James, head of the early Church

[JonathanKinsman]

Brian is absolutely correct and I was in error.

There are parishes outside of my experience which begin Saturday Vigil Masses before 530 pm, specifically, 400 pm.

But, what is with the ‘vespers’ note?

And your post that follows with the comment on the wedding Mass?

Also, have you found a NT quotation to support your assertion about Sts Peter and Paul and your statement re Paul states “clearly that [he] is not beholden to Peter in any way.”?

You did such a good job on the parish Mass question, maybe you can answer this one for me, too.

Goodnight Brian,

I’ll see you on line (hopefully) tomorrow night.

Pax Christi

Jonathan

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Brian is absolutely correct and I was in error.

There are parishes outside of my experience which begin Saturday Vigil Masses before 530 pm, specifically, 400 pm.

But, what is with the ‘vespers’ note?

And your post that follows with the comment on the wedding Mass?

Also, have you found a NT quotation to support your assertion about Sts Peter and Paul and your statement re Paul that “clearly that [he] is not beholden to Peter in any way.”?

You did such a good job on the parish Mass question, maybe you can answer this one for me, too.

Goodnight Brian,

I’ll see you on line (hopefully) tomorrow night.

Pax Christi

Jonathan

 

[BrianH]

Jonathan
I believe the passages in Galatians support my statement that Paul did not feel like he was beholden to Peter OR James in any way. I believe this is stated clearly, although if I am indicating the EXACT words were used, that is not correct. I believe the entire first two chapters are his Declaration of Independence. That is my view, and a common view from what I have read. Regardless, if you do not see that in that passage, or feel my personal interpretation is incorrect, so be it.

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.

Seemed to be important…
whatever they were makes no difference to me
those men added nothing to my message…

He is talking about Peter, James, and John.
If you disagree that my view is correct, once again, it will be a difference of opinion.
Thank you
I will be at a board meeting tonight and will not be online.
As far as Clement and Irenaues, I have read what they have said and neither one support James supremacy, I believe that Clement supports the model I believe in, and that Irenaues supports the Orthodox view, but that may be another thread.
I do not believe that Eusebius believes in James supremacy, I do believe he quotes people that do.

As far as Thomas, people can throw the baby out with the bathwater, that seems a knee jerk reaction and as an amateur historian, unlike Edwin, I only have my BA in History, American I should add, not World and certainly not 1st century, I think discounting the whole book is ill advised.
Thanks
Brian

 

[MrS]

As far as Thomas, people can throw the baby out with the bathwater, that seems a knee jerk reaction and as an amateur historian, unlike Edwin, I only have my BA in History, American I should add, not World and certainly not 1st century, I think discounting the whole book is ill advised.
Thanks
Brian

so who decides which is baby and which is bathwater…

The book is not discounted… it is clearly determined to be errant… by the only Authority in place to make that decision.

.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

1 Paul, an apostle–sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,

Right, Jesus Himself apperared to St. Paul and sent him to be baptised. This doesn’t disprove Peter’s authority.

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!

Who is “we”? This verse doesn’t exclude Peter or disprove his primacy.

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.

Again, Paul received a special revelation from Christ Himself. So did Peter who lived closely with our Lord for what 3 years? and then after His death & resurrection. This verse doe not disprove Peter’s primacy or Church Authority.

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.

Where did the Holy Spirit lead St. Paul? Hint: see next verse. . .

**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.

OK, St. Paul saw St. James. This doesn’t disprove Petrine primacy. James is more of an afterthought, no?

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.*

I don’t think St. Paul is discrediting the authority of the Church (and St .Peter) here. Christ appeared to him and he knew what his “mission” was because it came directly from Christ. Remember St. Paul persecuted the Church, disappeared and then shows up as a Christian but the Chrurch recognizes the Grace given to Paul and approves his mission to the gentiles. If St. Paul didn’t care for the authority of the Church why in the world would he go and meet with Sts. Peter, James et al?

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.

So what’s St. James’ teaching here? Sure, St. Peter was influenced by them but that doesn’t put the authority of James over Peter. Sounds more like James sent some lobbyists to Peter to influence Peter’s judgement/decision on the matter of circumcision. This, I think, supports Peter’s primacy.

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?

Paul is simply God’s lobbyist here, and what does Peter do? . . . Acts 15:1-11 Paul & Barnabbas just returned form Galatia (Paul’s first missionary journey) The sequence of events is:
1. Pauls journey to the Galatians Acts 13 & 14
2. Acts 15
*3. Paul’s letter to the Galatians (giving a recap to the Galatians of the meeting regarding circumcision). Paul’s tone in the letter to the Galatians is that of their champion in that he fought for their cause regarding circumcision. *

None of the above verses disproves Peter’s primacy or asserts James’ primacy. There are, however, verses that assert Peter’s primacy (of which I know you are aware) and none that assert James’.

 

[justme]

As far as Thomas, people can throw the baby out with the bathwater, that seems a knee jerk reaction and as an amateur historian, unlike Edwin, I only have my BA in History, American I should add, not World and certainly not 1st century, I think discounting the whole book is ill advised.

Yet you seem to think that it is not ill advised to toss out close to 2000 years of Teachings that Peter is the first.

And you, an admitted amateur historian in American history feel qualified to do this. And you do this with out any knowledge of the original languages that the Scritpures and other source documents are written in.

Any true historian/scholar would look at all these works in their original languages when researching such a thing so that he would be working with the unaltered texts.

This whole thing, especially resorting to works that have been rejected by every mainstream Christian community, seems to be nothing more that a fantasy. Ignoring that which does not fit your guess (I will not call it a hypothesis) and keeping those that do. You even reinterpret somethings to fit what you want.

Just plain Garbage. I just wish I could understand why you think you would get a good reception for this at a Catholic forum.

I especially like the way you ignore posts that ask questions and raise issues that you have apparently not thought of.

Like the passage from the Gospel of St John or the fact that if James was the successor to the family of Jesus that he would have been entrusted with the care of Mary rather than John.

 

[BrianH]

Yet you seem to think that it is not ill advised to toss out close to 2000 years of Teachings that Peter is the first.

And you, an admitted amateur historian in American history feel qualified to do this. And you do this with out any knowledge of the original languages that the Scritpures and other source documents are written in.

Any true historian/scholar would look at all these works in their original languages when researching such a thing so that he would be working with the unaltered texts.

This whole thing, especially resorting to works that have been rejected by every mainstream Christian community, seems to be nothing more that a fantasy. Ignoring that which does not fit your guess (I will not call it a hypothesis) and keeping those that do. You even reinterpret somethings to fit what you want.

Just plain Garbage. I just wish I could understand why you think you would get a good reception for this at a Catholic forum.

I especially like the way you ignore posts that ask questions and raise issues that you have apparently not thought of.

Like the passage from the Gospel of St John or the fact that if James was the successor to the family of Jesus that he would have been entrusted with the care of Mary rather than John.

If you can explain to me why Mary would not have gone to the care of her nephews OR step-sons either, that would help.
Because that makes little sense either.
As far as calling my post garbage, it is the non-Catholic forum and I do attempt to answer questions and treat people with respect. I know I can be flippant but Lord I do not think I am mean.
As far as knowledge of the original languages, I have some in Hebrew but that has been awhile and I have not used it too much obviously.
You seem quite worked up, I would suggest not reading my posts, I think I might annoy you…as hard as that is to imagine…
Thank you for the replies, when I have time I would love to go over Wisdom’s very good reply.

 

[BrianH]

so who decides which is baby and which is bathwater…

The book is not discounted… it is clearly determined to be errant… by the only Authority in place to make that decision.

.

Errant…to be sure!!
As far as baby and bathwater, it is a process, one that scholars from many backgrounds tackle.

 

[MrS]

Errant…to be sure!!
As far as baby and bathwater, it is a process, one that scholars from many backgrounds tackle.

True.

Some of them will, or rather have, dealt with your gospel, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They made their decision, and reinforced it at Trent. Bathwater bad… baby is not necessary for the Gospel message.

Others will form their decisions first… and then look for “support” evidence, even if it still has a smell of the very old bath water permeating their brain. Since this is not of the Holy Spirit due to the division it causes in the Body of Christ… they can soak in their own stench …IHMO

.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you can explain to me why Mary would not have gone to the care of her nephews OR step-sons either, that would help.
Because that makes little sense either.

So then you agree, as Jesus would not give the care of His own mother over to his cousins or step-brothers then why would He entrust the care of His Church to them?

Especially given the verses in Matthew and John where it is obvisious that he has given this care over to Peter. It is as explicit in the John verses as is the entrusting of the care of His mother to John is.

 

[guanophore]

IOW, anyone but Peter. Sigh!

Do you really think the Church is ignorant of any of these quotations? That the Church got it all wrong by teaching that Peter was given the keys of the kingdom? Hardly.

Do a little real historical research and then come back. PLEASE!

I found this post unnecessarly defensive and non helpful to the poster. The poster was clearly looking for historical information on James, listed what had been found already,and asked for help. Right away it is taken of some sort of slam against Peter! I personally don’t know of any historical research that can help this person with their project, but if you do, I strongly encourage you to post it, as I would like to read it as well.

 

[guanophore]

James was a senior figure in the Early Church and took the title “The brother of the Lord”.

By trawling through the entire corpus of scripture you’ve managed to come up with one tiny sliver of evidence that he was senior to Peter; in one list, James’ name is mentioned first. Then you’ve got another quote from the gospel of Thomas, but that makes other strange and extravagant claims.

That’s it.

At some point in the middle of the first century Church HQ was moved from Jerusalem to Rome. Those were the two logical places to have a central administration. We can easily believe that there might have been some dispute about this decision at the time, but no record of it survives. The idea of a non-Trinitarian “Jerusalem” church existing in rivalry to the Roman church is pure speculation, and raises the question of how so severe a schism could have escaped documentation.

Didn’t Jesus himself tell his discipled NOT to argue over who was the greatest? I don’t think James and Peter did that, and I don’t think it should be done now. Clearly the evidence points to James as the chief presider in Jerusalem, whether because of his age or whatever reason. There is no evidence that James ever went to Rome, where Peter became the senior elder. But there were many other apostolic centers of authority, including Ephesus and Antioch (where the disciples were first called Christians). In any case, the one doing the research will come to their own conclusions. Why can’t we be helpful in providing information?

 

[guanophore]

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?

The aposolic succession of Jerusalem was closely kept by the Eastern Church, as well as those of the other Eastern apostolic sees in Ephesus, Antioch, Byzantium, etc.

 

[guanophore]

The author of Matthew is an eyewitness?? Thats news to me. Writing 50 to 60 years after the fact?

 

[guanophore]

Regardless of the dating of the various gospels - of which we will never be able to definitively state - we know for sure that the gospel of Matthew was written to the Jews - that very church that you are claiming was led by James!

I think that James, the brother of the Lord, being Just, would say that Jesus was the head of the church. I think Peter and John, all of whom are described as pillars (“heads”) would say the same thing! As a matter of fact, I think they DID say that! So what if James presided at the first council in Jerusalem? How does that take anything away from Peter?

 

[guanophore]

So if you claim they saw fit that the Church should have a leader back then (whoever it may be… of course as stated earlier, in the Protestant view it MUST be anyone but Peter ) why shouldn’t it have a leader today??

I don’t think any claim was made to that effect. It seemed that the poster was trying to find information about the role of James in the early church. James was martyred early, and the city of Jerusalem sacked, so there is not as much historical evidence as there is about Peter. He was still a pillar, and should be honored as such. The local archbishop thinks that he is the head of this archdiocese in which I live. The other bishops believe that they have charge of the flock in their diocese. Are they “heads”? Is not Jesus the head of all of them? It seems that, in pushing the primacy of Peter, we have lost some humility.

 

[guanophore]

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.

What are you using these passages to claim? That Paul was not “submitted” in any way to Peter? I am curious, too, why do you think Paul stayed and learned with Peter, rather than James?

 

[guanophore]

o

 

[guanophore]

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.

I don’t find this odd at all. There are numerous accounts in the New Testament of people being appointed by others. The replacement of Judas being one of the first. If the apostles really lived out what Jesus told them about being in unity, and not lording it over each other to lead, then this communal leadership is closer to the model Christ intended. The bishop of Rome was perceived by the early fathers as first among equals. Christ was considered Head. How did all this get lost?

 

[guanophore]

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”?

I don’t think he was claiming that it was because of the family relationship. It seemed more like he was pointing out the importance of the immediate family members in Jesus’ circle, and the life and leadership of the church. Or do you think that Mary is revered because she was his biological mother?

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?

Jesus set up all the apostles to shepherd his flock. Peter had denied him three times, and perhaps felt he was no longer worthy of the appointment. Christ had him re-affirm his faith as many times as he denied it before.