Question on Church Fathers and the Pope

[Erick_Ybarra]

Does not the continual rejection of eastern Christians of the supremacy of the petrine office show that the bishops of the east which succeeded the apostles did not preserve a teaching of the papacy to pass that knowledge onward to all successors? This shows the original apostles did not spread the teaching of the uniqueness of peters successors, despite his leadership in thebearly church. That is concerning.

And for interest, don’t you think it was disrespectful for the author of Hebrews neglect Mary in the following verses?

Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

 

[paul_c]

Does not the continual rejection of eastern Christians of the supremacy of the petrine office show that the bishops of the east which succeeded the apostles did not preserve a teaching of the papacy to pass that knowledge onward to all successors? This shows the original apostles did not spread the teaching of the uniqueness of peters successors, despite his leadership in thebearly church. That is concerning.

It does not show that. Fully 1/3 of the churches in the East stayed loyal to the Pope as all of them had the previous 1000 years. There are of course lively debates on the causes of the great schism but east - west politics surely had a role.

And for interest, don’t you think it was disrespectful for the author of Hebrews neglect Mary in the following verses?

Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

why would you say that?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Almost all historians, even catholic, understand that the great schism was not an overnight issue but a problem that had been cooking for centuries between east and west. Read j Michael Phillips on the papacy or YouTube history of orthodox churchchurch

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It does not show that. Fully 1/3 of the churches in the East stayed loyal to the Pope as all of them had the previous 1000 years. There are of course lively debates on the causes of the great schism but east - west politics surely had a role.

why would you say that?

It simply does nit mention Mary queen of the universe intercessor of saints or anything. She is simply assumed to be in the spirits of just men.
There is no way a modern catholic would leave that out had they been writing

 

[paul_c]

It simply does nit mention Mary queen of the universe intercessor of saints or anything. She is simply assumed to be in the spirits of just men.
There is no way a modern catholic would leave that out had they been writing

Not true. While Mary certainly has an important role in salvation history as the Mother of God, she is not on the level of God. When you go to mass, the focus is all on Jesus. Unless it is a special devotional mass, you may not hear Mary’s name at all.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

But is she not somehow distinct enough to honor her besides the church? She is the mother of the church…and she is co-redeemer unless I’m mistaken.

 

[paul_c]

But is she not somehow distinct enough to honor her besides the church? She is the mother of the church…and she is co-redeemer unless I’m mistaken.

I’m sure she didn’t take offense.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And also it says the spirits of just men instead of bodies…doesn’t this mean anything. Or no?

And any book of the papacy will admit that the east had rejected the supremacy of peters succession over all jurisdictions.

 

[steve_b]

The following 2 books are very reputable concerning what the Father’s believed.

amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Volume-Set/dp/0814610250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347158425&sr=8-1&keywords=jurgens

amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Early-Church-Words/dp/0898708478/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1347158460&sr=1-1&keywords=the+four+witnesses

Basically what you are going to realize is that there was a development of understanding the Bishop of Rome. The argument, as simple as it can get, is that the Apostles set up successors who would later be bishops of the future believers. There is no disputing this fact. However, just like Judas’ absence required the presence of an Apostle to fill his particular office of “winess”, so also Peter has a particular office which must take his place, and since Peter was the “rock” of the Church upon whom Christ is building, this unique characteristic perpetuates as well to the successor. You have a succession of Apostles from each of the 12, but the other 11 offices are distinct to that of Peter’s. Peter’s office, which itself contains the function of “rock”, is different and continues to have this supremacy over the successors of the other 11 (well, 12 including Paul).

You are not going to find unanimous, uniform, and linear statements like this from the Fathers. Part of the difficulty is believing the gradual development implies that there were sure “seeds” of this in the beginning.

I am where you are, debating Orthadox with Catholic.

The example I like using is a Redwood tree. The seed is as small as a pepper flake. Yet all the genetic code for a redwood tree, is in that tiny seed. And 2000 years later…Voila

· 300+ feet tall, 130+ feet around at the base and still growing.
· everything required to grow this tree is inside that tiny seed.
· it will grow true to form based on the genetic code in that tiny seed.

2000 years later this is what it looks like… If someone has never seen a redwood tree, and you try to explain one, you show them a tiny seed from a redwood tree, and tell them how big a tree will come from this tiny seed, they will likely think you’re nuts.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7144137&postcount=84

with some of these trees they fell, they count rings back to 1st and 2nd century B.C. Some of these trees were 200 years old when Jesus was born. Over 2000 years, it weathers fire, drought, floods, pollution, pests, governments, you name it. They all come and go. Just as the Church Jesus promised to build goes through daunting elements that come and go, but the promise is, not even the gates of hell will prevail against my Church I build on you Peter.

In it’s embrionic state, you can hold this giant on the tip of your finger and have lots of room to spare. 2000 years later you stand there next to it and 20 of you in a circle with clasped hands can’t wrap your arms around it.

Just meant as a visual analogy

 

[steve_b]

Does not the continual rejection of eastern Christians of the supremacy of the petrine office show that the *bishops of the east which succeeded the apostles did not preserve -]a /-]the teaching of the papacy *to pass that knowledge onward to all successors?

That’s true.
EY:

This shows the original apostles did not spread the teaching of the uniqueness of peters successors, despite his leadership in thebearly church. That is concerning.

On the contrary, Irenaeus [Bk 3 Ch 3 v:2-3] newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm way before any split occured

points out very clearly to the gnostic heretics, that all must agree with Rome because

• It’s a teaching from Peter and Paul
• and the 12 bishops of Rome he names specifically
• and faithful mean everywhere who hold to this tradition down to his day

Irenaeus mentions 12 bishops ((popes) of Rome in succession from Peter and Paul, by name. iow, all must agree with this Church (Rome) on account of it’s bishop who has preeminent authority over all the other Churches.

As an aside, Irenaeus and Polycarp both came from Smyrna. Irenaeus knew Polycarp.
EY:

And for interest, don’t you think it was disrespectful for the author of Hebrews neglect Mary in the following verses?

Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Technically, this passage you quote, given the probable dates this epistle was written, Mary was in all likelyhood, already in heaven many years by the time this letter was written

 

[kempo1]

But there should be a perpetual succession of only 12 bishops that take the place of exactly 12 ( or 13) that continue throughout history no? There was not originally 100000 apostles…

There was originally but then the church grew and expanded into foreign lands. This is a no brainer to me, the Church had not spread to the entire world. Could you imagine only 12 bishops trying to service a church of over a billion followers. You are being unrealistic.

 

[paul_c]

And also it says the spirits of just men instead of bodies…doesn’t this mean anything. Or no?

Maybe, but I don’t know the distinction

And any book of the papacy will admit that the east had rejected the supremacy of peters succession over all jurisdictions.

Its not true. There are many Fathers in the East who recognized Papal Primacy and of course, all the Eastern Catholic Churches also recognize Papal Primacy. The most that can be said is that Many in the East rejected Papal primacy but certainly no were near all.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, have you noticed that Apostles were succeeded by bishops? This is because they have different functions. The Apostles were witnesses to Christ and as you have pointed out they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The bishops succeeded the Apostles to continue to administer the sacraments and teach the apostolic truths about salvation. You know this because the Orthodox teaches the same thing.

The Bishops have succeeded the Apostles not as Apostles, but as elders of the Church. When the Apostles setup a Church, they would appoint Elders. In Jerusalem they sat as being among the Elders. Then there is the episkopos, the chief elder. Later to be known as a Bishop.

The Apostles have a special place in the Church. Not everyone was an Apostle or can be called an Apostle. Only those who were sent by Christ himself were called as Apostles. These were only the 12, then the 70, and then St. Paul who by divine revelation was sent out by Christ.

Yes. you are right that there was no need to fill the office of Apostle. But there was a need to replace the Apostles with Bishops so that Church teachings could be passed down and that the sacraments could be administered. All of these bishops ultimately were ordained by one of the Apostles or by a bishop that can trace their lineage back to an apostle- thus apostolic succession. You believe the same thing as and Orthodox Christian, do you not. And you recognize that someone always succeeds the patriarch of each Orthodox church, with the same rights and responsibilities, correct. So why isn’t it easy to understand how bishops of Rome succeed each other with the same rights and responsibilities as their predecessors? And of course, the original bishop of Rome is St. Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16) and the charge to tend his flock. (John 21).

Because it is not that easy. No other bishop has the right of other Apostles. Only Apostles were Apostles. Why does the Bishop of Rome get anything from Peter? Like I said, what about the other Apostles? Were they worthless? Were they powerless? If not, where does their rights and responsibilities rest today? Why just Peter? And if Peter’s authority is such an integral part of the faith, a great necessity, why isn’t it’s passing to the next successor mentioned directly in Scripture? You’d think something that crucial is worth mentioning, but it isn’t.

Thank you for the information. It helps, as the various Orthodox Churches are a mystery to the average Catholic, I would say. However, I do wish that you would soften your criticism of the fellow Apostolic Church just a bit. If the position of Peter is not obvious from scripture, then I just can’t help you in that regard. If Christ did not institute that position, and make Peter the shepherd of his brothers (no matter where he was located or travelled), then we have an entirely different view of Peter and of scripture. If the Papacy was not natural, not created by Christ, then where did it come from? Which Pope seized power? How did he pass that power on to another? I think you completely misunderstand the Papacy.

The Bishop of Rome was given the honor by the other bishops. And the honor wasn’t meant as a position to put him as their “boss”. Even with Peter, he was never the boss of the other Apostles. He definitely wasn’t the shepherd of the other Apostles, you are mistaken on this regard. In Acts you will see that those from the Church of Antioch, namely Paul, Barnabas, Silas, etc, all acted autonomously from Jerusalem where the Apostles were. They didn’t seek their permission or approval to do things. If you look at what happened with the First Council of Jerusalem, the issue began because Paul and Barnabas decided to start evangelizing among the Gentiles. It wasn’t until they brought the issue to the Apostles that the Apostles realized what was going on. And it wasn’t until then they had to make a decision on how the conversion of the Jews should proceed. Peter, giving testimony to the revelation he received, should have brought this to the other Apostles earlier had they known that Gentiles were being evangelized. But they didn’t. So if Peter was supreme over the Church everywhere, why isn’t he even aware that the Gospel is not being freely preached to the Gentiles? All Peter got was a revelation to convert one Gentile family.

Are the Patriarchs being hypocrites when they warmly greet a visiting Pope? They seem to share a deep mutual love and respect, as opposed to the revulsion or animus that we occasionally see in these forums.

Just because they don’t agree, doesn’t mean they have to be hostile to one another. We are all Christians after all. Do you think if Jack Chick visited the Vatican, the Pope won’t warmly greet him and welcome him?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Have you ever seen a Pope “bark out” orders? When has a Pope ever demanded respect or obedience? It is offered to Him out of love, respect and obedience by the universal Church. Popes don’t seize power by a coup d’etat, they are elected. They have to agree to serve. Whereas you may see a dictator, we see a shepherd. In reflection of Christ, He does not demand respect, he receives it.

Summorum Pontificum is a very recent example of a unilateral decision to implement across the Church without even the consent of other bishops.

Another is the Canon Law requiring Papal approval of ordinations. It is unprecedented in Church history to have one bishop approve all episcopal ordinations. Even deposition of bishops were done by council, not unilaterally. The Pope has all these power.

If the Orthodox have a different organizational structure than in the scriptures, why all the concern about a Catholic Chruch that you also believe has a different structure?

The Orthodox never dogmatized their ecclesiology. If they wish to return to the First Century ecclesiology, they can without harm to their faith. The Roman Catholic Church cannot, unless she wishes to denounce and overturn her own dogma.

Does not the continual rejection of eastern Christians of the supremacy of the petrine office show that the bishops of the east which succeeded the apostles did not preserve a teaching of the papacy to pass that knowledge onward to all successors? This shows the original apostles did not spread the teaching of the uniqueness of peters successors, despite his leadership in thebearly church. That is concerning.

Indeed.

And for interest, don’t you think it was disrespectful for the author of Hebrews neglect Mary in the following verses?

Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Depends when this was written. Perhaps Mary has not passed onto the next life yet which is why heavenly acclaims do not include her yet.

 

[Mystophilus]

Since I feel strongly attracted to Catholicism I’m reading through the church fathers to make sure the Fathers line up with the Church’s teaching from what I can tell. I feel like that I am at the point where Catholicism or Orthodoxy seem right. One of the biggest things I am looking for in the Fathers is the role of the Bishop of Rome.

I ran across the following quote from the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp. To me it seems to indicate more of an Orthodox understanding of the role of the bishops. Can somebody please help me to understand this? Ignatius speaks frequently of ecclisiology, but never mentions anyone above the local bishop (at least from what I’ve seen). What gives?

The Fathers differ, particularly along ethno-linguistic lines, on the role of the Bishop of Rome.

Also, that role took some time to develop, and Ignatius, at the beginning of the second century, is too early to find what you want.

From what we have been able to work out, it seems that, in the first century, there were individual local churches led by councils of presbyter-bishops. These appear to have evolved, by Ignatius’ time, into a singular bishop governing each locality (although we have suggestions that Rome may have had a singular leader from the beginning, perhaps leading the council of presbyter-bishops). The idea of patriarchates and metropolitans, and of Rome’s authority over other churches, evolved from there.

What you might like to look at is the affair of Victor I versus the Asian churches over the date of Easter, at the end of the second century. This is where we see the Bishop of Rome believing that he has jurisdiction over other churches such that he can excommunicate them. Some Church Fathers, especially the Latin ones, believed in Roman supremacy, i.e. Rome’s authority to do such things, and Irenaeus is one example of this. Other Church Fathers, especially Greek ones, accepted Roman primacy but rejected Roman supremacy.

So, to wrap all of that up, some of the C2nd-and-onwards Fathers talk about Rome in the way that modern Catholics do, but other Fathers disagree.

 

[paul_c]

Q

uote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Constantine, have you noticed that Apostles were succeeded by bishops? This is because they have different functions. The Apostles were witnesses to Christ and as you have pointed out they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The bishops succeeded the Apostles to continue to administer the sacraments and teach the apostolic truths about salvation. You know this because the Orthodox teaches the same thing.

They were called bishops prior to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, so very early in Christianity

The Apostles have a special place in the Church. Not everyone was an Apostle or can be called an Apostle. Only those who were sent by Christ himself were called as Apostles. These were only the 12, then the 70, and then St. Paul who by divine revelation was sent out by Christ.

Yes, Apostles had to be direct witnesses of Jesus (and by the way, Barnabas is also called an Apostle in Acts, but its unclear of the status of the 70 as apostles). But their mission of evangelization, teaching and administration of the sacraments was passed down to the bishops. this is true of the Orthodox church as well as the Catholic church, I assume you agree with this, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Yes. you are right that there was no need to fill the office of Apostle. But there was a need to replace the Apostles with Bishops so that Church teachings could be passed down and that the sacraments could be administered. All of these bishops ultimately were ordained by one of the Apostles or by a bishop that can trace their lineage back to an apostle- thus apostolic succession. You believe the same thing as and Orthodox Christian, do you not. And you recognize that someone always succeeds the patriarch of each Orthodox church, with the same rights and responsibilities, correct. So why isn’t it easy to understand how bishops of Rome succeed each other with the same rights and responsibilities as their predecessors? And of course, the original bishop of Rome is St. Peter, to whom Jesus gave the keys to his kingdom (Matthew 16) and the charge to tend his flock. (John 21).

Other than judging the 12 tribes of Israel, what rights and responsibilities did the Apostles have that weren’t passed on to the bishops?

And if Peter’s authority is such an integral part of the faith, a great necessity, why isn’t it’s passing to the next successor mentioned directly in Scripture? You’d think something that crucial is worth mentioning, but it isn’t.

Come on Constantine, as an Orthodox Christian, you understand that scripture is only a subset of sacred tradition and that the new testament is focused on teaching about Jesus and how to live the Christian life. Church governance is mentioned only in passing. But its very clear that Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the Apostles and he clearly demonstrates this role in the first 15 chapters of Acts. Its very clear that successors are to be named (other wise the church would die out). Paul talks about this in Timothy and Titus. And if there is a leader and successors are to be named, why wouldn’t Peter have a successor as leader of the church?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by po18guy View Post
Thank you for the information. It helps, as the various Orthodox Churches are a mystery to the average Catholic, I would say. However, I do wish that you would soften your criticism of the fellow Apostolic Church just a bit. If the position of Peter is not obvious from scripture, then I just can’t help you in that regard. If Christ did not institute that position, and make Peter the shepherd of his brothers (no matter where he was located or traveled), then we have an entirely different view of Peter and of scripture. If the Papacy was not natural, not created by Christ, then where did it come from? Which Pope seized power? How did he pass that power on to another? I think you completely misunderstand the Papacy.

Constantine, How can you say Peter wasn’t the boss. In acts 1, It is Peter that interprets scripture and defines the need to replace Judas. In Acts 2, it is Peter that speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost, interprets scripture, and defines the need for converts to be baptized. In Acts 3-4, he again speaks for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin. In acts 5 he is shown evangelizing in the country side. He declares Paul’s writing scripture in 2Peter 3, he excommunicates Simon Magnus. No one else is shown in this leadership capacity. Now Peter was a humble man and lead by consensus, but he clearly was the leader in all things

As for his role with the gentiles, First of all, it is peter who gets the revelation about salvation coming to the Gentiles in Acts 10 - no one else. you need to re-read Acts 11. Peter comes back to Jerusalem after his revelation with Cornelius and explains to the rest of the Church that Gentiles can be accepted. The next thing that happens is (as taken directly from Acts11)
The Church at Antioch.* 19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that arose because of Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but Jews. 20There were some Cypriots and Cyrenians among them, however, who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks as well, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. 21The hand of the Lord was with them and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas [to go] to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart, 24for he was a good man, filled with the holy Spirit and faith. And a large number of people was added to the Lord. 25Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.* :
So counter to your assertions, Peter did tell the church that they could baptize Gentiles. When some disciples started doing that in Antioch, the Church (remember, Peter is the leader) sent Barnabas to over see it and he sought out Paul to help in the work. and remember also, that Paul says in Galatians that he sought out only Peter to confirm that he was teaching properly.

Acts 12 tells us that James is killed and Peter is captured but miraculously escapes and goes into hiding.

Acts 13-14 has Barnabas and Paul leaving on their first missionary journey. Remember in Acts 11, Barnabas has been sent by the Church to oversee the conversion of gentiles in Antioch, so this was a continuation of this mission, sanctioned by the Church and the Holy Spirit.
In acts 15, your argument about local church autonomy really falls apart. When there was dissension in Antioch, (one of the Eastern patriarchs, after all) about the need for circumcision, Did the church in Antioch resolve it themselves ? no, they appealed to the Church leadership in Jerusalem. And who made the speech about God selecting him to bring the faith to the Gentiles? Peter. And was there dispute about what he said? no, the church fell silent. And then James, bishop of Jerusalem, whose followers created the issue to begin with, fell in line behind Peter, the head of the Apostles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They were called bishops prior to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, so very early in Christianity

Bishop is a later translation because it is then in the context we have it today. Back in the day the episkopos is the chief elder. Yes they did exist from the early days of the Church. By the time we realized there was some hierarchy in the Churches in Acts, we have James as the episkopos of Jerusalem.

Yes, Apostles had to be direct witnesses of Jesus (and by the way, Barnabas is also called an Apostle in Acts, but its unclear of the status of the 70 as apostles). But their mission of evangelization, teaching and administration of the sacraments was passed down to the bishops. this is true of the Orthodox church as well as the Catholic church, I assume you agree with this, right?

Never argued with this point. Although the Apostles never really had “administration” as part of their function. That is why they appointed elders. Even for the services of the tables, they appointed deacons because they want to focus on spreading the Word.

Other than judging the 12 tribes of Israel, what rights and responsibilities did the Apostles have that weren’t passed on to the bishops?

Apostolic authority. What they teach is the standard of our faith. No one else after the Apostles had such command of our faith.

Come on Constantine, as an Orthodox Christian, you understand that scripture is only a subset of sacred tradition and that the new testament is focused on teaching about Jesus and how to live the Christian life. Church governance is mentioned only in passing. But its very clear that Jesus appointed Peter to be the leader of the Apostles and he clearly demonstrates this role in the first 15 chapters of Acts. Its very clear that successors are to be named (other wise the church would die out). Paul talks about this in Timothy and Titus. And if there is a leader and successors are to be named, why wouldn’t Peter have a successor as leader of the church?

If the Papacy is indeed something that is a Dogma of the Church, then it has to be in Scripture. I mean, Catholics are told that if they do not believe in the Pope that their salvation is at stake. If it was that important, why is it not even mentioned in passing? Why did St. Paul tell people to adhere to the traditions and teaching they have passed on? Not merely look to Peter for direction? Surely if dependency on Peter was important, why didn’t Paul mention it even once?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, How can you say Peter wasn’t the boss. In acts 1, It is Peter that interprets scripture and defines the need to replace Judas. In Acts 2, it is Peter that speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost, interprets scripture, and defines the need for converts to be baptized. In Acts 3-4, he again speaks for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin. In acts 5 he is shown evangelizing in the country side. He declares Paul’s writing scripture in 2Peter 3, he excommunicates Simon Magnus. No one else is shown in this leadership capacity. Now Peter was a humble man and lead by consensus, but he clearly was the leader in all things

Leader and “being the boss” are two different things. If you went out with your friends and one of your friends decides where to eat and where to go afterwards, for that night he is your leader. But you are not under your friend’s authority, not before, not during, not after that night. Being a follower to a leader is different from being subordinate to a superior.

As for his role with the gentiles, First of all, it is peter who gets the revelation about salvation coming to the Gentiles in Acts 10 - no one else. you need to re-read Acts 11. Peter comes back to Jerusalem after his revelation with Cornelius and explains to the rest of the Church that Gentiles can be accepted. The next thing that happens is (as taken directly from Acts11)
The Church at Antioch.* 19Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that arose because of Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but Jews. 20There were some Cypriots and Cyrenians among them, however, who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks as well, proclaiming the Lord Jesus. 21The hand of the Lord was with them and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 22The news about them reached the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas [to go] to Antioch. 23When he arrived and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord in firmness of heart, 24for he was a good man, filled with the holy Spirit and faith. And a large number of people was added to the Lord. 25Then he went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.* :
So counter to your assertions, Peter did tell the church that they could baptize Gentiles. When some disciples started doing that in Antioch, the Church (remember, Peter is the leader) sent Barnabas to over see it and he sought out Paul to help in the work. and remember also, that Paul says in Galatians that he sought out only Peter to confirm that he was teaching properly.

Ah, you missed a crucial part in your account. In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas went to the synagogue in Cyprus and preached to the Jews. There were Gentiles who were adherents to the Jewish faith and believers of the God of Israel, but because they have not received circumcision, they were still called Gentiles. Only after the events of Acts 13 when Paul and Barnabas was met with dissent from the Jews in Cyprus did they decide, on their own, to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles. This is how they ended up in Acts 14 in Lystra. This was a completely pagan land unlike in places like Antioch and Cyprus where there were Gentiles who are in the process of converting to Judaism.

Acts 12 tells us that James is killed and Peter is captured but miraculously escapes and goes into hiding.

This proves nothing. Paul was also imprisoned and miraculously freed. And St. John, as we know, was to be martyred but he survived his execution.

Acts 13-14 has Barnabas and Paul leaving on their first missionary journey. Remember in Acts 11, Barnabas has been sent by the Church to oversee the conversion of gentiles in Antioch, so this was a continuation of this mission, sanctioned by the Church and the Holy Spirit.

The Church in Antioch, by their own accord, have started converting Gentiles. But Jerusalem have not. You will see the autonomy of the Churches here, that is why we have what we have by the First Council of Jerusalem.

In acts 15, your argument about local church autonomy really falls apart. When there was dissension in Antioch, (one of the Eastern patriarchs, after all) about the need for circumcision, Did the church in Antioch resolve it themselves ? no, they appealed to the Church leadership in Jerusalem. And who made the speech about God selecting him to bring the faith to the Gentiles? Peter. And was there dispute about what he said? no, the church fell silent. And then James, bishop of Jerusalem, whose followers created the issue to begin with, fell in line behind Peter, the head of the Apostles.

No, my argument is solid. Read the entire chapter. Antioch did try to resolve it. There was a huge argument and the people were split. Only then did they sought out Jerusalem to solve their deadlock. As with always in early Church ecclesiology, local Churches solve their own issues. Only when they cannot do they go to another Church to break the deadlock. They do not come running to another Church at the first sign of trouble. It is not beyond a Church to ask for help from another Church. It is completely different from saying that one Church is subject to another.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Constantine, How can you say Peter wasn’t the boss. In acts 1, It is Peter that interprets scripture and defines the need to replace Judas. In Acts 2, it is Peter that speaks for the Apostles at Pentecost, interprets scripture, and defines the need for converts to be baptized. In Acts 3-4, he again speaks for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin. In acts 5 he is shown evangelizing in the country side. He declares Paul’s writing scripture in 2Peter 3, he excommunicates Simon Magnus. No one else is shown in this leadership capacity. Now Peter was a humble man and lead by consensus, but he clearly was the leader in all things

Sure, I understand your distinction. But now I ask you. How would Peter have acted differently if he wasn’t the superior? In fact, aren’t his actions the actions of a superior, keeping in mind that a good superior takes (name removed by moderator)ut from his subordinates?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
As for his role with the gentiles, First of all, it is peter who gets the revelation about salvation coming to the Gentiles in Acts 10 - no one else. you need to re-read Acts 11. Peter comes back to Jerusalem after his revelation with Cornelius and explains to the rest of the Church that Gentiles can be accepted. The next thing that happens is (as taken directly from Acts11)

aren’t you ignoring the fact that those in Antioch had already put into place preaching to the greeks in chapter 11, subsequent to Peter’s announcement that this was okay. And aren’t you ignoring the fact that Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the church in Jerusalem (Peter, clearly not James) for the express purpose of administering to the Gentiles and that it was Barnabas that recruited Paul to be part of this mission?