Peter's "confession"

[MarcoPolo]

We see that St James presides over the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). We see in the early Church where the Great Councils fighting heresy, did not elevate the Pope of Rome above all other bishops.

If you want a link to my debate on the early Church’s elevation and deference to the Roman bishop, here it is (I hope the mods think this is ok since that thread on the other forum is closed).

St. James should have presided over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 because it was his jurisdiction (Eusebius 2.1.2) as the local bishop! Yet who speaks first to end the debate Acts 15:7, but Peter, who is not in his jursidiction…or actually he was, because Jerusalem was in the universal Church.


If you do not see it that way, God bless and Godspeed!

 

[Jason_W]

Violence is done to nothing–God forbid. St Peter is often the mouthpiece and is considered first amongst **equals. **

We see that St James presides over the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). We see in the early Church where the Great Councils fighting heresy, did not elevate the Pope of Rome above all other bishops. St Peter was not a supreme ruler over all other Apostles. You are retroactively forcing the ultramontane post schism Latin view of the papacy onto Scripture and Tradition.

you do agree that Peter was the “mouth” of the Church.but what exactly do you suppose that to mean. does it not imply some type of authority over the rest?

then you say he is the first amongst equals, but that contradicts itself, if their equal there can be no first.unless first has no importance or meaning to it.

then you make the charge that we are forcing the post schism latin view of the papacy onto Scripture and Tradition. what evidence exactly do you present for this argument, because we have give many Scriptual references and early Church references, which are prior to any schism, that affirm Peter held a position of authority amongst the other Apostles.

here is what St John Crysostom has to say about your accusation.

Homily on the Gospel of John 88

So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

He says unto him, Feed My sheep.

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

you agree he was the mouthpiece, do you also agree that he was the chosen one among the Apostles, or the leader of the band. or what about the strongest or greatest of the Apostles? or do Eusibius and John have it wrong? is the Catholic position wrong? if so then by what authority do you declare it to be wrong?

 

[Mickey]

St. James should have presided over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 because it was his jurisdiction

Amen!

 

[Jason_W]

newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm

this is a link to the Catholic encyclopedia describing the 6th general council called by the emperor in 678. which is more evidence upholding the Churches understanding of Petrine authority.

“Both letters, the pope’s in particular, insist on the faith of the Apostolic See as the living and stainless tradition of the Apostles of Christ, assured by the promises of Christ, witnessed by all the popes in their capacity of successors to the Petrine privilege of confirming the brethren, and therefore finally authoritative for the Universal Church.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

Amen!

Amen, I see my point was missed!

 

[Mickey]

does it not imply some type of authority over the rest?

No supremacy.

if their equal there can be no first.unless first has no importance or meaning to it.

The captain of a hockey team is a great honour. Sometimes he speaks for the team. But he is an equal to the other players in every respect.

then you make the charge that we are forcing the post schism latin view of the papacy onto Scripture and Tradition. what evidence exactly do you present for this argument.

It is really quite simple. I have studied the first millenium undivided Church extensively. I do not see a papacy that claims supremacy over all bishops. I do not see a Pope who claims, through ex cathedra infallibilty, the right to declare doctrine apart from an Ecumenical Council.

because we have give many Scriptual references and early Church references, which are prior to any schism, that affirm Peter held a position of authority amongst the other Apostles.

Your interpretation is heavily influenced by the post schism Latin Church.

you agree he was the mouthpiece, do you also agree that he was the chosen one among the Apostles, or the leader of the band. or what about the strongest or greatest of the Apostles? or do Eusibius and John have it wrong? is the Catholic position wrong? if so then by what authority do you declare it to be wrong?

Again–the Holy Orthodox Church loves St Peter and there is a great veneration and feast day for him and St Paul. St John Chrysostom uses many wonderful adjectives for the great Apostle Peter. But St John is not saying that all bishops of Rome are supreme/infallible pontiffs.

Let us see what else St John Chrysostom says: (continued)

 

[Mickey]

St John Chrysosotom

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now

The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…

Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)

 

[mercygate]

St. James should have presided over the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 because it was his jurisdiction (Eusebius 2.1.2) as the local bishop!

Since you cite Eusebius, think about something else Eusebius says: He states that Peter came to Rome in 42 A.D. If you count by Paul’s reckoning, the Jerusalem Council would have taken place in roughly the year 45. So Peter would have returned to Jerusalem – specifically for the Council? Scripture does not tell us. But if the prominence of James at the Council, coupled with Peter’s prominence at the council suggest anything, it is that Peter did come for the meeting and that he was still as key figure in this important deliberation.

 

[Mickey]

Let us see what Eusebius says:

EUSEBIUS (bishop)****
(the father of ecclesiastical history)
‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded—a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ **For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ **These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight—scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world (Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).

 

[Mickey]

But if the prominence of James at the Council, coupled with Peter’s prominence at the council suggest anything, it is that Peter did come for the meeting and that he was still as key figure in this important deliberation.

Hence, the first Ecumenical Council!

 

[Mickey]

Amen, I see my point was missed!

Acts 15:19
For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.

 

[toaslan]

Amen, I see my point was missed!

Repeatedly!

But I got it: Your point was that St. James closed the session just as, for a loose example, a homeowner might do whose house he had opened to his friend the President for a fundraiser or something.

In such a case, the host would welcome all present, and later he would close the meeting, after the President had accomplish his own agenda. The host would speak with local application while the President would have spoken more generally, each according to his authority. The homeowner’s last few remarks might even be about parking or keeping the departure noise down for the neighbors or such.

St. James’ closing words at the council were about the local application, to his Jewish sheep, of what had been globally settled by Peter’s deciding words–it was globally settled because after he spoke there was silence–in council.

 

[toaslan]

Acts 15:19
For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.

James had under his authority the Church at Jerusalem, mostly Jews. He waited, at the Council, until the question of whether Gentiles must be circumcised etc. was settled.

After there had been much debate (verse 7) Peter rose and delivered his opinion.

That answered the question: for the debate ended. 12 *And all the assembly kept silence. * The assembly went on to other matters–reports of the missionary journeys.

The last words recorded of the Council were words affirming the decision reached on the reason they were gathered. Those words echoing Peter’s came from the local authority, James.

The Council’s decision had specific importance for James’ Church at Jerusalem for they were Jewish Christians many of whom had been naturally expecting Gentile Christians to also conform to Jewish temple law. The decision meant James’ particular flock had to relinquish a kind of Jewish brand on Christianity. Such relinquishment would constitute a pastoral project for the local pastor.

In echoing Peter’s words, James appropriately speaks for the local church while following Peter’s global lead.

Just as a good bishop follows the pope’s lead.

Because Peter, having made a great confession of faith, is the rock upon whom Christ founded His Church.

 

[Mickey]

Your point was that St. James closed the session just as, for a loose example, a homeowner might do whose house he had opened to his friend the President for a fundraiser or something.

Yeah, right.

 

[Mickey]

Peter’s global lead.

Global lead!
Where did you copy this from?

St Peter spoke. Then SS Barnabas and Paul spoke. Finally St James spoke and judged. St Peter did not exercise any type of supreme rulership–just as the popes in the early Church could not declare doctrine apart from the Great Councils.

 

[toaslan]

Global lead!
Where did you copy this from?

nowhere, why, do you copy your stuff?

St Peter spoke. Then SS Barnabas and Paul spoke. Finally St James spoke and judged. St Peter did not exercise any type of supreme rulership…

Well, you wish. Or, maybe in your bible. My bible says

*6The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said… *]that God had chosen him to go to the gentiles, and that God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and that therefore the Church should not seek to put a Jewish yoke, more than they can bear, upon the Gentiles.

Then, again, mickey, : *12And all the assembly kept silence…/*I]

Why did the inspired writer put in this at verse 12, Mickey? Why does a bible-believing Christian feel so free to skip right over a phrase written by the Holy Spirit Himself?

Take a breath, Mickey, and read the passages again quietly. You may see something new.

Gotta go, blessings.

 

[toaslan]

"Toaslan:

Your point was that St. James closed the session

Yeah, right.

I offered a very, very simple example to illustrate for you what was really going on at the Council of Jerusalum, since you seem very, very confused.

Pax.

 

[Jason_W]

St John Chrysosotom

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now

The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…

Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)

i commend you , this is your best response yet.
but if you twist these versus to say that Peter had no Chief authority then you cause Chrysostom to contradict himself, for it was he who said " And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren;"
not that the others didnt have authority, but that Jesus gave to Peter Simon, son of John the CHIEF authority.

and i like the part about the captain of the hockey team, where you stated "The captain of a hockey team is a great honour. Sometimes he speaks for the team. But he is an equal to the other players in every respect.

lets take a closer look at what it means to be the captain of the hockey team.

According to International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) and National Hockey League (NHL) rules, the only player allowed to speak with referees about rule interpretations is the captain, or, if the captain is not on the ice, an alternate captain.[1][2] Goaltenders may not be designated as captains or alternate captains because of the logistical challenges of having the goaltender relay rules discussions between referees and coaches and then return to the crease.

and also

Although the rules do not specify any other distinction between the captain and his teammates, in North American professional hockey the captain has numerous responsibilities to the team. The captain is expected to be a locker room leader and is often considered the primary representative of the team to the public. The captain also represents the players’ concerns to management and sometimes is responsible for organizing the team’s social functions

althought it is not specified, he is considered the primary representative of the team. is he equal in EVERY respect?

 

[Mickey]

Well, you wish. Or, maybe in your bible. My bible says

From the Douay-Rheims Bible:

6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. 12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: 16 After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. 18 To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. 19 **For which cause I judge **that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. 20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

St Peter spoke. SS Paul and Barnabas spoke. St James spoke and judged.

Perhaps you should read more attentively. :tiphat:

 

[Mickey]

you seem very, very confused.

I think that it is you who are a bit disoriented.