Two fold question on the Primacy of Peter and the "brother"of Jesus, James

[Abu]

BrianH #17
I personally think the earliest historians and writers portray Paul and Peter as equals and do not show Peterine primacy before 200 AD.

The primacy of Peter is shown clearly by Christ Himself:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).

Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

See PAPAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
by Fr Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:

“James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.”

earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html

This is from the earliest Christian historian.

Irenaeus is also quoted as well. He is quite early. I say read for yourself and not take quotes of context. I personally think the earliest historians and writers portray Paul and Peter as equals and do not show Peterine primacy before 200 AD.

But when Hegesippus writes, “James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.” of what church is he writing? Is it the whole church or only the church at Jerusalem? If you read further you will see that he is writing of the church at Jerusalem for he goes to on to list the leaders [bishops] of Rome and James is not listed there.

Irenaeus comes along near the end of the second century and writes regarding the Apostolic Succession of bishops:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

And while Irenaeus says the church of Rome was established by both Peter and Paul It was Peter who went to Rome first and was later Joined by Paul. Paul alludes to this in his epistle. Both were martyred in Rome and both buried there with churches built above there graves. Those churches exist there to this day. The bishops of Rome have always traced their Apostolic Succession to Peter. Not one has claimed Paul as their Apostolic ancestor. Now while you say that earliest writers do not show Peterine primacy before 200AD. I say that it is also true that none of the earliest writers before 200AD deny Petrine primacy either. Moreover there is very little that comes down to us today from the first two centuries. But there is one item that has been preserved and that is the letter from the church at Corinth to Clement. The church at Corinth had a problem they were unable to resolve. They, taking a cue from the church at Antioch as mentioned in Acts appealed to a higher authority. The year is about 80AD. Christians in Rome are under persecution and hiding in catacombs. To whom do the Corinthians go? All of the Apostles are dead except for John in Ephesus. He is an original Apostle. But they don’t go to John. Instead they go to Clement. Who is Clement? He is the bishop of Rome and third in succession from Peter. After some delay caused by the persecution Clement responds to the Corinthians with his advice on their problem. The issue is resolved. Here is an example from the first century that the primacy of Peter was affirmed by the church and this idea of the see of Peter being above all the others is carried forward. In the second century a bishop of Corinth named Dionysius writes to Pope Soter the following:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

This is undeniable evidence that the primacy of Peter and his successors was well established in the early church before the end of the first century.

 

[BrianH]

But when Hegesippus writes, “James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.” of what church is he writing? Is it the whole church or only the church at Jerusalem? If you read further you will see that he is writing of the church at Jerusalem for he goes to on to list the leaders [bishops] of Rome and James is not listed there.

Irenaeus comes along near the end of the second century and writes regarding the Apostolic Succession of bishops:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

And while Irenaeus says the church of Rome was established by both Peter and Paul It was Peter who went to Rome first and was later Joined by Paul. Paul alludes to this in his epistle. Both were martyred in Rome and both buried there with churches built above there graves. Those churches exist there to this day. The bishops of Rome have always traced their Apostolic Succession to Peter. Not one has claimed Paul as their Apostolic ancestor. Now while you say that earliest writers do not show Peterine primacy before 200AD. I say that it is also true that none of the earliest writers before 200AD deny Petrine primacy either. Moreover there is very little that comes down to us today from the first two centuries. But there is one item that has been preserved and that is the letter from the church at Corinth to Clement. The church at Corinth had a problem they were unable to resolve. They, taking a cue from the church at Antioch as mentioned in Acts appealed to a higher authority. The year is about 80AD. Christians in Rome are under persecution and hiding in catacombs. To whom do the Corinthians go? All of the Apostles are dead except for John in Ephesus. He is an original Apostle. But they don’t go to John. Instead they go to Clement. Who is Clement? He is the bishop of Rome and third in succession from Peter. After some delay caused by the persecution Clement responds to the Corinthians with his advice on their problem. The issue is resolved. Here is an example from the first century that the primacy of Peter was affirmed by the church and this idea of the see of Peter being above all the others is carried forward. In the second century a bishop of Corinth named Dionysius writes to Pope Soter the following:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

This is undeniable evidence that the primacy of Peter and his successors was well established in the early church before the end of the first century.

I have several short comments or questions.
How do you know that Paul alludes to Peter in his letter to the Romans?
You date Clement to a time when Clement is not the Bishop of Rome. It seems to play into your proposed timeline concerning John.
How do you know where John was in 80 AD, 90 AD, etc? What about his exile to Patmos?
I would contend that your quote shows that apostolic succession early on was traced to both Paul and Peter.

 

[inkaneer]

I have several short comments or questions.
How do you know that Paul alludes to Peter in his letter to the Romans?
You date Clement to a time when Clement is not the Bishop of Rome. It seems to play into your proposed timeline concerning John.
How do you know where John was in 80 AD, 90 AD, etc? What about his exile to Patmos?
I would contend that your quote shows that apostolic succession early on was traced to both Paul and Peter.

I will answer your questins in the sequence asked.

Paul writes to the church at Rome, a church that he says he has not visited yet. So, which of the apostles established this church? Only one other Apostle was ever claimed to be in Rome and that was Peter.

The dating of Clement is suspect to interpretation. However, the letter is not. Now whether you accept the 70 AD time, the 80 AD time, the 90 AD time or the 95-96 AD time is immaterial I should think as all of them are within the first century and well within the 200 year AD that was referred to in the original post.

Regarding John we are told by Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Tryphon” where in he refers to “John, one of the Apostles of Christ” as a witness who had lived “with us”, that is, at Ephesus. St. Irenæus speaks in very many places of the Apostle John and his residence in Asia and expressly declares that he wrote his Gospel at Ephesus (Against Heresies III.1.1), and that he had lived there until the reign of Trajan (loc. cit., II, xxii, 5). Eusebius (Church History III.13.1) placed the Apostle’s banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Previous to this, according to Tertullian’s testimony (De praescript., xxxvi), John had been thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Porta Latina at Rome without suffering injury. After Domitian’s death the Apostle returned to Ephesus during the reign of Trajan, and at Ephesus he died about A.D. 100 at a great age. While the dates are indeed suspect I think it is quite clear that John was at Ephesus for a good portion of this time.

Not only was apostolic succession traced to both Peter and Paul but to all the apostles for they all ordained bishops starting with Matthias in Acts 1. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus. John ordained Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch. Go to any diocese of the Catholic, Coptic or Orthodox Church and that bishop can show you the line of his succession all the way back to one of the Apostles. So Apostolic Succession applies not only to Peter or just Peter and Paul but to all the Apostles except Judas [that is if you accept him as an apostle which I do not] Anyway, Peter says in Acts 1 that Judas house is vacant. The word house is the equivalent of lineage or succession. Note that Jesus was of the house of David meaning he was of the lineage of David. No bishop ever claimed Apostolic Succession from Judas.

 

[BrianH]

I do not presuppose that only apostles started churches. I am not suggesting that the people who started it where not connected with the apostles or sent by the apostles if you prefer. Early Christian writers simplified it. Irenaeus for example is aware as anyone else that Paul writes to Christians in Rome prior to ever visiting them. So when he states the church was “founded” by them it is in a loose sense at best.
The OP is focused on primacy. The listing of the bishops, particulary in Eusebius, for Rome centers on Peter and Paul. That is what I got out of the book when I read it. I was struck by the lack of Peterine primacy.
I only bring up the dates because you did use them to prove a point. You are right in what you write of course but I think overstating your case with dates. Clement did indeed write to Corinth but when you bring John into the equation you overstate your case. Where was John when Clement wrote his letter? You do not know. I do not know. The latest date for Clement could stretch even later than 96 AD as you are aware. John could be imprisoned, John could be dead, or like you seem to indicate he could have been available to solve the dispute and they appealed to Clement.
Back when we had an Orthodox forum, one of the priests used to point out that Clement was a student of Paul and that the church of Corinth was continuing their relationship in that vein. Indeed, if they appeal to Clement prior to his being the Bishop of Rome (assuming a monarchial bishop that early), it seems the appeal may be directed because of Clement’s relationship with Paul instead of his being the Bishop of Rome.

 

[inkaneer]

I do not presuppose that only apostles started churches. I am not suggesting that the people who started it where not connected with the apostles or sent by the apostles if you prefer. Early Christian writers simplified it. Irenaeus for example is aware as anyone else that Paul writes to Christians in Rome prior to ever visiting them. So when he states the church was “founded” by them it is in a loose sense at best.
The OP is focused on primacy. The listing of the bishops, particulary in Eusebius, for Rome centers on Peter and Paul. That is what I got out of the book when I read it. I was struck by the lack of Peterine primacy.
I only bring up the dates because you did use them to prove a point. You are right in what you write of course but I think overstating your case with dates. Clement did indeed write to Corinth but when you bring John into the equation you overstate your case. Where was John when Clement wrote his letter? You do not know. I do not know. The latest date for Clement could stretch even later than 96 AD as you are aware. John could be imprisoned, John could be dead, or like you seem to indicate he could have been available to solve the dispute and they appealed to Clement.
Back when we had an Orthodox forum, one of the priests used to point out that Clement was a student of Paul and that the church of Corinth was continuing their relationship in that vein. Indeed, if they appeal to Clement prior to his being the Bishop of Rome (assuming a monarchial bishop that early), it seems the appeal may be directed because of Clement’s relationship with Paul instead of his being the Bishop of Rome.

The identity of Clement of Rome with the Clement of Paul is not universally accepted. They may well be one and the same but unfortunately the evidence is apparently not persuasive enough to make the case. Of course some do hold that they are one and the same and there is some evidence to support it.

Concerning dates in the first century there is an interesting diagram in the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning dating of certain things in what we call the first century. Basically it points out the discrepancies between different accounts. Unfortunately the BC/AD time division was far into the future and different dating methods are used. Some use as a base year the founding of Rome. Some use the reign of certain emperors. There is mention of using the “Olympiad” as well as others. Bringing these all into alignment has apparently eluded historians. We still don’t know if Jesus was born in 1 AD or 7 BC or some time in between.

 

[BrianH]

I had to check when I had access but you wrote the following

In the second century a bishop of Corinth named Dionysius writes to Pope Soter the following:

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

This is undeniable evidence that the primacy of Peter and his successors was well established in the early church before the end of the first century.

You use this to support the primacy of Peter. However you left something out from the same writer

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

newadvent.org/cathen/05010a.htm

Thoughts?

 

[inkaneer]

I had to check when I had access but you wrote the following

You use this to support the primacy of Peter. However you left something out from the same writer

Quote:
You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

newadvent.org/cathen/05010a.htm

First Corinth was an important city on the trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean. It was to shipping much like Chicgo was to the railroads and later the airlines. So someone goint to Rome from the East would go through Corinth. So the likelihood that both Peter and Paul passed through Corinth is highly probable. But Peter and Paul were not martyred at the same time. Paul died about 63AD and Peter about 67AD as they are normally dated. But those are nonissues. The point is that the church at Rome is supplying these other churches with alms and instruction and that started before the end of the first century and continued into the second and beyond. So the idea that the concept of the Roman Papacy being absent before the year 200 AD or any other date that people are wont to claim is not supportable by fact. Corinth is not the only church to look to Rome. Irenaeus, a contemporary of Dionysius, speaks of all churches having to agree with Rome in tradition [teaching] and faith because the Roman church has a superior origin than the others even though the others were established by apostles also (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Even earlier, Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the Roman church as holding presidency over the other churches and instructing them (Letter to the Romans 1:1 ; 3:1[A.D. 110]). So the idea of the Roman church having authority over the others to the point of instructing them in matters of faith and teaching is clearly established very early on as is the fact that the other churches looked to Rome for such guidance. Absent in all of this is any early church writer denying this.

Thoughts?