The Jerusalem Council and Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brazzy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brazzy

Guest
Why was Peter not the head of the church in Acts 15? It appears that James is named head of the church at this point in time.
 
The local bishop presides over all councils in the Church’s history. James, as bishop of Jerusalem, presides.
 
NotWorthy said:
The local bishop presides over all councils in the Church’s history. James, as bishop of Jerusalem, presides.
Click to expand...
So does the pope preside over councils at the Vatican, or is there a Vatican local bishop that does this?
 
Lev23 said:
So if Peter was the pope, were was he bishop if not Jerusalem? Thanks
Click to expand...
My history is a bit fuzzy, but at the time, I think Peter was out evangelizing to the gentiles (as was Paul). After the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, the main effort was to convert gentiles.

I’m not sure that at that time there was any definitive “territory” that was assigned to each apostle.

It was a few years later that Peter, with his authority as vicar of Christ, moved to Rome.
 
St James has always been closely associated with the Jewish Christians. Thus it is not surprising that he should give his decision about what would be minimally necessary that the gentile Christians should fulfill so that Jewish Christians can be comfortable with socialising with the gentile Christians.

So in my opinion, the episode does necessarily imply that St James, being the Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, presided over the Council.
 
Lev23 said:
So if Peter was the pope, were was he bishop if not Jerusalem? Thanks
Click to expand...
Tradition says that Peter was in Rome around the mid 40’s. The Jerusalem Council was held around 51, if I’m correct. In 49, Emperor Claudius kicked out all the Jews from Rome because of an uprising caused by “Chrestus”, what we believe is actually “christians”. It’s not hard to assume that Peter had to flee Rome since he was ministering to the circumcised. I don’t know when the anti-jew ban was lifted.

But Peter probably traveled all around the civilized world. You’ve got to remember, the Church was legal in Jerusalem, so you could have an organized church with a Bishop. But in Rome, it wasn’t legal (although not necessarily persecuted) so you didn’t have the organization showing itself yet.
 
peregrinus_sg said:
St James has always been closely associated with the Jewish Christians. Thus it is not surprising that he should give his decision about what would be minimally necessary that the gentile Christians should fulfill so that Jewish Christians can be comfortable with socialising with the gentile Christians.

So in my opinion, the episode does necessarily imply that St James, being the Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem, presided over the Council.
Click to expand...
But Church teaching does claim that the local Bishop presides over the ecumenical councils and it uses this scene as a biblical basis.
 
NotWorthy said:
But Church teaching does claim that the local Bishop presides over the ecumenical councils and it uses this scene as a biblical basis.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for this?

Code of Canon Law #338 states:
It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.

Perhaps you meant some other type of gathering. Haven’t read through them all, but did notice that at diocesan synods only the diocesan Bishop presides (Can #462).
 
Nita said:
Do you have a source for this?

Code of Canon Law #338 states:It is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff alone to summon an Ecumenical Council, to preside over it personally or through others, to transfer, suspend or dissolve the Council, and to approve its decrees.Perhaps you meant some other type of gathering. Haven’t read through them all, but did notice that at diocesan synods only the diocesan Bishop presides (Can #462).
Click to expand...
That’s the way our priest has always explained it (At least that’s how I understood it).

I never knew this was not the case. Sorry to mislead others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top