Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[Randy_Carson]

why Paul calls Peter Peter and Cephas in same letter, I think no one is sure.

Ben, you have to be in serious denial to believe what you just wrote.

Both commands were given in context that Peter was a leader type and because of Peter’s thrice denial. Peter needed to be restored to apostleship (converted, “come back to” apostleship for he went back to fishing).

Ah, the re-instatement theory. I haven’t responded to that error since 2011! Guess it’s still around.

John 21:15-19 – Refuting the “Reinstatement” Theory

In the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, we find a very poignant moment between Jesus and Simon Peter.

John 21:15-19
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Catholics hold that this passage confirms Peter as shepherd of the one flock of Christ (cf. John 10:11) and head of the universal Church.

In contrast, many non-Catholics believe that because Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times before the cock crowed, this passage simply reveals the re-instatement of Peter to the position of Apostle. However, a closer look at the sequence of events following Jesus’ resurrection reveals that this is simply not the case.

When was Peter commissioned by Jesus, bestowed with the Holy Spirit and given the authority to forgive and retain sins? Was it in John 21? NO! It was days earlier as shown in the previous chapter of John:

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Here we see Jesus “sending” the Apostles—Peter among them—just as the Father had sent Him. Peter also receives the same commission and the same “breath of God” that the other Apostles received (except Thomas who was absent). All this occurred after Peter’s three denials but before the supposed “reinstatement” in John 21.

Consequently, a few questions naturally come to mind. If Peter had yet to be reinstated by Jesus as is often claimed, why did Peter receive the same commission and the same authority to forgive or retain sins as the other Apostles who had not denied Jesus and theoretically did not need to be reinstated? (I say “theoretically” because ALL of the Apostles save John had abandoned Jesus on the night of His arrest.) If Peter’s denial had somehow cost him his place, how could he be treated the same as those who were still Apostles in good standing?

No, Jesus commissioned Peter along with the other Apostles in John 20 because Peter was still an Apostle at that point–nothing had been lost by his three denials which the Lord had foretold. Later, on the beach, Peter received an additional commission - one that was also foretold in Mt. 16:18-19 - that he was to lead the Church as the earthly Vicar of Christ.

+++

Here’s another view:

“Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.”

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

 

[benhur]

But you are adding a caveat that Christ did not. You are adding your own interpretation of speaking for the Lord.

Don’t think so. Jesus tells us those sitting in Moses seat were foxes and sons of Satan, and had bad doctrine, leaven. It is very clear then that Christ says to listen to them as they speak from Moses seat correctly but not their stuff based on bad doctrine.

He did not give the disciples the opportunity to decide for themselves if what they were being told was “valid”.

But he did for what else could “beware of their leaven (bad doctrine”) mean.

In fact, even when Christians follow their leaders when they have made a mistake, God is able to use this to His own glory. Clearly, Peter and the other Apostles had not reached out to Gentiles, and one has the sense that they were “denied water” of baptism, until Christ intervened to convince Peter.

There is no evidence that the early church made a mistake before Cornelius, that he was denied baptism.

Likewise, the Jewish Christians sent from James disrupting the Gentile community persuaded Peter to stop eating with the Gentiles until Paul confronted him. God is able to corrrect the leadership, without causing a schism.

Correct. You would have been wrong to follow Peter’s example based on bad doctrine (gentiles are not quite as clean as Jews).

 

[benhur]

Ben, you have to be in serious denial to believe what you just wrote.

Ah, the re-instatement theory. I haven’t responded to that error since 2011! Guess it’s still around.

John 21:15-19 – Refuting the “Reinstatement” Theory

In the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, we find a very poignant moment between Jesus and Simon Peter.

John 21:15-19
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Catholics hold that this passage confirms Peter as shepherd of the one flock of Christ (cf. John 10:11) and head of the universal Church.

In contrast, many non-Catholics believe that because Peter had denied knowing Jesus three times before the cock crowed, this passage simply reveals the re-instatement of Peter to the position of Apostle. However, a closer look at the sequence of events following Jesus’ resurrection reveals that this is simply not the case.

When was Peter commissioned by Jesus, bestowed with the Holy Spirit and given the authority to forgive and retain sins? Was it in John 21? NO! It was days earlier as shown in the previous chapter of John:

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Here we see Jesus “sending” the Apostles—Peter among them—just as the Father had sent Him. Peter also receives the same commission and the same “breath of God” that the other Apostles received (except Thomas who was absent). All this occurred after Peter’s three denials but before the supposed “reinstatement” in John 21.

No, Jesus commissioned Peter along with the other Apostles in John 20 because Peter was still an Apostle at that point–nothing had been lost by his three denials which the Lord had foretold. Later, on the beach, Peter received an additional commission - one that was also foretold in Mt. 16:18-19 - that he was to lead the Church as the earthly Vicar of Christ.

+++

Here’s another view:

“Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (“In Joan.” 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture or in patristic tradition to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.”

Taken from: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Took only a quick scan of your post. First, I said twice he was reinstated as “leader or leader type”. Secondly, the Lord’s words have meaning. Peter had to be "converted’’ (not as salvation, but back to what he was before the denial). The Lord’s words not P’s. Thirdly, Peter was a fishin’ wasn’t he ? While you make a good point that "commissioning’’ happened before this "reinstatement’’, one must not assume the effectualness of commission was complete, for that would not be until Pentecost . I am saying further encouragement or commands were apparently necessary, and at least for Peter. No one is saying Peter lost his apostleship. No one is saying the Lord took it away. The context is what is Peter feeling ,doing ? Does he feel like the leader? We know he cried, felt heartbroken, went back to fishing. The Lord’s words were perfect for Peter. While I will not deny leadership as part of “reinstatement”, I would hope others do not deny reinstatement or “conversion”. Both denials show strain of Catholic/Protestant paradigm, making us deny the obvious so as not to seem like the opposing side.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Took only a quick scan of your post. First, I said twice he was reinstated as “leader or leader type”. Secondly, the Lord’s words have meaning. Peter had to be "converted’’ (not as salvation, but back to what he was before the denial). The Lord’s words not P’s. Thirdly, Peter was a fishin’ wasn’t he ? While you make a good point that "commissioning’’ happened before this "reinstatement’’, one must not assume the effectualness of commission was complete, for that would not be until Pentecost . I am saying further encouragement or commands were apparently necessary, and at least for Peter. No one is saying Peter lost his apostleship. No one is saying the Lord took it away. The context is what is Peter feeling ,doing ? Does he feel like the leader? We know he cried, felt heartbroken, went back to fishing. The Lord’s words were perfect for Peter. While I will not deny leadership as part of “reinstatement”, I would hope others do not deny reinstatement or “conversion”. Both denials show strain of Catholic/Protestant paradigm, making us deny the obvious so as not to seem like the opposing side.

Ben-

Peter went fishing and this suggests something to you about the papacy???

Look at the verse:

John 21:1-3
After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tibe′ri-as; and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathan′a-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zeb′edee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat; but that night they caught nothing.

Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John and two other disciples went fishing. 7 guys.

Before the Ascension. Before the day of Pentecost.

And somehow this suggests that Peter was not fit to be the leader of the Church???

And the Church is generally believed to have begun on the Day of Pentecost?

I dunno, Ben…I think you’re pretty far out there at this point…

 

[benhur]

Ben-

Peter went fishing and this suggests something to you about the papacy???

Look at the verse:

John 21:1-3
After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tibe′ri-as; and he revealed himself in this way. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathan′a-el of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zeb′edee, and two others of his disciples were together. 3 Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.” They went out and got into the boat; but that night they caught nothing.

Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, James and John and two other disciples went fishing. 7 guys.

Before the Ascension. Before the day of Pentecost.

And somehow this suggests that Peter was not fit to be the leader of the Church???

And the Church is generally believed to have begun on the Day of Pentecost?

I dunno, Ben…I think you’re pretty far out there at this point…

Yes, you have gone too far with what I have said. I have already said Peter was a leader. Why can’t you see he needed “converting " ? " But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Was fishing the strengthening activity ? For sure Peter was converted , and OK acting as leader in Acts just before Pentecost. Are you suggesting Peter was fit and the Lord did not have to pray for him to be converted and ask him three times to feed my sheep ? Was he not stronger after the Lord’s admonition on the beach ? Are you saying Peter did not have to be broken deeply to be made strong again, as many saints have ? I think it more speculative to say the conversion was complete before the thrice feed my sheep scene.

 

[Seraphim73]

I haven’t read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been answered. Does anyone have any patristic references for this question?

 

[prodromos]

1. 
   *]The Apostle John died around the year AD 100.
   *]Around AD 96, the Corinthian Church had internal problems, but they did not address them to John. Instead, they wrote to Clement of Rome, who as the successor of Peter, did not hesitate to intervene in what was a local matter.
   *]The Corinthians received his letter warmly - so much so, in fact, that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was considered Sacred Scripture for many years afterward.
   *]The Bishop of Rome exercised his authority outside of his own immediate diocese; that authority was not only consulted but was accepted by another diocese - despite the fact that an apostle was still alive and available for consultation.
   *]Thus, the successor to the office of the Royal Steward outranked another steward who was appointed before him. The Chief Steward was above all.

1. 
   How about this
   1. 
      *] Both the Church in Corinth and the Church in Rome were established by Paul, so they shared that common link.
      *] Corinth was a Roman colony. The original Greek inhabitants had been slaughtered or sold into slavery after a failed uprising against the Romans. Thus culturally Rome and Corinth were connected.
      *] Clement had been a companion of Paul. The Church in Corinth had an affinity for Clement due to their common spiritual parentage.
      *] due to Corinth’s position as a major trade hub between Italy and Asia, there was constant trade between Rome and Corinth and as a result, relatively fast and reliable communication.
      *] there were not yet any diocesan disciplines or lines drawn
      
      You have lots of good reasons why the Corinthians would have sought the help of Clement instead of the apostle John and none of them require anything like what you have claimed above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, you have gone too far with what I have said. I have already said Peter was a leader. Why can’t you see he needed “converting " ? " But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Was fishing the strengthening activity ? For sure Peter was converted , and OK acting as leader in Acts just before Pentecost. Are you suggesting Peter was fit and the Lord did not have to pray for him to be converted and ask him three times to feed my sheep ? Was he not stronger after the Lord’s admonition on the beach ? Are you saying Peter did not have to be broken deeply to be made strong again, as many saints have ? I think it more speculative to say the conversion was complete before the thrice feed my sheep scene.

Well, we agree on many of these things. I think the real change, however, occurred on the day of Pentecost.

In the meantime, they had to eat, so fishing was simply a practical way Peter was “feeding” the flock.

Kidding. Juuuuust kidding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I haven’t read this entire thread so forgive me if this has been answered. Does anyone have any patristic references for this question?

What question?

 

[Randy_Carson]

How about this

1. 
   *] Both the Church in Corinth and the Church in Rome were established by Paul, so they shared that common link.

1. 
   Oops. Gotta stop you there.
   
   The Church at Rome was not established by Paul. If you look carefully at the opening verses of his letter, it will become obvious that Paul has never been to Rome. In fact, he doesn’t want to built on another man’s foundation. Additionally, Paul goes out of his way to mention a LOT of people by name…more so than in any other epistle. Why?
   
   Paul does a lot of name-dropping as a means of warming up the audience, so to speak. He was an outsider. So, Paul lists every single person he could think of as a way of saying, “Hey, I know some of you, and we have some of the same friends.”
   
   The Church at Rome may have been founded by Apollos or some other Christians who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
   
   All that notwithstanding, both Peter and Paul had a hand in the strong formation of the Church in Rome.

 

[benhur]

How about this

1. 
   *] Both the Church in Corinth and the Church in Rome were established by Paul, so they shared that common link.
   *] Corinth was a Roman colony. The original Greek inhabitants had been slaughtered or sold into slavery after a failed uprising against the Romans. Thus culturally Rome and Corinth were connected.
   *] Clement had been a companion of Paul. The Church in Corinth had an affinity for Clement due to their common spiritual parentage.
   *] due to Corinth’s position as a major trade hub between Italy and Asia, there was constant trade between Rome and Corinth and as a result, relatively fast and reliable communication.
   *] there were not yet any diocesan disciplines or lines drawn
   
   You have lots of good reasons why the Corinthians would have sought the help of Clement instead of the apostle John and none of them require anything like what you have claimed above.

1. 
   Pretty good. and as you suggest, “all roads lead to Rome”. Of course I would also add it is not a given that John was alive. For sure he was very old, but it is pure speculation, as his death and the date of the letter are only “ballpark” dates and overlap each other.

 

[Seraphim73]

What question?

Do you have any patristic references who interpret these verses the way you do? Do we have any references to Peter or the popes as “royal stewards”?

 

[benhur]

Oops. Gotta stop you there.

The Church at Rome was not established by Paul. If you look carefully at the opening verses of his letter, it will become obvious that Paul has never been to Rome. In fact, he doesn’t want to built on another man’s foundation. Additionally, Paul goes out of his way to mention a LOT of people by name…more so than in any other epistle. Why?

Paul does a lot of name-dropping as a means of warming up the audience, so to speak. He was an outsider. So, Paul lists every single person he could think of as a way of saying, “Hey, I know some of you, and we have some of the same friends.”

The Church at Rome may have been founded by Apollos or some other Christians who were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

All that notwithstanding, both Peter and Paul had a hand in the strong formation of the Church in Rome.

Very good RC. Paul does not mention Peter being there. We have more info that says Paul was certainly a factor in Rome (but not in establishing it, as you correctly point out-don’t tell Irenaeus), hence a better Corinthian connection than any other apostles.

 

[benhur]

Well, we agree on many of these things. I think the real change, however, occurred on the day of Pentecost.

In the meantime, they had to eat, so fishing was simply a practical way Peter was “feeding” the flock.

Kidding. Juuuuust kidding.

OK very good.Thanks for the laugh-it is kind of funny- and cordial agreement on one of many discussion points.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you have any patristic references who interpret these verses the way you do? Do we have any references to Peter or the popes as “royal stewards”?

Not a one. So, what does this mean?

There are three possibilities

1. They saw the similarities, and agreed that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for me because I don’t have any patristic evidence to make my case. I think it’s safe to say that if they had seen the connection, they would have commented and we would know about it. Thus, this is unlikely.

1. They saw the similarities, but rejected the idea that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for you because you don’t have solid proof that Peter as Royal Steward is false. I think it’s also safe to say that if they had rejected the idea that Peter was the Royal Steward, they would have said so, and we would know about it. However, they might not have bothered to say anything, so this is possible. Fair enough?

1. They did not see the similarities between Is and Mt. because
   A. there is no connection.
   B. they missed it.

This is bad for both of us. Bad for me because I think the similarities are obvious and should have been picked up. Bad for you because the ECF’s are fallible humans and simply missing the connection is possible. Fair enough?

I actually contacted Dave Armstrong, a professional Catholic apologist, a few days ago to ask him this very question. Dave agrees that there are no patristic writings regarding Peter as the Royal Steward. However, Dave also agrees that this is not a fatal flaw because the lack of patristic evidence doesn’t mean that the connection isn’t there. IOW, Dave’s view is that the ECF’s simply missed it. I would say that or they simply didn’t comment in writing about it.

So, while we can both agree that having something either way from the Fathers would be helpful, we simply can’t make any final decisions regarding the validity of my argument on the basis of their silence.

Naturally, you will lean in the direction of “Aha!” while I am inclined towards, “So what?”

What does appear to be certain, however, is that this argument has achieved considerable play SINCE the days of the ECF’s and no one has offered a refutation of it beyond, “I don’t believe it.”

Make of that what you will.

 

[Seraphim73]

Not a one. So, what does this mean?

There are two possibilities

1. They saw the similarities, and agreed that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for me because I don’t have any patristic evidence to make my case. I think it’s safe to say that if they had seen the connection, they would have commented and we would know about it. Thus, this is unlikely.

1. They saw the similarities, but rejected the idea that Peter is the Royal Steward. However,
   A. They did not feel the need to comment.
   B. They commented but the document has been lost.
   C. They commented, but the comments have not been discovered.

This is bad for you because you don’t have solid proof that Peter as Royal Steward is false. I think it’s also safe to say that if they had rejected the idea that Peter was the Royal Steward, they would have said so, and we would know about it. However, they might not have bothered to say anything, so this is possible. Fair enough?

1. They did not see the similarities between Is and Mt. because
   A. there is no connection.
   B. they missed it.

This is bad for both of us. Bad for me because I think the similarities are obvious and should have been picked up. Bad for you because the ECF’s are fallible humans and simply missing the connection is possible. Fair enough.

I actually contacted Dave Armstrong, a professional Catholic apologist, a few days ago to ask him this very question. Dave agrees that there are no patristic writings regarding Peter as the Royal Steward.

However, Dave also agrees that this is not a fatal flaw because the lack of patristic evidence doesn’t mean that the connection isn’t there.

So, while we can both agree that having something either way from the Fathers would be helpful, we simply can’t make any final decisions regarding the validity of my argument on the basis of their silence.

Naturally, you will lean in the direction of “Aha!” while I am inclined towards, “So what?”

If there is no patristic support for the idea then it’s not legitimate. There is no way that it can be. And you guys get offended when we say Catholics and Protestants are two sides of the same coin…

 

[guanophore]

Sorry RC but I did not go that far. You see "the" rock only but I had rock/stone/petros. One thing for sure, does not designate supreme apostleship or successive office.Not from this . Again , why Paul calls Peter Peter and Cephas in same letter, I think no one is sure.

Of course we are sure. When Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah, he was speaking to him in Aramaic, which is Cephas. The Greek translation is Petra/petros. Same name, different languages.

This is also why all that drivel about Peter being a “small pebble” is frivolous. In Aramaic, there is no distinction of size with Cephas.

Peter was told to strengthen his brothers. Do not know if others were told also. Peter was also told to "feed my sheep’’. Don’t know if others were told this, though we know they did.

Although we have no record of any other Apostles being commissioned to confirm the brethren (this appears to be peculiar to Peter) it was understood by the early Church that all the successors of the Apostles (the bishops) were charged with the Apostolic commandment to feed and care for the flock. It was also understood that this would happen in unity with the successor of Peter.

Both these “commands” were implemented by the Lord , one before Calvary and one before His ascension.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they were implemented by the recipient of the commands. Peter began to exercise leadership as soon as Christ was taken up, by organizing a replacement for Judas.

 Do not know if either of these commands would have been given exclusively if Peter had not exclusively thrice denied.

Clearly Jesus had this role in mind for Peter from the time he was called, and some would say, from before the foundation of the world.

Yes, Peter was a leader. Do not get strict sense of chief steward or succession to his seat only as supreme from these two commands.

Yes, I do not think I would get them from that either. They support what we have received through Sacred Tradition, but like some other doctrines, scripture is not as clear as we would sometimes prefer.

I have become persuaded of the Petrine gifts and ministry through a number of sources, otherwise, I would be Orthodox today.

 

[guanophore]

Don't think so. Jesus tells us those sitting in Moses seat  were foxes and sons of Satan, and had bad doctrine, leaven. It is very clear then that Christ says to listen to them as they speak from Moses seat correctly  but not their stuff based on bad doctrine.

No Ben, this is not clear. He clearly told His disciples to to do as they said. There is nothing in the text that indicates they are allowed to place themselves on Moses’ seat in their place.

But he did for what else could “beware of their leaven (bad doctrine”) mean.

He did call them hypocrites.

There is no evidence that the early church made a mistake before Cornelius, that he was denied baptism.

Do you have any evidence that any Gentiles were baptized? Why do you think Peter placed the inquiry “can any one deny water”? The context indicates that water baptizm had been denied.

The whole point of the exercise was to convince Peter not to call “unclean” what God had called clean. Peter was a good Jew, and to him, the Gentiles were 'unclean".

Correct. You would have been wrong to follow Peter's example based on bad doctrine (gentiles are not quite as clean as Jews).

LOL

There was nothing wrong with the doctrine. That is the point. Jesus had always intended for the Church to bring in the Gentiles. The Apostles just didn’t “get it” until He made it clear to Peter through the vision and showing Peter how the Spirit fell upon the house of Cornelius.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If there is no patristic support for the idea then it’s not legitimate. There is no way that it can be.

Oh? And why is that?

Did the fathers comment on every doctrine that the Church has developed in the 1400 years since the Patristic era ended?

Or is that the Orthodox place so much emphasis on patristics that it has to be that way?

I think this is a non sequitur.

And by the way, if this is a theological novelty, surely some honest Catholics must have argued against using the Royal Steward argument, right?

Who?

 

[Seraphim73]

Oh? And why is that?

Did the fathers comment on every doctrine that the Church has developed in the 1400 years since the Patristic era ended?

Or is that the Orthodox place so much emphasis on patristics that it has to be that way?

I think this is a non sequitur.

If the understanding is not there then it can’t be correct. Can you think of any legitimate understanding of Scripture that can’t be found among the fathers?