The issue is not “Rome,” it is Peter. The Lord appointed Peter the head of the apostles, and the Church (e.g. Matthew 16:18-20; Luke 22:31-32). This is recognized as a fact by the early fathers (e.g. “where Peter is, there is the Church”).
Catholics don’t believe that Peter or his successors (the bishops of Rome) can’t listen to the opinions and advice of others, or at times even rebukes from others; only that the in doctrinal controversy on faith or morals, their definitive judgment ends the matter (’Rome has spoken, the case is closed’).
In terms of Acts, it was Peter who stood up in the midst of the ‘debate’, declared his position and after which the argument fell ‘silent’ (i.e. ended) (Acts 15:7-12). James did suggest a course of action to communicate the resuls of the council.
ping
I agree with you that THE issue is not with geography, but with lordship. The “early fathers” are as fallible as you or I, evidenced by the quote you cited. What sophistry! Where the Lord Jesus is - THERE is the church. Nowhere in Scripture did Christ give any man lordship over the church, rightly interpreted as “the congregation” or “called out ones”.
For a detailed review of the verses you cited, please read this article: http://www.letusreason.org/RC26.htm
Christ Himself is the Head of the Church. He didn’t appoint anyone else to be the Head.
Of course, if we wanted to enlivent the discussion further, we could bring in the whole Avignon episode. :-)
Actually the text says the council went silent when they heard Paul and Barnabus describe their sucesses in evangelism, not at the word of Peter:
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16” ‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19”It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” (Acts 15:6-21)
If any one man was the dominant figure in this story it is James, not Peter. Peter does not act in any shape or form like even the most humble Pope would today. The Apostles appear all to be equal brothers without any hierarchy.
The book of Romans was written by Paul to a church already existing in Rome. Since Peter was an Apostle, it would be unthinkable not to mention Peter in the book if he had founded the Roman church, or was present at that time in Rome—and yet there is not a word about Peter in the book of Romans.
Church tradition has Peter dying in Rome in the late 60s, but Romans was written in the 50s...and evidently Peter was not there yet. It is surmised that some of the Jews (who made up 1/4 of Rome) converted at Pentecost in Acts 2 took their faith back to Rome and started a church there—to whom Paul wrote. The content of the book of Romans makes clear it was a mixed group of Jews and gentiles.
The big issue though is the historical gap. One doesn’t see any sort of special reverence given to the bishop of Rome for the first couple centuries. Yes, some of the later Church Fathers reverenced the bishop of Rome, as since it was the capitol city that office became more and more important....and after Constantine became the most important.
However, it appears to be more of an evolution of power, political-mixed-with-religious which made the Roman bishop so important, NOT the commission pointed to by Catholics in Matthew 16:18,19. The odd thing is too, one doesn’t find these verses used as a proof of the Roman Bishop’s supremacy until hundreds of years AFTER it was written. It seems impossible that if those verses really did make Peter supreme—and his office after that the same—that no one in the New Testament Church seemed to notice.
I’m not convinced anyway Peter ever was THE bishop of Rome anyway, he was simply, along with Paul, one of the Apostles executed there—and it is the location of his tomb. It seems logical that if he came to Rome AFTER Churches were already established there, he would have found a bishop (or bishops) in place... and hence had no administrative duties—rather he was a highly honored guest.
How that eventually morphed into a religious Emperor with Papal States, is beyond my power to understand.
Could be the 'other' church fathers that recognized Paul as the leader of the Gentile church, or better yet, the ones that recognized Jesus 'only' as the head of the church, had their records destroyed by YOUR church fathers...
Could be some of those records still exist in the 'secret archives' of your church in Rome...