Petra and Petros...?

[GaryTaylor]

Where does your information come from?

“St. Augustine never said that, he said, “Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam: inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est: utinam aliquando finiatur error! Ergo ut advertant monemus, ut instruantur docemus, ut mutentur oremus,” which in context says that Two councils on the heresy of Pelagianism were sent to Rome, and Rome wrote back in agreement, so the issue on whether Pelagianaism was heresy was finished.”

The phrase comes from Sermon 131.10 of St. Augustine, the Latin is:

jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.

What DID St. Augustine say? Two councils (from the African bishops) had been sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) and Rome had replied by sending a reports (rescripts – in other words, “had spoken”), and upon that the cause is finished.

So, even though St. Augustine didn’t use all of “those words” he did “say that!”

And also this…

(St. Augustine) ipsa est petra quam non uincunt superbae inferorum portae (that is the Rock which the gates of hell cannot conquer).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Which ECF, and what year? And what interpretations?

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)
“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.):
“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret)

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):
“Peter, the Rock of the Church …” (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). “Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).

Origen (230-250 A.D.):
“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …” (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

“Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded.” (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)

“Peter, upon whom is built Christ’s Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail.” (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)

St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):
“For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring …” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).

“God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord’s word, upon a Rock …” (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).

“There is one God and one Christ and but one episcopal chair, originally founded on Peter, by the Lord’s authority. There cannot, therefore, be set up another altar or another priesthood. Whatever any man in his rage or rashness shall appoint, in defiance of the divine institution, must be a spurious, profane and sacrilegious ordinance” (St. Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church)

“Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church …” (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).

St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):
“Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head and fountain from which all My teaching flows.” (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).

“Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’” (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).

"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, ‘Far be it from Thee, Lord.’ [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV

Peace.

St. Augustine in his retractationes, for one. The rock being Christ and the rock being Peter are equally valid interpretations.

 

[MontChevalier]

I would like to add that even if the Bible had been taken from an Aramaic context, it, in no way, means that the authority of the Pope is non-existent, as many protestants claim. Much rather, it should be the Protestants (And perhaps the Orthodox?) who should return in full communion with the Catholic church and unify Christianity once and for all. It should end all of this division and bring the body of Christ into one once again; perhaps with this, the atheist problem can resolved quicker.

Just my :twocents: into this.

-MontChevalier

 

[Cavaradossi]

Where does your information come from?

“St. Augustine never said that, he said, “Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam: inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est: utinam aliquando finiatur error! Ergo ut advertant monemus, ut instruantur docemus, ut mutentur oremus,” which in context says that Two councils on the heresy of Pelagianism were sent to Rome, and Rome wrote back in agreement, so the issue on whether Pelagianaism was heresy was finished.”

The phrase comes from Sermon 131.10 of St. Augustine, the Latin is:

jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est

Translated, it reads,

. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.

What DID St. Augustine say? Two councils (from the African bishops) had been sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) and Rome had replied by sending a reports (rescripts – in other words, “had spoken”), and upon that the cause is finished.

So, even though St. Augustine didn’t use all of “those words” he did “say that!”

And also this…

(St. Augustine) ipsa est petra quam non uincunt superbae inferorum portae (that is the Rock which the gates of hell cannot conquer).

Rome stating her agreement was nothing more than a final nail in the coffin, so to speak. This passage comes from an entire sermon, which is where the context I was giving about Pelagianism comes from.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I also find it facinating your choose “one Bible” in contrast to “all” Bible’s.

In Acts 15

James speaking last correctly stated is… “It is ‘my’ judgement” Hes just in agreement with St Peter. The final word had already been spoken.

Believe as you wish

Geez even the KJV has it right “my sentence is” you see the MY in there, thats James speaking for “himself”.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I also find it facinating your choose “one Bible” in contrast to “all” Bible’s.

In Acts 15

James speaking last correctly stated is… “It is ‘my’ judgement” Hes just in agreement with St Peter. The final word had already been spoken.

Believe as you wish

Geez even the KJV has it right “my sentence is” you see the MY in there, thats James speaking for “himself”.

Where did I say that I was choosing only one bible? All I said was that the Douay Rheims translation makes it most clear who has the final word on the matter, and that person is James. I judge, my sentence is, and it is my judgment all imply that James had the final judgment, not Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where did I say that I was choosing only one bible? All I said was that the Douay Rheims translation makes it most clear who has the final word on the matter, and that person is James. I judge, my sentence is, and it is my judgment all imply that James had the final judgment, not Peter.

Its what you posted. Is there another bible in agreement with your opinion? My brother, I assure you, you can believe as you wish. I have “no” issues with the EO or you. To me its sorta selective reading.

My agenda for today isn’t to sell you the CC. Nor do I wish to turn this into a 40-page debate with you and I.

I’m just saying…

Peace, GT

 

[joe370]

St. Augustine in his retractationes, for one. The rock being Christ and the rock being Peter are equally valid interpretations.

Absolutely!!! All catholics agree with you, which is why I prefaced my questions with that fact in post #1.

 

[joe370]

I would like to add that even if the Bible had been taken from an Aramaic context, it, in no way, means that the authority of the Pope is non-existent, as many protestants claim. Much rather, it should be the Protestants (And perhaps the Orthodox?) who should return in full communion with the Catholic church and unify Christianity once and for all. It should end all of this division and bring the body of Christ into one once again; perhaps with this, the atheist problem can resolved quicker.

Just my :twocents: into this.

-MontChevalier

If the authority of the catholic church leader is non-existent so is the authority of every protestant church leader, leaving us with an authoritative collection of books called the bible with no means of authoritatively interpreting it.

I agree with you regarding the atheist problem.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Where did I say that I was choosing only one bible? All I said was that the Douay Rheims translation makes it most clear who has the final word on the matter, and that person is James. I judge, my sentence is, and it is my judgment all imply that James had the final judgment, not Peter.

After Peter spoke all fell silent, what followed was signs and wonders witnessed from Pauls and Barnabas preaching confirming Peter’s revelation from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the church by baptism not circumcision.

James the bishop of Jerusalem makes his own judgement (after hearing Peter followed by silence and witnesses) upon his Jerusalem community church on obstaining from certain foods and disciplines to be enforced by a letter from the final findings of the Council which concluded that baptism not circumcision saves.

Peter spoke for “all the church” James pass judgement of Jewish and Gentile converts in his Church community his disciplines to adhere to Peter’s confession and revelation from heaven upon the Whole Church community to obey. Paul and Silas go out and reveal the councils findings to other Church’s possessing the problem burdening circumcision upon baptized Gentiles.

**What is interesting is James judges his community to refrain from eating such foods. When Paul later allows freedom for his converts to eat such foods without conviction so long as they don’t offend the weak ones in faith.So James judgement of disciplines became binding upon James community, whereby Pauls converts were given more freedom because they were mostly Gentile converts and not Jewish converts as James disciplined his Jewish converts.

Peter’s command was not to burden baptized Gentiles with circumcision, which the Church since Peter spoke obeys to this day. But James disciplines are not carried out throughout the Whole Church today.**

In summary James and all the elders in council obeys Peter’s message not to burden the Gentiles with circumcision in his Jerusalem Church community, which brought about this church council in the first place, when James Jerusalem church was enforcing circumcision on Gentile converts.

Peter revealed from heaven to James Jerusalem church and the whole church in council not to circumcise baptized Gentiles. James and the elders took Peter’s command and enforced judgment disciplines upon their communities via letters.

It was Peter who recieved the vision from heaven to speak to the Jewish converts in the council of Jerusalem not to burden the baptized Gentiles with circumcision, “What God has made clean remains clean”.

Peace be with you

 

[joe370]

Hey Gabriel of 12…

**What is interesting is James judges his community to refrain from eating such foods. When Paul later allows freedom for his converts to eat such foods without conviction so long as they don’t offend the weak ones in faith.So James judgement of disciplines became binding upon James community, whereby Pauls converts were given more freedom because they were mostly Gentile converts and not Jewish converts as James disciplined his Jewish converts.

Peter’s command was not to burden baptized Gentiles with circumcision, which the Church since Peter spoke obeys to this day. But James disciplines are not carried out throughout the Whole Church today.**

That’s a really good point.

 

[Marybeloved]

Perhaps you should read the verses you quoted again. James does not assent to what Peter proclaims, he judges it (and finds that it is correct). James, not Peter, had the final say in the council, because he was leading it. The Douay Rheims translation makes it even more clear, as in the Douay Rheims, James even says, “I judge.”

I don’t know what you’re reading, but my reading of the events reveals quite a different scenario.

Sts Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem to seek council from the Apostles on a question of faith and doctrine- Whether Gentile converts to the faith are obligated to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved! When they arrive, the same quarrel that has brought them there from Antioch breaks out again amongst the Christians of Jerusalem that consists wholly of Jews. The Apostles and other leaders sit in council to settle the matter.

After much debate has taken place, we’re told, St. Peter gets up and lays out the true doctrine that we all know today to be the actual truth of faith in question- What does he say? The last sentence of his discourse says it all:Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?*** No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are***."

Then what happens next? Does the debate go on as had been happening before St. Peter spoke? Does someone get up to represent the other view? Do those who disagree (who must be significant for there to be much debate on the matter) or at-least one of them, get up as spokesperson and also present the other case? No!

Two things happen after St. Peter states the true doctrine:
a)Silence
b)Total alignment with Peter’s position from everyone who speaks after him!

In other words- All dissenting opinion comes to an abrupt end after Peter states the doctrine!- Why? Where do these other debaters go off to after St. Peter speaks?

Then Sts Paul and Barnabas give evidence of God’s working among the Gentiles, of great signs and wonders before an audience now totally silent.

Then St. James speaks. What does he say? I’ve looked at the opposite views of Peter and those who oppose his views and I think Peter is the one who is right? No! He says: My brothers, listen to me. Simon has told you… And the scriptures also say… Does he say, "Paul and Barnabas have told you ***how God is already working with the gentiles…"? ***But haven’t Sts Paul and Barnabas just spoken after Peter and right before St. James? This is even more clear if you look at what James is saying: He basically says that God had planned from old to make a people of himself from the Gentiles! Certainly what Sts. Paul and Barnabas have just said is very very relevant! But does St. James appeal to it? More so, St. James does not give an answer on the doctrine before them, does he? Does he say: The Law of Moses does not save, but only grace saves? No! He says that God had planned from old to make a people of himself from the Gentiles, and his authorities on this are: a) Peter and b)the Scriptures. In other words, Peter has already laid the doctrine- James adds nothing to it! What he says only amounts to support that is not directly essential to the doctrine in discussion! No different than that set forth by Paul and Barnabas!

-That’s when he, St. James, says: "It is my judgment/decision therefore …"His judgment is based on a doctrine already clearly proclaimed- but not by him. That is: Grace saves the Gentiles just as it saves the Jewish believers, rendering Mosaic Law meaningless with regards to salvation and purification of the soul (read Peter’s whole speech).
-James says It’s my judgment, therefore, that we ought not to burden the Gentiles (with Mosaic law)…but only require of them by letter …(paraphrased) *observance of these simple rules, which are actually *the four laws of Noah’s covenant…Now, does that sound like a decision on the doctrine proclaimed by Peter or based on the doctrine proclaimed by Peter?

It seems clear to me that St. James set forth a rule of conduct based on the doctrine infallibly set forth as a truth of faith. Who in that council set forth the unchangeable (and apparently also undebatable) doctrine of faith upon which this rule of conduct by James that is obviously changeable, is based? St. James being the Bishop of the Jews who are complaining, is telling them that there’s no basis for making those demands on Gentiles except the laws of Noah (which Jews believe to be binding on Gentiles unlike Mosaic Law), And he renders his decision authoritatively as the Bishop based on the just infallibly taught doctrine of St. Peter.

Peace!

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t know what you’re reading, but my reading of the events reveals quite a different scenario.

Sts Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem to seek council from the Apostles on a question of faith and doctrine- Whether Gentile converts to the faith are obligated to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved! When they arrive, the same quarrel that has brought them there from Antioch breaks out again amongst the Christians of Jerusalem that consists wholly of Jews. The Apostles and other leaders sit in council to settle the matter.

After much debate has taken place, we’re told, St. Peter gets up and lays out the true doctrine that we all know today to be the actual truth of faith in question- What does he say? The last sentence of his discourse says it all:Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?*** No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are***."

Then what happens next? Does the debate go on as had been happening before St. Peter spoke? Does someone get up to represent the other view? Do those who disagree (who must be significant for there to be much debate on the matter) or at-least one of them, get up as spokesperson and also present the other case? No!

Two things happen after St. Peter states the true doctrine:
a)Silence
b)Total alignment with Peter’s position from everyone who speaks after him!

In other words- All dissenting opinion comes to an abrupt end after Peter states the doctrine!- Why? Where do these other debaters go off to after St. Peter speaks?

Then Sts Paul and Barnabas give evidence of God’s working among the Gentiles, of great signs and wonders before an audience now totally silent.

Then St. James speaks. What does he say? I’ve looked at the opposite views of Peter and those who oppose his views and I think Peter is the one who is right? No! He says: My brothers, listen to me. Simon has told you… And the scriptures also say… Does he say, "Paul and Barnabas have told you ***how God is already working with the gentiles…"? ***But haven’t Sts Paul and Barnabas just spoken after Peter and right before St. James? This is even more clear if you look at what James is saying: He basically says that God had planned from old to make a people of himself from the Gentiles! Certainly what Sts. Paul and Barnabas have just said is very very relevant! But does St. James appeal to it? More so, St. James does not give an answer on the doctrine before them, does he? Does he say: The Law of Moses does not save, but only grace saves? No! He says that God had planned from old to make a people of himself from the Gentiles, and his authorities on this are: a) Peter and b)the Scriptures. In other words, Peter has already laid the doctrine- James adds nothing to it! What he says only amounts to support that is not directly essential to the doctrine in discussion! No different than that set forth by Paul and Barnabas!

-That’s when he, St. James, says: "It is my judgment/decision therefore …"His judgment is based on a doctrine already clearly proclaimed- but not by him. That is: Grace saves the Gentiles just as it saves the Jewish believers, rendering Mosaic Law meaningless with regards to salvation and purification of the soul (read Peter’s whole speech).
-James says It’s my judgment, therefore, that we ought not to burden the Gentiles (with Mosaic law)…but only require of them by letter …(paraphrased) *observance of these simple rules, which are actually *the four laws of Noah’s covenant…Now, does that sound like a decision on the doctrine proclaimed by Peter or based on the doctrine proclaimed by Peter?

It seems clear to me that St. James set forth a rule of conduct based on the doctrine infallibly set forth as a truth of faith. Who in that council set forth the unchangeable (and apparently also undebatable) doctrine of faith upon which this rule of conduct by James that is obviously changeable, is based? St. James being the Bishop of the Jews who are complaining, is telling them that there’s no basis for making those demands on Gentiles except the laws of Noah (which Jews believe to be binding on Gentiles unlike Mosaic Law), And he renders his decision authoritatively as the Bishop based on the just infallibly taught doctrine of St. Peter.

Peace!

Honestly, that’s a pretty distorted exegesis. You are looking for things which are not there. I don’t think you would be able to find one Church Father to support your exegesis that St. Peter spoke infallible doctrine, and James made a judgment based on that infallible doctrine (you will find some who are of the opinion that James was of lesser authority than Peter, but as bishop of Jerusalem had the right to judge, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered any exegesis calling this an infallible doctrine proclaimed by Peter).

 

[Cavaradossi]

After Peter spoke all fell silent, what followed was signs and wonders witnessed from Pauls and Barnabas preaching confirming Peter’s revelation from heaven to allow the Gentiles into the church by baptism not circumcision.

James the bishop of Jerusalem makes his own judgement (after hearing Peter followed by silence and witnesses) upon his Jerusalem community church on obstaining from certain foods and disciplines to be enforced by a letter from the final findings of the Council which concluded that baptism not circumcision saves.

Peter spoke for “all the church” James pass judgement of Jewish and Gentile converts in his Church community his disciplines to adhere to Peter’s confession and revelation from heaven upon the Whole Church community to obey. Paul and Silas go out and reveal the councils findings to other Church’s possessing the problem burdening circumcision upon baptized Gentiles.

**What is interesting is James judges his community to refrain from eating such foods. When Paul later allows freedom for his converts to eat such foods without conviction so long as they don’t offend the weak ones in faith.So James judgement of disciplines became binding upon James community, whereby Pauls converts were given more freedom because they were mostly Gentile converts and not Jewish converts as James disciplined his Jewish converts.

Peter’s command was not to burden baptized Gentiles with circumcision, which the Church since Peter spoke obeys to this day. But James disciplines are not carried out throughout the Whole Church today.**

In summary James and all the elders in council obeys Peter’s message not to burden the Gentiles with circumcision in his Jerusalem Church community, which brought about this church council in the first place, when James Jerusalem church was enforcing circumcision on Gentile converts.

Peter revealed from heaven to James Jerusalem church and the whole church in council not to circumcise baptized Gentiles. James and the elders took Peter’s command and enforced judgment disciplines upon their communities via letters.

It was Peter who recieved the vision from heaven to speak to the Jewish converts in the council of Jerusalem not to burden the baptized Gentiles with circumcision, “What God has made clean remains clean”.

Peace be with you

Actually, there is a canon prohibiting the consumption of blood, which is still observed by Greek and Arab Christians. The prohibition still exists, it just isn’t widely obeyed.

 

[Marybeloved]

Honestly, that’s a pretty distorted exegesis. You are looking for things which are not there. I don’t think you would be able to find one Church Father to support your exegesis that St. Peter spoke infallible doctrine, and James made a judgment based on that infallible doctrine (you will find some who are of the opinion that James was of lesser authority than Peter, but as bishop of Jerusalem had the right to judge, but I don’t think I’ve ever encountered any exegesis calling this an infallible doctrine proclaimed by Peter).

Excuse me, please explain to me just what is distorted here:

• Did St. Peter not lay out a doctrine?
• Was the doctrinal matter of salvation by grace and not the mosaic law indeed not the whole point that destroyed the Jews’ argument that the mosaic law had to be followed?
• Did the entire Assembly not immediately cease any further debate after he did so?
• Was any dissenting opinion given after Peter spoke?
• Did Sts Paul and Barnabas not give evidence of works among the Gentile while saying nothing about Peter’s laid out doctrine?
• Did St. James not speak of God’s intention to make a people for himself from the Gentiles while, like Sts. Paul & Barnabas, adding nothing to the doctrine proclaimed by St. Peter on salvation?
• Did he not cite Peter and scripture but not Paul and Barnabas?
• Weren’t Paul’s and Barnabas’ testimony dead relevant to James’ point about God working making a people of himself among Gentiles?
• Did he not then give a ruling on conduct rather than a doctrine?
• Is his ruling not a changeable one? Do Christians still follow those rules as he laid them down?
• Is the doctrine of St. Peter changeable?

You can’t just make claims that my exegesis is distorted because it disagrees with your own distorted exegesis that James “judged” Peter’s teaching and found it to be correct- That fits the bill of distortions as James spoke of a supplementary or additional point in support of Peter’s doctrinal teaching- Show precisely what distortions I’ve presented.

To me its simple. Peter taught a doctrine that we all know is exactly true now and for all time- It’s an infallible doctrine unless you want to say that it’s not true today or can be changed in future ! He was teaching the whole assembly, the debate immediately ceased, no one contradicted in any way what he said, James made a ruling of conduct based on that very truth. Again, point to the distortions you allege on my part.

Regarding the fathers on infallibility- Are you asking me to show evidence from the early centuries of a doctrine in terms that were defined much later? Like evidence of the nature of God as one nature in three distinct persons before it was taught in those precise terms?

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

The disciples said to Jesus “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them “Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

(The Gospel According to Thomas, v. 12)

Reading through this litany of quotes in support of Peter as the Foundation of the Church I see that some of them are from apocryphal sources, so I’m quoting the above from an apocryphal source as well. But I do so as not to take from the gift that Christ gave to St Peter for the Church, but rather to aim for a balance. James did hold ruling authority in Jerusalem. The purpose of the Rock (St Peter) is not to take away from all the other gifts that Christ gave in the Church. All are needed, all have a purpose. St Peter did not need to be the ruler of the counsel in Jerusalem he just needed to be a teacher.

 

[Marybeloved]

The disciples said to Jesus “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them “Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

(The Gospel According to Thomas, v. 12)

Reading through this litany of quotes in support of Peter as the Foundation of the Church I see that some of them are from apocryphal sources, so I’m quoting the above from an apocryphal source as well. But I do so as not to take from the gift that Christ gave to St Peter for the Church, but rather to aim for a balance. James did hold ruling authority in Jerusalem. The purpose of the Rock (St Peter) is not to take away from all the other gifts that Christ gave in the Church. All are needed, all have a purpose. St Peter did not need to be the ruler of the counsel in Jerusalem he just needed to be a teacher.

Exactly!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually, there is a canon prohibiting the consumption of blood, which is still observed by Greek and Arab Christians. The prohibition still exists, it just isn’t widely obeyed.

I believe all Christians today are prohibited from drinking blood including the first century Christians.

What happens to Peter in Acts 10 preceeds the Church council of Jerusalem which follows Peters revelation from heaven. Put in this biblical context it is Peter not James who speaks “infallibly” what God has revealed to Peter much so that all fell silent.

Peter proclaimed the doctrine “Jesus saves” via baptism not circumcision. James followed by passing judgement dietary laws for his Jewish converts. James disciplines were not followed by all the first century Church’s. Peter’s proclaimed doctrine in the Church council became binding on all Christian believers.

I believe there is a distinction revealed from scripture when heaven revealed this “infallible” doctrine to Peter “what God has made clean remains clean” to allow the Gentiles into the Church which was mostly composed of Jewish converts. James disciplines his Jerusalem Jewish convert community and has the authority to speak judgement locally being the bishop of Jerusalem to not only adhere to Peter’s revelation from heaven, James settles other matters within his Jewish converts which included the disciplines of eating certain foods, which is never binding on Pauls Gentile converts.

After heaven speaks to Peter not James followed by witness Cornelius who venerates Peter in his presence and comes to hear what God has revealed to Peter again James did not recieve this revelation from God in order to infalllibly proclaim it to “ALL” the church.

Heaven tells Cornelius to summon Peter not James for the command of Heaven to come from Peter’s mouth not James.

It is Peter alone who gives the order to baptize Gentiles to the Jewish (circumcised) converts see below; Peter armed from heaven with this revelation leaves Joppa to meet Paul, James and other apostles to reveal to them what he Peter has recieved from heaven Infallible teaching from God.

Acts 10:9* The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime.* 10He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. 11c He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. 13A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.” 14But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.”d 15The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

25h When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage… 28i and said to them, **“You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean.**Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your almsgiving remembered before God. 32Send therefore to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter. **Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to listen to all that you have been commanded by the Lord.” **

34Then Peter proceeded to speak and said,* “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.j 35Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.

The Baptism of Cornelius. 44p While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.* 45 **The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also[/B26…Then Peter responded, 47“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?”q 48He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

The reason for the council of Jerusalem and Peter armed with the revelation from heaven speaks and all fell silent with no more protests.

Acts 15:4When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. **5But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.” **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

JohnVIII;8528896]The disciples said to Jesus “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them “Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

(The Gospel According to Thomas, v. 12)

Because your source is a Johnny come lately book long after the death of the last apostle it never meets the Early Church’s council of canonized books thus your quote is not considered “inspired of God” and bears no authenticity of teaching upon Christianity.

Apart from this, Who is Jesus addressing? Well if Jesus is presently speaking their are only Jewish converts, thus these must go to James who is bishop of Jerusalem, the time frame of Thomas Gospel is too late because;

God revealed to Peter not James from the God breathed book of Acts to allow the Gentiles into the Church via baptism not circumcision, long before the gospel of Thomas surfaced.

Besides it is not clear that James the Righteous was the bishop of Jerusalem? So your Thomas Gospel is not speaking of the James who spoke at the council of Jerusalem.

Thus your introduction of another gospel is highly debatable.

Reading through this litany of quotes in support of Peter as the Foundation of the Church I see that some of them are from apocryphal sources, so I’m quoting the above from an apocryphal source as well. But I do so as not to take from the gift that Christ gave to St Peter for the Church, but rather to aim for a balance. James did hold ruling authority in Jerusalem. The purpose of the Rock (St Peter) is not to take away from all the other gifts that Christ gave in the Church. All are needed, all have a purpose. St Peter did not need to be the ruler of the counsel in Jerusalem he just needed to be a teacher.

Apart from your apocryphal sources; Peter speaks to the council as practiced by the Popes today did not interfere with James judgement upon his Jewish converts in Jerusalem.

You are misunderstanding the authority Jesus gave Peter in the keys to bind and loose. Peter heard all the councils statements. Then proclaimed “infallibly” what heaven revealed to him for the whole Church which is still binding on all Christians today unchanged.

Peter did not pass any judgement upon James community, That is for James to do, not Peter. James follows Peter’s revelation from heaven with James disciplines. James disciplines were binding on all believers, Peter’s revelation becomes binding on all believers and still does to this day unchanged.

The Popes ever since still adhere to this apostolic Tradition in Church councils. The Popes ratify the Councils findings and when need to will speak “infallibly” on Jesus revelations in teachings and morals. Peter and the Popes do not dictate to bishops how to discipline their flock. Disciplines can change, but what heaven has revealed will never change. “Peter has spoken” says the ECF’s and Early Church councils.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Exactly, as so today. Which brings us to Constantinople. Council of Nicea.

So we have the Council of Jerusalem, Now what “exactly” was said at Nicea? Peter was the “proto”…“first,” “foremost,” “earliest form of,” “original”.

“Light of the World”…Pope Benedict XVI 2010.

Course why would we want to listen to him or the Council of Nicea, or the Bible.

Here’s the paragraph is dispute…Canon-6

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”

Correct interpretation…

“Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country”. Fr James F. Loughlin in reference to Ireneaus

According to this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs. An interpretation which is in line with the Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope.

Which is “why” Pope Benedict use’s the term “proto”.

Alexandria was the “cause” of the council. There the Arian heresy grew. The council corrected the heresy by all in agreement… except “two”.

Thus Canon 6 gives back the Bishop of Alexandria authority to govern his province. Which btw creates further problem’s with yet more Arian heresy. Which is alive and growing in the US today.

This “Custom” was derived by the Bishop of Rome …thus “likewise” the other provinces retain their authority which “btw” came from who? Oh that would be…ROME.

The fact all the churchs had the rule of their own Province is not of consequence. All are subject to be in communion with Rome. No-one wants to “run” or have “authority” over your church. If that had been the concern why would Rome have built Constantinople?

The purpose was to all be in “communion” and help each other. The fact that churchs make mistakes such as the Copts or Alexandra is not of consequence either. Thats why we have the councils to correct the error.

As far as Petra and Petros, its a moot arguement. The first to be converted where the Jews. As problems occured the Gentiles became the focus. Who spoke Greek? Here’s the reason we see the language introduced. The first and correct language is Cehpas or Kephas. Which has no different meaning. Nor do you see this by any early church fathers. The fact St Augustine is used is really something, and what year did he live?

Who chose an Apostle to replace Judas…St Peter. Whys thats? Ummm, maybe because He is the Apostle chosen through Divine Providence to lead the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. St Peter, Prince of the Apostles!!! His name appears 182 times in scripture. Maybe you should count how many James appears Of course that wouldn’t have any significance. Amazing what selective reading will do when you choose to hear what you want. Thats called not following the Bible but yourself according to St Jerome and St Augustine.

Peace