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

[Mickey]

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

 

[paul_c]

Mickey,
What does it mean to you to be first among equals? How do you see that as different from what we claim for the Pope.

Also, it is hard to take your statement that Rome broke from the other 4 sees seriously. The Diocese and people in communion with Rome far outnumbered those that left in the great schism (roughly 4:1 , ironically). And the East didn’t break off in total. 21 Eastern churches stayed loyal to Rome. Because you need a single leader to stay organized, the Orthodox have migrated to a system based on National churches, wouldn’t you agree.

 

[Mickey]

What does it mean to you to be first among equals? How do you see that as different from what we claim for the Pope.

What does it mean to you? Primacy is not supremacy. Study the way the papacy changed after the great schism. Study the council of Basle and Constance and Vatican I. Learn about the influence of the Ultramontanes.

Also, it is hard to take your statement that Rome broke from the other 4 sees seriously.

I am sorry that you find that difficult. It is true.

The Diocese and people in communion with Rome far outnumbered those that left in the great schism (roughly 4:1 , ironically).

Numbers mean nothing. The path is narrow.

21 Eastern churches stayed loyal to Rome.

The majority of Eastern Catholics were Orthodox who decided to submit to the See of Rome.

 

[Mickey]

the Orthodox have migrated to a system based on National churches, wouldn’t you agree.

When I was an Eastern Catholic, (Ruthenian), there was the same ethnic pride you sometimes see with some of the Orthodox Churches. It is certainly something that needs to be eliminated. But all of Holy Orthodoxy is the same true faith.

 

[paul_c]

What does it mean to you? Primacy is not supremacy. Study the way the papacy changed after the great schism. Study the council of Basle and Constance and Vatican I. Learn about the influence of the Ultramontanes.

summarize for me what you think changed, if you would…

I am sorry that you find that difficult. It is true.

Well, As I see it, prior to 1054, all the churches were united under the Pope. Then some of the churches decided they no longer wanted to be in communion with Rome. They left. They weren’t pushed out.

The majority of Eastern Catholics were Orthodox who decided to submit to the See of Rome.

Why do you think they did that? Do you think they went through the same logic as Jimmy Akin? catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp

 

[Mickey]

summarize for me what you think changed, if you would.

That would take a long history lesson. Do the homework yourself.

Well, As I see it, prior to 1054, all the churches were united under the Pope.

Yes. Rome was united with Orthodoxy.

Then some of the churches decided they no longer wanted to be in communion with Rome. They left.

One left four. Four did not leave one.

Why do you think they did that?

Do your homework. Here are three reasons: bribe, force, free will.

 

[paul_c]

That would take a long history lesson. Do the homework yourself.
Yes. Rome was united with Orthodoxy.
One left four. Four did not leave one.
Do your homework. Here are three reasons: bribe, force, free will.

Mickey,
You obviously think the papacy changes in real and for you, I guess, negative ways. Why can’t you just share your thoughts? I’m not asking for a dissertation. I just want to know what you think changed and why that’s a negative.

When you say one left 4, What is your critieria for identifying the 4?
Here is how Jimmy Akin sees it:

This is not an argument by itself, as catholicity is not simply measured by how many cultures a church embraces. Originally, it embraced only one. But Christ gave the Church a mandate to preach the gospel to all peoples (cf. Matt. 28:19–20), and it is worth noting that the Catholic Church has fulfilled this mandate more effectively than the Orthodox church has.

It was also worth noting the size difference between the two. A little over half of all Christians are Catholic, while a little under a quarter are Orthodox. Again, this is not an argument by itself, but it contributed to an overall impression that raises the question: Which of the following is easier to accept?

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.

1. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

It seemed to me that it was easier to explain matters if one accepted the second possibility: The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. It would be much harder to maintain that the Catholic Church is a false superchurch that dwarfs the true Church. Protestants might be able to argue that case by labeling it the Whore of Babylon and attributing all kinds of evil doctrine to it, but that argument would not work for the Orthodox, who are in near-total agreement with Catholic doctrine.

As for the reasons the 21 Eastern Churches are in communion with Rome, I think all of them would have a problem with the reason being anything other than Free will. Do you think a whole church is susceptible to bribery when their souls are at stake? How exactly would the Catholic Church have applied force to make them come over? If it was due to force, why wouldn’t they just reunite with orthodoxy at the first opportunity. I think when you imply bribery or force, you are taking a very low view of your fellow christians.

 

[Mickey]

Why can’t you just share your thoughts?

I have shared my thoughts abundantly. The thread has been derailed. If you would like to discuss the process of the papacy going from a primacy to a supremacy then start a thread.

“The principatus has nothing to do with organized and imposed centralization.”
P. Battifol, Saint Gregoire le Grand (Paris, 1928), pp. 188-189

When you say one left 4, What is your critieria for identifying the 4?

There was a Pentarchy: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem

As for the reasons the 21 Eastern Churches are in communion with Rome, I think all of them would have a problem with the reason being anything other than Free will.

Then you do not know your history. You could start another thread on that one. But I do not recommend it because the charity would decline quickly.

 

[Mickey]

Here is how Jimmy Akin sees it:

"The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and the Orthodox are, regrettably, in schism at present. "

Good thing Jimmy Akin is not a Church Father–because he got it backward.

 

[paul_c]

I agree that the Orthodoxy-Catholic Schism is a sidetrack so I will desist with my questioning on it. The only thing that is applicable is the question on the papacy

I will note, however, in passing, that it is Sad that of the original 5 biggest sees:
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusulem that only Rome is still a Christian city.

 

[Mickey]

I will note, however, in passing, that it is Sad that of the original 5 biggest sees:Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusulem that only Rome is still a Christian city.

May the holy saints and martyrs forgive you for your arrogance.

 

[twb1621]

Ok, lets throw this out there.
If you are employed by the city of Philadelphia or Huston or whatever, and you along with an entire group of your fellow employees decide you don’t like the Mayer so you and your group quit your association with the city, who leaves who? Do we classify it as “the city has separated from us” or do we say, “the city no longer belongs to our group” or do we say “we separated from the city”? History proves who separated from who and the Church Fathers clearly attest to the papacy and the hierarchy in Rome long before the East and west parted. Can’t argue that, it is recorded history.

With that said;
Truthfully, I have heard this position expressed so often it is ridiculous. Way back when a few hundred years after the establishment of the papacy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church (west and east as one) was established and in full operational authority, some people decided they didn’t like to answer to the Pope due to their personal opinions and disagreements… their egos grew. The split later occurred as the result of two people, again, with over inflated egos who went at each other defiantly and equally, one from the west, and one from the east. Even that was fueled by the geographic inheritance of two brothers both of whom wanted to express their authority. Yet today both groups on each side of this division are discussing very seriously the reunification of the one Church because they both realize what became of them was wrong and now they have to find a way to resolve centuries of pointing fingers at each other to do it. So why do some of us feel the need to debate issues that we will not be a party to its resolution but which will be resolved regardless, if it is not for defending our own egos which we are not suppose to feed but are to be quailed with humility as Jesus taught all of us. At some point we should accept who we are, brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Mickey]

some people decided they didn’t like to answer to the Pope due to their personal opinions and disagreements… their egos grew. The split later occurred as the result of two people

Poppycock! Let us try the truth on for size.

The papacy in the undivided Church was never in question. Rome did not lay claim to jurisdiction over the other Churches. Rome was Orthodox in full communion with the other patriarchates in loving solicitude. Primacy was understood within a framework of collegiality. Little by little , Roman primacy showed signs of being contaminated by the problem of power. The crowning of Charlemagne gave the pope authority over temporal power. A long period of decadence followed. The rest is history. You would do well to study it.

 

[twb1621]

Poppycock! Let us try the truth on for size.

The papacy in the undivided Church was never in question. Rome did not lay claim to jurisdiction over the other Churches. Rome was Orthodox in full communion with the other patriarchates in loving solicitude. Primacy was understood within a framework of collegiality. Little by little , Roman primacy showed signs of being contaminated by the problem of power. The crowning of Charlemagne gave the pope authority over temporal power. A long period of decadence followed. The rest is history. You would do well to study it.

Then with credible sources taken from the periods prior to the division, show evidence of your claims as I have previously . I have posted more than opinion, including quotes of Church Fathers and much more. I can also show the succession that occured from Peter as you can however once the division occurred the east had no papacy as it was up to that time. So provide the “credible” support but it must be before the split because the east and the west were one until that point under the same papacy. Once the split occurred, we know where the seat of Peter remained. By the way, Rome still refers to herself as Orthodox. Charlemagne occurred long after the establishment of the authority of Rome was established over both West and East. I refer you to post 312 313 and 314 for your rebuttal with credible source.

 

[Mickey]

Then with credible sources taken from the periods prior to the division, show evidence of your claims as I have previously

Oh be serious. Read your history books. The schism was happening over a long period of time involving issues such as the Filioque, Roman power grabs during the Frankish period of decadence, a change in form of communion, etc…

I can also show the succession that occured from Peter as you can however once the division occurred the east had no papacy as it was up to that time.

Exactly! Rome separated Herself from Orthodoxy.

So provide the “credible” support but it must be before the split because the east and the west were one until that point under the same papacy.

That is the point. The papacy was Orthodox until Rome split.

Once the split occurred, we know where the seat of Peter remained.

LOL! The seat of St Peter remains with every Orthodox Church.

“[Christ] gives to all apostles an equal power.”
St Cyprian of Carthage

For St Cyprian, each bishop in his church, and all the bishops together, in solidum, sit on the chair of Peter (Cathedra Petri).

 

[Mickey]

I refer you to post 312 313 and 314 for your rebuttal with credible source.

Those posts were streams of copied and pasted Scripture and Church Father quotes. I love Scripture and I love the writngs of the Church Fathers. If there was some point you were trying to make regarding the OP, I would be happy to attempt to respond.

 

[Mickey]

judah;5048261]
and in the Book of Acts when they had disputes in the early Century, they would go to Jerusalem, which was the main Church where the Elders and Apostles were where James was the Bishop of that Church, which would be the modern day Vatican. James even gave a decree from that Church in Acts.

So how exactly was Peter Pope if according to the bible, Peter and Paul answered to James?
Getting back on track: You are correct. St James settled the dispute in Jerusalem. He was the bishop of Jerusalem. St Peter was not the first Pope. It is not even known if he was a bishop in Rome.

He was a great apostle–we know that.

Peter was not the first bishop of Rome (or Antioch for that matter); one should not confuse the role of apostle, whose unique and untransmissible witness and missionary mobility we have already mentioned, with that of bishop. Historians, in fact, do not know if there existed in Rome a monarchial episcopacy (exercised by a single individual) before the mid-second century, as opposed to a college of presbyters or episkopoi (overseers): two words from which we get the terms “priest” and “bishop” but which originally meant the elders of a community.
(You Are Peter—Olivier Clement)

 

[YADA]

The only thing I disagree with, is your interpretation of Isaiah.

So how do you intepret Isaiah?
Is not the Prime Minister authorized by the King to speak on his hehalf or not? …
Is this psotion an office that is filled upon vacancy or not" -perhaps a one time appointment?

In Isaiah why is the reference to the Davidic Kingdom? After all …King David is long dead and so is Soloman …

Does this authority extend to decisions that are binding or not?
How is this authority recognized? Is this authority symbolized by “Keys”?
By what title to the ‘people’ call this Prime Minster? Is it Prime Minister or Father?

Was the Prime Minister in Isaiah really a Group of Prime Ministers [a Collective who all had Keys]? What happens if one opens and another shuts - who prevails?

Did the King abdicate his authority, leadership and keys when he appointed the Prime Minister? [as in - the king became subservient or less then the PM, he lost his keys to the PM and the people would fail to recognize the king for being the Leader]

Why did Jesus quote this passage from Isaiah? Was it an accident? A coincidence?Did Jesus think the Apostle’s would [or would not] recognize the passage and make inferences from it? …

Authority was given to all the Apostles. The Head of the Church Christ.

Agreed, and I never said anything different - even remotely …

In fact Jesus is more then just the head of His Church, he is the fullfilment of the Davidic Kingdom, the King of Kings, Savior of the World, Messiah, Lord of Lords …

Jesus did give authority to all the Apostles and an office - in need of successors …

However, Jesus gave a singular authority to Peter - undeniably we see that Peter and only Peter has his name changed and was given “keys” … the keys are symbolic of a singular responsibility and authority, symbols of an office …

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

There was always a plurality of bishop/presbyter/pastors/ in the local churches of the New Testament; therefore Peter was never the singular bishop of Rome or of any church:

Acts 14:23 - presbyters were appointed in every church
Acts 20:17 and 28 - presbyters are also called bishops and pastors
Philippians 1:1 - there were **only bishops and deacons in the church at Philippi **
1 Timothy 3:1-8 - qualifications of bishop and deacons are described
Titus 1:5-9 - presbyters were appointed in every town and qualfications are the same as those of the office of bishop in 1 Tim.3 above.
1 Peter 5:1-2 - presbyters are also called bishops and pastors

Therefore I conclude that in the early churches of the New Testament, there were two offices only: 1) plurality of presbyters=bishops=pastors and 2) plurality of deacons

 

[Mickey]

So how do you intepret Isaiah?

Please quote the exact chapter and verses you are referencing and I will search for the interpretation of the Church Fathers, and post it. I do not offer my own interpretations–that is a protestant invention. But please start a new thread. We have already gone far astray–and I am to blame for that also.

Agreed, and I never said anything different - even remotely .

Good. Then we agree.

However, Jesus gave a singular authority to Peter

“[Christ] gives to all apostles an equal power.”
St Cyprian of Carthage

[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.