J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Some texts have Cephas James and John.
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Me thinks some lord this over others more than Peter himself did.
"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder
And when the Chief Shepherd appears"
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
List of what? Is Barnabus an appointed apostle by Jesus himself directly?
A
ArchStanton
Guest
I was stating a fact [regarding the keys of authority]. In regards to ‘fellow elder’, Peter is doing what Christ would have wanted of him as the leader of the Church… [BEING HUMBLE]
Lk 22:24-27 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He [Christ] said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest , and the leader as the servant . For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
[ v31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you , Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers .”]
Lk 9:46-48 An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest. Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the greatest .”
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Christ is the ‘head’… we are the ‘body’ [all one]. So yes, Barnabas has as much right as Paul or Jesus’ half brother.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, wasn’t this after Peter was given the keys?
The exhortations to be great or humble, a servant was open to all. Whoever is whoever. Did the rest of the disciples who heard the Lord’s exhortations turn their ears off thinking " whoever" meant Peter?
M
mcq72
Guest
Right to what? Either Jesus chooses an apostle directly or not.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I was stating an opinion that perhaps some of Peter’s successors elevate the Seat more than Peter did.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Why not use that same reasoning [being direct] for Peter receiving the keys of authority, or Peter being told to feed His sheep, or the personal prayer to strengthen Peter’s brothers.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
UnderstoodArchStanton:
I was stating an opinion that perhaps some of Peter’s successors ekevate the Seat more than Peter did.
M
mcq72
Guest
I do.
In fact reminds me of another point, that pretty sure Jesus did not choose some bishops of Rome, some.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Maybe these fishermen were hung up on 'greatest’ but still understood Peter’s role with the keys.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Being ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ to choose a successor does not equal impeccability. After all, Christ chose Judas to be one of the original twelve. As long as the ‘bad pope’ did not lead us with false doctrine.
But I do understand your point!
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Which version is that? not the Catholic Douay Rheims and several others I have checked.
How do you explain Gal 2: 9 where the Vicar of Christ is not listed first?
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
In Galatians 2 , St. Paul is speaking in the context of the church at Jerusalem. We know from Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History …) that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem after the apostles dispersed throughout the world . It would not be surprising to list James first in the context of the diocese (or city, as it were then) over which he presides. Even today, if there were a Council held in a diocese other than Rome, the local bishop would normally be given a special place of honor in some distinct manner . This, in fact, has been the case many times in the history of the Church. James should be given a place of honor because he is the head of the local Church there in Jerusalem.ArchStanton:
How do you explain Gal 2: 9 where the Vicar of Christ is not listed first?
This is the context of Galatians 2 . However, notice the difference between this second visit St. Paul made to Jerusalem and his first visit fourteen years earlier (cf. Galatians 2:1 ).
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas , and remained with him fifteen days . But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother ( Gal. 1:18-19 )… Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas… and when they perceived the grace of God was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship ( Gal. 1:18-2:9 ).
St. Paul originally went to Jerusalem not to see James, though he did see James . He went to confer with St. Peter . After receiving revelation from God, St. Peter is the first man St. Paul wants to see . This was not just a casual meeting. It lasted fifteen days . It was fourteen years later (cf. Gal. 2:1 ), after St. Peter had gone and established his see in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11 , Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History ), that St. Paul lists James first in the context of the Church of Jerusalem.
[I think I got this years ago from Tim Staples]
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Also, think about Acts 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
Barnabas is listed before Paul
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assert that Peter is mentioned in a way that’s first and foremost, in context in Galatians 2. When Paul mentions an apostle who’s the very paradigm case of ministry to the circumcised in Gal 2:6 and 2:7, whom does he mention? Not James or John, but ‘Peter’.
Nevertheless, when he lists the apostles, he does so in a seemingly peculiar way. Why James first? Why Peter second?
I’ll go back to the context of the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts 15. The presiding apostle at that council was James – he was the ‘bishop’ there. So, it’s fitting that he should preside over the council. (After all, if a member of the SCOTUS walks into a courtroom, does he automatically preside? Of course not! The presiding judge does, although the SCOTUS member is accorded a certain amount of respect. And, if the SCOTUS member actually testifies in the case, you better believe that their testimony is greatly respected!)
So… just as James, as ‘bishop’ of Jerusalem, presides over the council there, I would argue that Paul mentions him first because he’s talking about being in Jerusalem in the context of Galatians 2.
Now… after the presiding bishop, whom does Paul mention first? John? Nope… Peter.
So, I think there’s a certain sort of consistency that we find in these narratives in Galatians and Acts: presiding bishop receives a certain deference, in the context of his church (cum ‘diocese’), and Peter (cum ‘pope’) is first mentioned thereafter.
A
AlNg
Guest
I would think that the Vicar of Christ, having supremacy and universal jurisdiction over all other bishops, would be mentioned first?
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Did you read my two posts above?
G
Gorgias
Guest
You wrote:Gorgias:
Uhh . . . how does that contradict what I wrote?.
Christ established a divine proxy, not petrine succession. You asserted that Christ established the latter, but it was an apostolic establishment – one that Christ ‘ratified’, as such (“what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”), but not ‘established’ by Him, directly.
Divine approbation, perhaps. But not establishment:
Catechism#860:
(The quote there is from Lumen gentium #20.)
I suppose that the real question, perhaps, is “if there’s Biblical support for these, then why do Protestants deny them?”
- Status