Show me just one place that James, the Brother of God, Bishop of Jerusalem, is ever put in a secondary place after St Peter, I guess this is what you tried to do when you said:
John it was you who said that James always appears before Cephas- In another post you capitalized it- ALWAYS. You’re claiming a pattern- I’m asking where else? Surely you can’t say “always” while speaking of a single incidence? I just asked you to show me where else that happened for it to be always. It’s not fair for you to ask me to disprove an assertion you’ve put forward when I ask for proof
.
We can assume that James was there. Your point is what? Is it that if James was there why didn’t it Acts record something about his ruling at that time? If so, my answer is I don’t know, do you?
No, that was not my point, but a good one though- Why
didn’t they record the ruling?
My point was that Acts provides a list of the Apostles at Jerusalem in the upper room soon after Pentecost and the birth of the Church where the decision for replacing Judas is made- Peter is listed first and spearheads the whole thing;
So why refer to someone who doesn’t know about it to explain something about it?
He answers- Peter is teacher not of Jerusalem but the whole world.
James was ruler over the Church and even over St Peter, but it was Peter that had the Keys.
Give us just one or two fathers who recognized his rule over the whole church-even from his own see. Surely the fathers must have something to say about the ruler of the whole church if it was indeed St. James?
And Why was this so? I don’t know why Christ ordered it so and if your reference to St Chrysostom is accurate it looks like St Chrysostom doesn’t know either, so who knows why!
Come on, John- headship of the universal church, rule over the brethren, ruler of the whole world, to him the flock is entrusted, the whole world is entrusted…Doesn’t look like St. Chrysostom has any confusion at all about Peter ruling the whole church.
The only thing that I can see that I am contradicting is the position that modern day Rome holds. Why don’t you admit that that is really the ONLY reason you can’t agree about this matter of James.
I disagree because there’s just no evidence for it. Y’all are always accusing us of exaggerating Rome’s place in the early church- yet you do it here with St. James. If not, just reference some fathers who held to this idea.
If you really think that I’m insane…
I’m sorry I employed the word insane- but let me clarify that I didn’t mean you are insane. Sometimes these debates get your blood boiling and you hurry to reply w/out taking a breath! But no excuses, Apologies are due nonetheless. I’ll watch my language next time.
But the Jews were not ordered to stop being Jews now that they were Christians.
Being Jewish wasn’t what was meant by “the party of the circumcision”. There were many Jews in Antioch already. Also, why would Peter withdraw from the Gentiles? He wasn’t going against the Council. It was what he did in reaction to this “party” that was wrong, and St. Paul makes it clear what “party” we are dealing with when he asks Peter why compel Gentiles to live like Jews? Something that had been settled at the council. St. Jerome comments on that passage in Galatians saying that Paul had no cause to criticize Peter for he later also likewise pretended when he circumcised Timothy, a gentile, in Jerusalem. He says
"…for I say that both Peter and Paul, through fear of the believing Jews, practiced, or rather pretended to practice, the precepts of the Jewish law; whereas you maintain that they did this out of pity, ‘not with the subtlety of a deceiver, but with the sympathy of a compassionate deliverer.’ But by both this is equally admitted, that (whether from fear or from pity) they pretended to be what they were not."
What did St Paul say about this? “Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. …Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” (1st Corinthians 7:18,20)
Peter was doing nothing wrong by mixing with his fellow believers, his pretending not to mix with had nothing to do with what the council had authorized but what the pharisee converts thought of him.
There you go again, “absurd” indeed! Why would Peter fear any authority if he were ruler of all?!
They were all Jews! They knew what the Jews thought of gentiles and Jews who mixed with them- that’s why God had to send a special revelation to allow them in the church- So Peter had a weakness of wanting to please the Jews or appear righteous in their sight- We know the heavy ethnic/tribal/nationalistic/religious identity and influences of the Jews of the time, like today’s middle-Easterners. He was human, and st. Paul corrects him and later does the same. The church was only just beginning to let go of her very strong Jewish identity, is it really a surprise that even the Apostles who were all Jews themselves personally struggled with this?
I’ve heard and meant many Catholics that believed this, many Orthodox likewise, probably most Anlicans and protestant believe this, I think it is a safe assumtion that the majority of Christians on Earth believe James was the head leader of the Church after Christ departed. But you really think that I’m alone on this?!
Who? Which teachings, documents show this belief? I’ve only heard this from anti-Catholic protestant apologists. Orthodox seem to deny
any single ruler over
the whole church apart from Christ or God the Holy Spirit and insist on collegiality. I don’t believe this is as wide a belief as that, at least not among apostolic churches.
Again, I apologize for the insane remark.
Peace!
