St. Peter's declaration...

[Xpycoctomos]

Before I begin this thread I would like to stress that this is NOT meant to be a thread about why the Catholics are right or wrong about their view of Peter and his succession and what that implies. Okay... here we go...

In the Orthodox Church (and I can only assume since forever) Peter was considered the "Foremost" of the Apostles as titled in the Hymn to St. Andrew when he is referred to "Brother of the foremost". With that said, why is Peter considered the Foremost?

I always assumed it was because he was the first to say who Christ was to Christ. But below (see the bolded part) it shows that Nathaniel was the first (recorded) to refer to Christ as the "Son of God" and even before that Saint Andrew calls Him the "Messiah" and as far as I can tell from the context, this is before St Peter made his most famous proclamation.



43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."

44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
46"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked.
"Come and see," said Philip.
47When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false."
48"How do you know me?" Nathanael asked.
Jesus answered, "I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you."
49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." 50Jesus said, "You believe[k (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26085k)] because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, "I tell you[l (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26086l)] the truth, you[m (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26086m)] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."


So, why was Peter set apart, so to speak, from the other apostles as a kind of leader? Are the reasons hidden to us and only known to God (which is fine) or is there an obvious reason that he was set apart as "The Foremost"?

Please understand, I know that Peter was not infallible on his own, I know that Peter's successors did not hold universal jurisdiction over the Church. But it cannot be denied that Peter's place was special among the apostles and the Bishops that followed him were given a special honor precisely for being a succesor of Peters (since the term, "the See of Peter" has been in the Church for a long time before the Schism).

Anyway... what am I missing here? (its' probalby obvious).

Thanks in advance everyone!

John

[Breaking Babylon]

Actually I've wondered about this too, so I look forward to the answers provided. Great thread. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

thanks... let's just hopw it remains civil (sometimes even mentioning the name "peter" is like yelling "Fire" in a theater LOL) ;)

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, I have to go, but if this could be bumped up every once in a while so people see it.. I am curious as to the answer or if anyone else is wondering the same thing like Blake there.

Thanks guys,

John

PS: and no, this thread does not have any hidden "Peter" agenda behind it... I'm just really curious.

[Dust and Ashes]

Could it be because Peter loved Christ more than the others? John 21:15

Totally a wild guess.

I mean, I always hear people criticize Peter for his denial and his boast that he was ready to follow Jesus anywhere. I always felt that Jesus criticism of Peter was not because Peter wasn't willing to follow him but because he missed what Jesus was about. Obviously, Peter was ready to follow Jesus to death or he wouldn't have shucked his sword and attacked a group of armed guards.

[Knowledge3]

More likely Peter was the first bishop of the first council.

[Breaking Babylon]

Or maybe both?

It'd be great if there were official writings on this.

[Dust and Ashes]

More likely Peter was the first bishop of the first council.

I thought that was St. James.

[Knowledge3]

Christ gave Peter the keys . . .

Peter used the keys to establish the first council.

Is that right?

[OnTheWay]

I think having a sort of a "head man" is usually necessary to make things run smoothly. Now if we look at how St. Peter conducted this authority in Acts chapter 15 I think the view that he was some sort of king over all the others is incorrect. He called the council, whose authority he recongized, and made an address concerning the results of that council like an executive. Very much fitting with the idea of the "first among equals." It's not really greater power, but it is often necessary to have someone that can make help organize the decisions of a council.

[PrincessMommy]

Christ gave Peter the keys . . .

Peter used the keys to establish the first council.

Is that right?

St. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem and at the first council. I don't think Peter convened the council himself.

For myself, I always wondered why it was St. John the Beloved.

[ClementofRome]

Forgive me.

Peter was the most visibly weak of the Disciples (except for Judas Iscariot, but that goes without saying). He was "me" and "you." He was the "everyman." He followed, loved, proclaimed, rebuked and denied Jesus. In light of all of this, when the Holy Spirit descended on the believers at Pentecost, the ascended Christ God took the weakest, and with that filling, brought Peter out of a position of unbelief and confusion to a position of power. At the preaching of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, Peter went from being "wimpyapostle
" to being "SuperApostle!"

I believe that the rock, keys, church thing was simply a way to say to Peter.....dear Cephas, get ready, you are going to take ME to the streets.

Forgive me.

[Knowledge3]

Just to add:

You can't be Peter and Judas at the same time.

[Matrona]

I believe that the rock, keys, church thing was simply a way to say to Peter.....dear Cephas, get ready, you are going to take ME to the streets.

:thumbsup:

I've had more than a few belligerent people approach me with the statement, "Jesus called Peter the ROCK of the CHURCH!" and the only reply I typically can, or need, to muster is, "Jesus also called Peter 'Satan' at one point... don't you remember that, too?"

[ClementofRome]

Just to add:

You can't be Peter and Judas at the same time.

I am not sure what you mean. I did not say that you can be Peter and Judas at the same time, nor did I imply it.

Help me out here....what do you mean,

[ClementofRome]

:thumbsup:

I've had more than a few belligerent people approach me with the statement, "Jesus called Peter the ROCK of the CHURCH!" and the only reply I typically can, or need, to muster is, "Jesus also called Peter 'Satan' at one point... don't you remember that, too?"

ahhh...the irony

[zhilan]

Becuase Peter was to be the Pope of Rome, the first among equals, with a Primacy of Honor.

[xristos.anesti]

Good question Xrycostomoc, the Goldenmouth of TAW - to you and all many years.

What follows are Troparia and Kontakia to the Leader of the Twelve, St. Peter - Apostle of Christ the Word (set according to their tones).

First-enthroned of the apostles, teachers of the universe: Entreat the Master of all to grant peace to the world, and to our souls great mercy! O Lord, You have taken up to eternal rest and to the enjoyment of Your blessings the two divinely-inspired preachers, the leaders of the Apostles, for You have accepted their labors and deaths as a sweet-smelling sacrifice, for You alone know what lies in the hearts of men. Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor
The rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles,
Together with Paul and the company of the twelve,
Whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith,
Giving glory to the one who gave glory to them! Why was St. Peter the leader of the Apostles?

I asked my grandma, who is 97 years old, who is 97 years Orthodox - I asked her the question that Xrycoctomoc placed to all of us to consider.

Why is St. Peter the Leader of the twelve and where the answer is written.

Simple translation of her answer is: Son, and who else would it be? He was the the loudest! Who else would those saintly kids of Christ (Apostles) choose but the loudest brother.

Hmmm... makes sense to me. :-)

Ofcourse, again, stubborn slavic methodology doesn't always make the truth - but I like the answer.

Maranatha.

[MichaelArchangelos]

When did the current Roman Catholic understanding of the Pope come about anyway?

[Ioan cel Nou]

Becuase Peter was to be the Pope of Rome, the first among equals, with a Primacy of Honor.
I must say that I'm very surprised to see anyone Orthodox come up with this. I've yet to see any evidence that St. Peter was ever bishop of Rome. In fact, I'd say the weight of evidence leads one to conclude that not only was he never a bishop in Rome at all, but that he wasn't even involved in ordaining Roman bishops until the third one, Clement, the previous two having been ordained by St. Paul. In any case, the primacy of Rome was granted by the councils and is not to be found in Scripture.

Personally I think Clement's answer was spot on.

James

[Xpycoctomos]

:thumbsup:

I've had more than a few belligerent people approach me with the statement, "Jesus called Peter the ROCK of the CHURCH!" and the only reply I typically can, or need, to muster is, "Jesus also called Peter 'Satan' at one point... don't you remember that, too?"
I've never heard anyone claim that Jesus was calling Peter Satan. He was telling Satan to leave Peter alone. However, even if that were the case, there is a world of difference between using a metaphor to compare you to Satan (clearly very temporal) and actually naming the person (forever) 'Rock'.


Becuase Peter was to be the Pope of Rome, the first among equals, with a Primacy of Honor.


Well, as Jmbejdl pointed out, none of the apostles were ever bishops, they were apostles... kind of like, proto-bishops. However, that's geting on unimportant technicalities (in regards to THIS thread), but it is still a very valid point. The fact is that Rome has been called the See of Peter for along time before the schism was even a twinkle in Satan's eye

Peter was the most visibly weak of the Disciples (except for Judas Iscariot, but that goes without saying). He was "me" and "you." He was the "everyman." He followed, loved, proclaimed, rebuked and denied Jesus. In light of all of this, when the Holy Spirit descended on the believers at Pentecost, the ascended Christ God took the weakest, and with that filling, brought Peter out of a position of unbelief and confusion to a position of power. At the preaching of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, Peter went from being "wimpyapostle
" to being "SuperApostle!"

I believe that the rock, keys, church thing was simply a way to say to Peter.....dear Cephas, get ready, you are going to take ME to the streets.


I like this, but you still gotta connect the dots for me because it seems to still be the question (well, the question in the OP) which is WHY did he do this to Peter?

Son, and who else would it be? He was the the loudest! Who else would those saintly kids of Christ (Apostles) choose but the loudest brother.

And perhaps that connects those dots.

I must say that I'm very surprised to see anyone Orthodox come up with this. I've yet to see any evidence that St. Peter was ever bishop of Rome. In fact, I'd say the weight of evidence leads one to conclude that not only was he never a bishop in Rome at all, but that he wasn't even involved in ordaining Roman bishops until the third one, Clement, the previous two having been ordained by St. Paul. In any case, the primacy of Rome was granted by the councils and is not to be found in Scripture.

Personally I think Clement's answer was spot on.

James

This is an interesting post that would be great to take up... in another thread (resisting the bait... resisting!) ;)

But here is the post that perhaps was the most helpful (I don't know if it's the answer.. but it shows the most promise)

Could it be because Peter loved Christ more than the others? John 21:15
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."

It would seem to beg the question at first glance, but then it seems to show that Christ chose him precisely BECAUSE of his love for Him.

However, when He asks, "Do you love me more than these?", does that mean, "Do you love me more than you love these others?" or does it mean, "Do you love me more than these others love me?"?

Hey guys... thanks to every single one of you for contributing. I was happy that this thread did not turn into a Papacy thread for the most part and remained focused on Peter Himself. Great stuff guys! Any other thoughts? Anyone else?

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Christ gave Peter the keys . . .

Well, the thing is he didn't ONLY give the keys to Peter, he gave them to all the apostles. However, He did give them to him first and that first time Peter was the only one given them. But then... that still begs the question... why Peter? Perhaps becuase He knew that Peter loved Him the most and perhaps he just have the best leadership skills (although... God gave them to Peter... so then that again is begging the question lol).

I don't know, it keeps going back to Peter's love for Christ. Any thoughts?

John

[QuantaCura]

I think ClementofRome hit the nail on the head when he mentioned St. Peter's transformation from weakling to super-Apostle.

God always does things for His greater glory. I think if we look at the Apostles as a whole and why they were chosen, we will see why St. Peter was foremost. The Apostles as a whole were one rag-tag group. They all had issues. Jesus chose them because the glory of God shines forth when He takes weak, fallen, ordinary men, and transforms them into the foundations of His Church. It shows the transformative power of the grace received through faith in Him.

So why was St. Peter chosen to be foremost? Because he needed the most transforming. When we look at the Apostles, the two with the most severe problems are St. Peter and Judas. The difference is St. Peter repented and had faith (as faint a faith as it may have been for a while) while Judas obstinately did not. Judas as a result was damned. St. Peter, on the other hand, through faith, was given rock-like strength. I think the very fact that he was the weakest was why Jesus decided to make him the foremost. The same reasoning applies to why St. Paul was chosen for his special mission as well.

:)

(this is an interesting topic, so I couldn't resist responding--hopefully I avoided anything touchy :D )

[prodromos]

The fact is that Rome has been called the See of Peter for along time before the schism was even a twinkle in Satan's eyeIt was called the See of Peter and Paul before that. It would seem that removing reference to Paul may have been the beginnings of that twinkle.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

It was called the See of Peter and Paul before that. It would seem that removing reference to Paul may have been the beginnings of that twinkle.

John
Podromos.. I'm definitely not going to say your wrong, but I'd never seen any early reference like that (not htat that means anything). Could anyone provide th earliest references they know of of "See of Peter" and "See of Peter and Paul"?

If an OBOBer is afraid of being attacked, you can PM and I'll post it. Thanks guys!

[QuantaCura]

I have tough skin :P I don't think the term "See" or "Chair" was developed in the Church until later when the importance of Apostolic Succession was emphasized against heretics. And when it is, there is only one chair. I can only find the term "See of Peter and Paul" in more modern Catholic and Orthodox writings. But, it seems that the idea of the Church in Rome being organized by Sts. Peter and Paul exists (as it does today) alongside the idea that the bishops there are successors to Peter. Sts. Ignatius and Clement both very early on allude to the Church at Rome being organized by Sts. Peter and Paul.

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

St. Ignatius seems to believe Anacletus, commonly understood as being Clement's predecessor, was ordained by Peter as well:

"And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments."

St. Ireneaus in "Against Heresies" in 180 AD says this of Sts. Peter and Paul organizing Rome and establishing a singlular episcopate there:

2. 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 preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

When the idea of "Sees" or "Chairs" is developed however, it seems that only Peter is used in this regard. Tertullian, Jerome, and Eusabius all discuss how the various Sees had retained the actual chairs their founders sat in when presiding (Jerusalem, James; Alexandria, Mark; and Rome, Peter) and how they venerated them.

Here's a good article on the Feast of the Chair of Peter which cites the above references.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03551e.htm)

More from Tertullian around the turn of the third century:

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

And from the Little Labyrinth in 211 AD:

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211]).

St. Cyprian also has a well-known discourse on the Chair of St. Peter:


"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Overall, however, since we have already established the "foremost-ness" of St. Peter among the Apostles (as St. John Chrysostom calls him the "leader of the apostolic choir"), we must ask the question of whether this set up of primacy was intended to be retained in the post-Apostolic Church. I know a poster already said primacy was given at Council, but I think the idea of it existed well before the first ecumenical council. St. Ignatius of Antioch said the Church of Rome "presides" and as you have seen above, Sts. Ireneaus and Cyprian likewise saw it as such.

The question then becomes, "why did Rome have a primacy (of honor or authority or whatever you believe)?" Was it because it was the see of the Apostle with primacy or was that primacy abandoned for a primacy based on historical conditions?

I don't really think it can be denied that St. Peter had a primacy of some sort and that the Church in Rome had a primacy of some sort due (at least in part) to him. Many other doctrines we hold in common are not found explicitly in the writings of the Fathers until later than a petrine succession at Rome appears. The argument that it was therefore a development of Satan can be just as easily applied to prayers to Mary and the saints and the bodily assumption of Mary.

Anyway, I hope that helps :)

(since I can't debate, I'll just let you guys pick this apart :P ; it would be nice if there was a forum away from GT/GH where the traditional Apostolic Churches could actually discuss issues that are interesting without all the baggage in GT/GH)

[nikolayalexandroff]

Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. It was Linus.

[Paisley]

We all have our different personalities, and sometimes that works against us. I'm sure it was no different with the Apostles.

[nikolayalexandroff]

Though St. Peter's priority is doubtless, it does not give any basis to the bishop of Rome to count himself as “a head of Church" and "a vicar of Christ". The last not only has no confirmation in the Scripture but is a real blasphemy. Christ is the only Head of Church. One of the most eminent Popes, Innocent III, openly declared that Pope is less than God but more than a man (“C’est le vicaire de Jésus-Christ, le successeur de Pierre… Il tient le milieu entre Dieu et l’homme, moins grand que Dieu, mais plus grand que l’homme.” Quoted on: Achille Luchaire. Innocent III. Rome et l’Italie. Paris. Libraire Hachette et Cie. 1904. P. 27.). What a striking contrast in comparison with Him Who liked to name Himself “Son of man”!

[tall73]

(since I can't debate, I'll just let you guys pick this apart :P ; it would be nice if there was a forum away from GT/GH where the traditional Apostolic Churches could actually discuss issues that are interesting without all the baggage in GT/GH)

Ecclesiology (http://www.christianforums.com/f82-ecclesiology.html), while still having those from all groups present, is much less busy. And as far as I know it allows for debate.

In any case, just reading :)

Carry on.

[Simon_Templar]

Interesting question. There does seem to be something special about Peter in the gospels, which was clearly recognized by the early church.

In a connected consideration, I always wonder that James and John don't get more focus, or consideration in this type of question as well. It is fairly clear from scripture that Peter, James, and John formed a kind of inner circle among the apostles. They were the only apostles present at the transfiguration etc, they seem to go along with Jesus when the others are left behind on a couple of occasions.

Then after the beginning of the church Peter, James, and John are clearly recognized as the pillars of the church by Paul.. pillars in that context means the elders, or most respected memebers of the community etc. I suppose this is probably a different James though as the earlier one was the brother of John, while the James who is at the Jerusalem council is the "brother" of the Lord (or step brother, etc).

Why these three?

In some sense you could answer "because it had to be someone".
But I suppose they must have some qualities which set them apart etc.

With James, I really don't know. It very well could have been because of his familial relation to Jesus. What little I know of him is that he was very well respected even by the Pharisees.

With John, I think it may have to do with the same reason he was called the beloved. John appears to have had an especially close relationship with Jesus and given the spirit of John's writings, I think the reason he was beloved was because he loved. The thing that stands out most about John in all that he writes, or that is written of him is his over flowing love for people.

With Peter I think there is a quality about him, similar to David in the Old Testament. The most remarkable thing about both of them is their zeal. They did whatever they did with their whole heart. Peter wasn't always the brightest or the best.. but whatever he did, he through himself into it whole heartedly.
In the OT God says of David, "he is a man after my own heart, what I tell him to do, he will do". David's greatest quality appears to have been the fact that he would whole heartedly obey and do whatever God told him to do.

I think the same attitude is what set Peter apart.

[Rowan]

I was just about to start a new topic about this. Spooky :o

Matthew 16:17-20 ~ 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

I was thinking about this passage tonight, so I'll just add one little tidbit....

This passage is right before Peter recognizes Jesus as the Messiah...which all of the Apostles learn. Could it be that this authority was given to all the Apostles, and Peter was a model for the recieving of such authority for all of them? It seems like makes it only privy to them, "Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." If the disciples (plural) are mentioned, does it help support my claim (or am I completely off? hehe...)?

[I'm not saying all believers who declare Jesus to be the Messiah might have this authority, but the original Apostles (and Paul).]

[Xpycoctomos]

Interesting question. There does seem to be something special about Peter in the gospels, which was clearly recognized by the early church.

In a connected consideration, I always wonder that James and John don't get more focus, or consideration in this type of question as well. It is fairly clear from scripture that Peter, James, and John formed a kind of inner circle among the apostles. They were the only apostles present at the transfiguration etc, they seem to go along with Jesus when the others are left behind on a couple of occasions.

Then after the beginning of the church Peter, James, and John are clearly recognized as the pillars of the church by Paul.. pillars in that context means the elders, or most respected memebers of the community etc. I suppose this is probably a different James though as the earlier one was the brother of John, while the James who is at the Jerusalem council is the "brother" of the Lord (or step brother, etc).

Why these three?

In some sense you could answer "because it had to be someone".
But I suppose they must have some qualities which set them apart etc.

With James, I really don't know. It very well could have been because of his familial relation to Jesus. What little I know of him is that he was very well respected even by the Pharisees.

With John, I think it may have to do with the same reason he was called the beloved. John appears to have had an especially close relationship with Jesus and given the spirit of John's writings, I think the reason he was beloved was because he loved. The thing that stands out most about John in all that he writes, or that is written of him is his over flowing love for people.

With Peter I think there is a quality about him, similar to David in the Old Testament. The most remarkable thing about both of them is their zeal. They did whatever they did with their whole heart. Peter wasn't always the brightest or the best.. but whatever he did, he through himself into it whole heartedly.
In the OT God says of David, "he is a man after my own heart, what I tell him to do, he will do". David's greatest quality appears to have been the fact that he would whole heartedly obey and do whatever God told him to do.

I think the same attitude is what set Peter apart.
Thank you for your insightful post. It did well at both respecting the difficulty of the question and how easy it can be to beg the question when attempting to answer it, while also offering some specific suggestions as to why Peter might have been chosen to hold such priority.

Thanks!

John

[Ioan cel Nou]

With James, I really don't know. It very well could have been because of his familial relation to Jesus.

It's not that James. You are confusing James, the brother of John (the two known as the Boanerges, Sons of Thunder) with James, the brother of the Lord who was the first bishop of Jerusalem. The three Apostles, Peter, James and John, that seem to have been most favoured by Christ are none of them part of his family. One question I've always had about James and John is their strange title. Does anyone know why they were known as the Sons of Thunder?

James

[Simon_Templar]

It's not that James. You are confusing James, the brother of John (the two known as the Boanerges, Sons of Thunder) with James, the brother of the Lord who was the first bishop of Jerusalem. The three Apostles, Peter, James and John, that seem to have been most favoured by Christ are none of them part of his family. One question I've always had about James and John is their strange title. Does anyone know why they were known as the Sons of Thunder?

James
I realized that I was talking about two different men named James. James the brother of John was the first martyr among the apostles (if memory serves). James the first bishop of Jerusalem is the one I was talking about there because he seemed to be recognized as a leader, and even was the spokesman of the three James, Peter, and John at the council.


There is some traditional support for the idea that James and John were actually cousins of Jesus, like John the baptist.

I too have often wondered why Jesus called them the Sons of Thunder. It seems an important and interesting detail that I've never really heard much on. What little I have heard is that they were given this name because of their imeptuous zealous nature.

In connection with that, an incident that I had never really noticed before, I found somewhat entertaining. In luke 9:54 Jesus comes to a town in samaria and the town won't receive him because he is on his way to Jerusalem. So James and John ask Jesus "do you want us to call down fire on the town?"
Something about that just strikes me as funny. I can imagine being there and seeing James and John "soo.... would you like us to go ahead and call down the fire??" I guess its just my weird sense of humor :)

[Rick of Wessex]

Peter was not the first bishop of Rome. It was Linus.

Yes and no.

Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, neither he was the founder of teh Church of Rome. The epistle of St. Paul to the Romans shows us that there was a well established Christian community in Rome well before Ss. Peter or Paul ever set foot on the Empire's capital city.

The figure of a chief bishop in Rome appeared very, very late, in response to a series of heresies that were plaguing the city (like the Marcionites, for instance).

This can be seen from St. Ignatius' letter to the Roman church (written around 107 AD), where there's no mantion at all of a leading Bishop in Rome. The same in the Shepherd of Hermas.

Thus, the first bishop of Rome was probably Hyginus or Pius I - about 150 AD, when the elderly St. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome, he discussed a few matters (including the date of Pascha) with the pope of Rome.

In XC,
Rick