm just like Methodists 🙂

I NEVER said it was “mandatory,” you did. And Catholic Mass for Saturdays must be no earlier than 530 pm.
Anyway, none mention James so I am not sure what this is about…
No, you did not give “the” answer: where does “In fact, [he] states clearly about not being beholden to Peter in any way.”?

(sound of Jeopardy theme song in background…)
 
It is established in Acts 1:15 Peter “stood up in the midsts of his brothers.” Later in Acts 3:1 and 8:9-25 it is shown that Peter and John are leading the faithful of Jerusalem. And even with both there, it is Peter who rebukes Simon Magnus in Acts 8:9-25 and it is Peter who Paul goes to confer with in Galatians 1:18. And after the death of James, the brother of John, Peter is targeted by Herod in Acts 12; and after his escape, he leaves instructions for James (verse 17.)

The evidence seems to suggest that James was left in charge by Peter. Which would make it very odd for James to head the early Church when he is essentially appointed by others. Futhermore, it would disingenuious to ignore that all the apostles had a role in growing and tending to the Lord’s flock- they all led the flock in various ways.

But of the four original Sees of the Apostles, all are recognized to have either be blessed, exalted, administered, and honored by the Apostle Saint Peter.

This of course is a huge issue between us Catholics and our Orthodox bretheren is what role Peter played and if such a role was passed down. But even in an Orthodox viewpoint, where the idea of Papal Supremacy is not accepted- I believe you would find few that share your viewpoint as James being the “head of the Church.” The Early Church Fathers speak of:

All the apostles being the Rock
Jesus Christ being the Rock
Peter himself being the Rock
Peter’s faith being the Rock

And though I cannot find the exact numbers to each statement (and there is truth to each statement) I have never come across an early Church Father who disagreed with one of the positions above and speculated that James was head of the Church.

So I cannot see how valid such a position is when your evidence largely points to the apparently unclear Council of Jerusalem and the spurious Gospel of Thomas…
It is a collection of things. Do you agree the men mentioned in the first post are early Church fathers?
 
I hate to teach a Catholic about Catholicism BUT…😃
With respect to Saturday evening, Canon Law states: “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day” (Can. 1248, par. 1). Each diocese has the right to determine the hour at which ‘evening’ begins; commonly it is 4 p.m.
My defintion of Sacred Tradition is accurate. Any ECF that does not agree with present Catholic theology is not part of Sacred Tradition.
You seem angry, I will come back later;)
 
I have spent quite a bit of time with Thomas, some of the passages are undoubtedly gnostic influenced. But how could the James passage, James is not a leader of the Gnostics, be considered such?
If the Gospel of Thomas contains errors, which it does, then all of it is suspect. You can not pick and chose out of it what you like and discard the rest. It is a work of the gnostics.

Now you claim that James was the immediate successor of Jesus because of a family relationship. Can you then explain why Jesus commends the care of His Mother to John, the Beloved Disciple, rather than to His “successor”?

Can you explain John 21:15-17?

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Why is Jesus setting Peter up as the shepherd of His flock if he is not His successor?

I will leave it at that but I do have some things from Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius if you do well enough with these.
 
I hate to teach a Catholic about Catholicism BUT…😃

Don’t embarrass yourself, then.
My defintion of Sacred Tradition is accurate. Any ECF that does not agree with present Catholic theology is not part of Sacred Tradition.
You seem angry, I will come back later;)
An “ECF” is not a throwaway term for ANY writer prior to the 5th century AD. Go to the Catechism for an official definition of “Sacred Tradition.”

Yours is no where to be found there.

Still no response on your assertion about Sts Paul and Peter?
 
It is a collection of things. Do you agree the men mentioned in the first post are early Church fathers?
Your quotes from Eusebius’s History of the Church and Hegesippus do not contradict or nullify the positions I stated.
So I’m still not sure how you see James as the “head” of the Church.

Those quotes mention how James lead in conjunction. How does this suggest James is the “head”?

You bring up Acts 12:17- but up until that point, it was John and Peter who were the head shepards, and James doesn’t come onto the scene until after the death of James brother of John and the persecutions of the early Church- on which point Peter leaves instructions to James in said verse…

but I posted all of this in my previous message- the more pertinent question is: why do you think my account of events (taken from Acts, the establishment of the Sees of the Early Church, and the Church Fathers silence on a James headed Church) is incorrect, and where exactly does it suggest in Oral Tradition that James is the head of the church? (Statements suggesting James leading in conjunction, teaching with Peter and John, etc, does not suggest such a thing in my opinion.)
 
With respect to Saturday evening, Canon Law states: “The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day” (Can. 1248, par. 1). Each diocese has the right to determine the hour at which ‘evening’ begins; commonly it is 4 p.m.
I checked the dioceses with which I have been registered or are currently in: Sacramento, Monterey and Riverside-San Bernardino. All Saturday Vigil Masses begin at 530 pm.

That is what is common, BrianH.

You claim to know some parishes which begin the Saturday Vigil at 4 pm? Who are they? Name the names and tell us what counties in what state.

I will publicly apologize on this thread if you are correct. However, since I have attended Mass on Saturdays for the past 18 years throughout the United States and ALL of them have been at 530 pm, I do not think you will answer this question, too.

Brian, you infer things into words. If your background and education in Christianity is Protestant (and I believe you on this) then I am utterly astounded at how you use “inference” and “extra scriptural connotations” to support your theses and assertions.

I am not angry, just disappointed. You are an intelligent fellow and I enjoy the banter, but please address the issues.
 
I am putting together a serious of verses and early writings that suggests that the Apostles and the early church viewed James, the Lord’s brother and others of his earthly family as his immediate successors. Biblical and otherwise.
I haven’t read these posts in this forum but as soon as I saw the name “James” and “head” of early church together, I thought of that awful, “lie-filled” documentary that A&E put together called “Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years.” I got that a long time ago out of curiosity and I was also hoping for some truth. Well that is nothing but Garbage with a capital “G.” Nothing but lies! I can’t believe I wasted my money on that garbage.
 
The Latin word vesper in canon 1248 means “evening,” which excludes anticipated Masses before evening. This differs from the previous indults given to the United States which spoke of satisfying the precept “in the hours after noon” (horis postmeridianis). Since the latest indult expired in 1985, the law of the code must be observed. Therefore all anticipated Masses, to fulfill the precept, must be evening Masses.
This is not mere legalism, for the law upholds an important theological value that has been a constant in Christian tradition, namely, the sacredness and centrality of Sunday. Saturday afternoon is not Sunday; attendance at a Mass on a Saturday afternoon does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. Although canon law does not indicate the precise hour at which evening begins, we believe that there are solid reasons for asserting that the Sunday or holy day obligation can be satisfied from 4:00 p.m. on the previous day.
Evening Masses after 4:00
As noted above, the basic service of evening prayer in the Jewish tradition was held at sunset, and Christians inherited and continued this practice. The fourth century pilgrim, Egeria, observed that the evening service of lucenarium was conducted at 4:00.
When evening Masses were first permitted in 1953, Pope Pius XII established the rule that they could not begin before 4:00 p.m. Although this law was intended for Masses of the day, not anticipated Masses, it shows the Holy See’s understanding of what constitutes the beginning of evening, an understanding that very likely was at least implicit when the 1983 code required that anticipated Masses be celebrated in the evening. Liturgically, the time for the anticipated Mass should not begin before the liturgical day commences with the celebration of first vespers of the Sunday or solemnity. Vespers is the evening prayer of the church, celebrated at some time in the evening. Liturgical Law speaks of evening as the time when “the day is already far spent;” a dominant theme of evening prayer is the setting sun and the approaching nightfall. The beginning of evening is associated with sunset, with the end of the day, with the approach of darkness. The church also celebrates the liturgy of the hours in the afternoon – mid-day and mid-afternoon, typically around noon and 3:00. Vespers is not an afternoon prayer; nor is an afternoon Mass an evening Mass.
blessedsacrament.com/theology/emmanuel/huels.html

cdowk.org/
cdowk.org/parishes/parish_page.jsp?id=82
acronet.net/~stmark/curyouth.htm
stagnes2000.com/Mass_Schedule.htm
stanthonypaduaparma.org/localdirectories.html
saintmargaretmary.org/mass.html
 
At a recent wedding Mass celebrated at 7:00 p.m., the priest told the people that the Mass did not count for Sunday, because the wedding Mass did not count for Sunday, because the wedding Mass did not include the Gloria, the Sunday readings, and the Creed. I was under the impression that any Mass after 4:00 p.m. on Saturday counted for Sunday. Who is right here?

You did not say if this happened in the Diocese of Lincoln or elsewhere. Bishops have the option of permitting Saturday evening Masses to fulfill the Sunday obligations of the faithful and so it is in this diocese. However, it could be different in another place. If the local bishop permits wedding Masses at the time indicated and also permits anticipated Sunday Masses on Saturday evening, it is difficult for me to see how the priest could declare which of the Saturday evening Masses “count for Sunday” and which do not. Of course, perhaps not legally but liturgically speaking, the priest is correct and, I would imagine, a sincere Catholic would not want his Sunday Mass to be merely be fulfilling a legal obligation, but also to be a genuine liturgical encounter with the Risen Lord.
From the diocese of Lincoln Nebraska
 
BrianH,

Scripture and the ECF’s make it clear that James was the bishop of Jerusalem. This does not make him head of the universal church. Peter was not the bishop of Jerusalem for the same reasons that Paul was not the bishop of Jerusalem. Both were traveling and preaching the gospel elsewhere until they founded the Church at Rome and were eventually martyred in that same city.

Since you like Eusebius you should be aware of the following:

Eusebius Book II

CHAPTER XV

But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things,** led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others**, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.(9)

CHAPTER XXV

In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: (13) "But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,’ (14) that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,’ (15) did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines. (16) 8. **And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ **(17) has left one acknowledged epistle;
 
So Brian, who is James’ successor today - how many people even know? Do you? And WHY don’t they know? You think Jesus wouldn’t preserve clearly the lineage of whichever Apostle he chose to succeed him in leadership?

And is anyone (including you) acknowledging that successor of James as head of today’s Christian church? Why not? If not, then why does it matter in the slightest to you which of the Apostles Jesus chose to succeed him, since you ignore all of them equally?
I would say Theophilos III, Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem would by James’ successor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top