Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lion_of_judah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read your opinions.

Tending to the flock is also mentioned in Acts 20:28 and 1Pet 5:2–and it is not exclusive to St Peter.
Peter’s commission in this regard is from the mouth of God. Are the others shepherds, also? Sure, in a lesser sense. Peter is the shepherd of the Church in a lesser sense than Christ but more than the other Apostles. This is the hierarchical nature of the Church clearly exhibited. 👍
St Peter denied him three times. The triple affirmation is a response to his denials–for St Peter’s healing (notice how he is upset by the third time).

Thanks.
I have read your opinions.

Sure, Jesus pushed Peter three times to remind Peter of his denials…but Peter was commissioned/ordained days earlier as seen in John 20 and you simply cannot deny the truth of this. Therefore, there was NO reinstatement but only a deepening or furthering of Peter’s role in John 21.

Now, given that you already acknowledge Peter as “first among equals”, I’m not sure how much farther you think you’ll be able to push this.

Also, given that the Orthodox have not managed to agree on an ecumenical council in more than a thousand years and that you are largely divided along national/ethnic lines, I don’t really see that you have any real claim to being the Universal Church that Jesus founded.

Instead of climbing into bed with the evangelicals with whom you have almost nothing in common, why don’t you try answering the OP’s question: was James the head of the Church with Peter and Paul answering to him? Was James “first among equals”?

Thanks.
 
We should also point out that there are 21 Eastern churches that broke off from the Orthodox and are in communion with Rome. So it is clear that many in the East recognize the primacy of Rome.

TWB has done an outstanding job of bringing out the primacy of Peter in scripture. Obviously, no other Apostle has anywhere near the support that Peter has so no one else can be the Primary Apostle. You can argue that Peter was first among equals and he would probably agree with that. But what does that really mean. First is First and clearly he made all the early decisions that are left to us in Scripture and in every case presented to us, he was the Spokesman for the Apostles. What else is there?
 
There are only seven Ecumenical councils silly wabbit. Rome has not called any others. We have our “real authority” in Christ Jesus.
Oh. Silly me. I was counting ALL the Ecumenical Councils…not just the ones that you guys decided to attend.

Tell me, were the Orthodox voting members at Trent, Vatican I or Vatican II?

Why is that whenever the Pope (who is “first among equals”) calls a council, you guys show up but only as observers?

Careful, Mickey, reunification could come sooner than you think, God willing.
 
“The term cathedra was applied also to the see of a bishop. The **earliest use of the word in this sense occurs in Tertullian (c 200 AD), **who speaks (De praescriptione, XXXVI) of “cathedrae Apostolorum” in allusion to Apostolic succession in episcopal sees.” -“Cathedra” in NewAdvent
The Latin term, cathedra, and the concept of the seat of authority is simply an extension of Moses’ seat as seen in the passage I quoted earlier. Thus, the concept of a seat or office of teaching authority is truly ancient.

But given the fact that Tertullian mentioned the cathedra as early as 200 A.D., this seems to support the whole idea of the episcopacy and subsequent papacy as being present VERY, VERY early.

Does YOUR denomination have Bishops, Priests and Deacons as seen in the NT?
 
LOL! Seeing as the Church Fathers were split on the answer, I doubt you are going to get a “strict” interpretation. I go with the consensus–St Peter’s confession of faith was the Rock. Christ is the Cornerstone. The Apostles and prophets are the foundation.

You see–that was easy! 😉
Not that easy. How could you say that the consensus is that Peter’s confession of faith was the Rock when in fact you admitted the apostolic fathers are split over the issue?🤷

But never mind. What I am interested to know is whether this position of yours is the OFFICIAL position of the Orthodox Church. Or are the Orthodox Churches also divided over this?
 
The Latin term, cathedra, and the concept of the seat of authority is simply an extension of Moses’ seat as seen in the passage I quoted earlier. Thus, the concept of a seat or office of teaching authority is truly ancient.

But given the fact that Tertullian mentioned the cathedra as early as 200 A.D., this seems to support the whole idea of the episcopacy and subsequent papacy as being present VERY, VERY early.

Does YOUR denomination have Bishops, Priests and Deacons as seen in the NT?
We have bishops plural and deacons in each church as in the NT. Presbyters (you call priests) are the same as bishops. The references to a see or seat of Peter are not early enough to originate with Peter. What is the earliest reference to Peter as “first among equals”?
 
We have bishops plural and deacons in each church as in the NT. Presbyters (you call priests) are the same as bishops. The references to a see or seat of Peter are not early enough to originate with Peter. What is the earliest reference to Peter as “first among equals”?
You’ll have to ask your Orthodox brother-in-arms. I don’t buy it for a minute.

As for your other comments…well, I don’t buy them, either. Perhaps a review of the Greek terms as found in the NT will help.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, *episcopos *(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

But don’t forget:

Bottom line question for Dan:

Does Matthew 16:18 reveal that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus would build the Church? Yes or no.
 
According to early documents, what is the first reference to a seat of Peter?
What is the first reference to a seat of Moses? Does the fact that Our Lord used the phrase centuries after (with no mention in the Torah) mean that it was a concept He made up?
 
the New Testament time in which bishops and presbyters were the same.
Where does that idea come from? I know some might read the New Testament that way, but it’s far from self-evident and quite open to a variety of legitimate interpretations.

I mean, if they were the same, why use different words in the New Testament?
 
We have bishops plural and deacons in each church as in the NT. Presbyters (you call priests) are the same as bishops. The references to a see or seat of Peter are not early enough to originate with Peter. What is the earliest reference to Peter as “first among equals”?
But here is where you are worng …we do not “have bishops plural and deacons in each church” …this is exactly wrong … and one reason why you just do not get it … there are not churches [plural] to have multiple anythings … there is only ONE Church …

As Paul was to ask “Is Jesus divided?” … No, NO, NO!

There is only ONE Church … there was the Church that resided in Jerusalem, the Gospel was spread and then we see the Church that resides in Corinth [insert Galatia, Rome, Thessalonica, Greenland, Australia among others 😉 etc … to the ends of the earth - throughout time] … There is only - one - universal church - One ‘catholic’ church … Catholic means universal …

And I have news for you … even today some geographic areas have more then one bishop [but each one knows the limits of their authority and how they work together for the greater good and in service to Jesus and His children 👍… and some areas have only one bishop… it just depends on the area, population, complexity, etc …

And those dioceses and archdiocese [again depending upn size - population etc …whether the region is identified as an archdiocese or diocese] are combined in to another area where those Bishops operate both independently and collectively depending upon the issue/task …

My state of Oregon is split into two geographic areas the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon [Western Oregon] with Archbishop Vlazzny and Auxillary Bishop Steiner and the Diocese of Baker [Eastern Oregon] with Bishop Vasa.

Some parishes have only one priest, some have two and others have more … but one of them will be the Pastor … one will be the head f the parish, the person who ultimately is accountable and is in the leadership role …
 
Peter’s commission in this regard is from the mouth of God.
To atone for a triple denial.
Are the others shepherds, also? Sure, in a lesser sense.
In the same sense.
Peter is the shepherd of the Church in a lesser sense than Christ but more than the other Apostles. This is the hierarchical nature of the Church clearly exhibited.
Wrong. Each See had equal significance with Christ as the Head. Rome was the capital.
Sure, Jesus pushed Peter three times to remind Peter of his denials
Thank you.
Therefore, there was NO reinstatement but only a deepening or furthering of Peter’s role in John 21.
He denied the Saviour three times. It is no coincidence that Christ asks him the question three times.
Now, given that you already acknowledge Peter as “first among equals”, I’m not sure how much farther you think you’ll be able to push this.
I am pushing nothing. Primacy is not supremacy.
Also, given that the Orthodox have not managed to agree on an ecumenical council in more than a thousand years
LOL!!! You seem to think this is your trump card. There has been no need for another Ecumenical council. We have Synods for local issues. We did not suffer the protestant reformation. That one is on Rome. 😃 Rome may think they have held multiple councils after the first seven. But they are not true Ecumenical Councils.
Instead of climbing into bed with the evangelicals
I have already told you that insults, ad hominems, and angry responses will not help your argument.
why don’t you try answering the OP’s question: was James the head of the Church with Peter and Paul answering to him?
James was definitely the head of the Church (and bishop) of Jerusalem.

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.
 
Why is that whenever the Pope (who is “first among equals”) calls a council, you guys show up but only as observers
Because Rome separated Herself from the other four Patriarchates.
Careful, Mickey, reunification could come sooner than you think, God willing.
Oh, how I pray you are correct. But sadly, I do not think it will happen in my lifetime, or my children’s.
 
But given the fact that Tertullian mentioned the cathedra as early as 200 A.D., this seems to support the whole idea of the episcopacy and subsequent papacy as being present VERY, VERY early.
Tertullian situated the Petrine primacy either in the unity of the episcopacy or in the unity of the people of God.

" Remember that the Lord left the keys to Peter, and through him to the Church, keys which each one carries with him if, when asked, he confesses the faith."
Tertullian, Scorpiace, 10, PL 2, 142
 
Not that easy. How could you say that the consensus is that Peter’s confession of faith was the Rock when in fact you admitted the apostolic fathers are split over the issue?
More Fathers understood it as his confession of faith. The Orthodox Church has that interpretation today.
 
Where does that idea come from? I know some might read the New Testament that way, but it’s far from self-evident and quite open to a variety of legitimate interpretations.

I mean, if they were the same, why use different words in the New Testament?
When the See was vacant during the Decius persecutions, (January 250–to spring 251), the Church of Rome was ruled by a college of priests and deacons.
 
Are the others shepherds, also? Sure, in a lesser sense.
[Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23).
St Augustine, Sermo 295, 2-8.
 
“The term cathedra was applied also to the see of a bishop. The **earliest use of the word in this sense occurs in Tertullian (c 200 AD), **who speaks (De praescriptione, XXXVI) of “cathedrae Apostolorum” in allusion to Apostolic succession in episcopal sees.” -“Cathedra” in NewAdvent
“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).
“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).
“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” *Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345). *
“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” *Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372). *
“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” *Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392). *
“Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth.” *Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400). *
Continued at:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).
"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
Continued at;
 
We have bishops plural and deacons in each church as in the NT. Presbyters (you call priests) are the same as bishops. The references to a see or seat of Peter are not early enough to originate with Peter. What is the earliest reference to Peter as “first among equals”?
The seat of Peter refers primarily to His position of authority and those who succeeded him. the seat itself has no significance without that. Such is the context I used it. If that is all you gained insight into over and above all the information offered with that post, you missed the big picture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top