John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | E. A. Costa

[bornacatholic]

The keys have been returned to Christ

*You're saying the first Pope was a re-gifter.

[zeeba neighba]

John 21:15-19 is the Lord graciously letting Peter affirm 3 times that he loves Him, after having denied Him 3 times. By "feeding" the lambs and sheep, he will be what? yes, preaching the Gospel and the Word, to them. We show our love in the same way, by fulfilling the great commission.

[bornacatholic]

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" 14. And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." 15. He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

---

Gloss., non occ.: As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi."

Chrys., Hom., liv: He adds 'of Philip,' to distinguish it from the other Caesarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former [p. 580] place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.

Jerome: This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituraea, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Panaeas, the name of Caesarea in honour of Tiberias Caesar.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, "And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?"

Origen: Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.

Gloss., non occ.: So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.

Jerome: Beautifully is the question put, "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.

Chrys.: He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from wilful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was full of much malice.

Hilary: By asking, "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus enquiring after men's opinion respecting Himself, we are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself.

We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" [p. 581]

Jerome: He says not, Whom do men say that I am? but, "Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?" that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has 'Son of Man,' the phrase in the Hebrew is 'Son of Adam.'

Origen: Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; "And they said, some say John the Baptist," following Herod's opinion [margin note: see Matt 14:2]; "others Elias," supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; "others Jeremias", whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremias was a type of Christ; "or one of the Prophets," in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.

Jerome: It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremias, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.

Chrys.: The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him; and therefore it follows, "Jesus saith unto them, Whom say ye that I am?" You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity

Jerome: Observe how by this connexion of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but Gods. For when He had said, "Whom say ye that the Son of Man is?" He adds, "Whom say ye that I am?" as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, ye who are Gods, whom do you think Me?

Raban.: He enquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith; and the opinions of those without He enquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out [p. 582] of the hidden treasure of the Lord's revelation.

Chrys.: When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and head [margin note: ] of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, "Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."

Origen: Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, "Thou art the Christ," which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, "the Son of the living God," who had said by his Prophets, "I live, saith the Lord." [Eze 33:11] And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, "I am the life." [John 14:6]

Jerome: He calls Him "the living God," in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.

Hilary: This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took unto Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.

Raban.: And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shews us the excellence of His divine eternity.

Hilary: This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, "Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven."

Jerome: This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." The Lord said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas?" Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that [p. 583] he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Barjonas in our tongue signifies The son of a dove.

Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John [ed. note: In John 21, the Vulgate has 'Johannis,' but in John 1, 43, 'Jona.'], according to that question in another place, "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?" [John 21:15] affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted 'The grace of God.' But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.

Chrys.: It would be without meaning to say, Thou art the son of Jonas, unless he intended to shew that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.

Jerome: Compare what is here said, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee," with the Apostolic declaration, "Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood," [Gal 1:16] meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shewn in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.

Hilary: Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.

Origen: It must be enquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shews that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus? That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is [p. 584] here blessed, not only for that he says, "Thou art the Christ," but much more for that he adds, "the Son of the living God."

Chrys.: And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, "Truly thou art the Son of God." Nathanael also said, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God." [John 1:49] Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father.

But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Feather, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to shew that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,"

Jerome: As much as to say, You have said to me, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," therefore I say unto thee, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say unto thee, and for Me to speak is to make it so [ed. note: See Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justification, Lect iii, p.87], "that thou art Peter." For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 53: But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said unto him, "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter." [John 1:42] Chrys.: And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: "And upon this rock I will build my Church."

Chrys.: That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.

Aug., Retract., i, 21: I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church," as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, "Thou art Peter." But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.

Hilary: But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Gloss. interlin.: That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.

Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

Raban.: The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they shew the path of destruction.

Origen: He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.

Cyril [ed. note: ' This passage is quoted in the Catena from 'Cyril in Lib. Thes.' but does not occur in any of S. Cyril's works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy's Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. cl. 24. 3. and in his books 'contr. impugn.reliq.' and 'contra errores Graee.' He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected.]

According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, [p. 586] with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, 'et nos necessario salutis,' the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

Jerome: Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.

Origen: Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, "Thou art Peter;" for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.

Chrys.: Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, "And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Raban.: For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment [margin note: discretio] and power; power, by which he binds and looses; discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.

It follows, "And whatsoever thou shalt bind;" that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and "whatsoever thou shalt loose," that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.

Origen: See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.

Chrys.: See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. [p. 587] These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immoveable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.

Raban.: But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, [margin note: see Matt 18:18] and is even now in the Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them.

But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words "upon earth" denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.

Second Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8: How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed [margin note: see Aug. Ep. 185, 4] that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetime. [ed. note: This passage is quoted from the sentence of the Council. It alleges the authority of S. Cyril, from one of whose lost works against Theodorus the sentence beginning, "They are to be avoided, &c," is quoted.]

Jerome: Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding [p. 588] this passage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be enquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged.

We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to shew themselves to the Priests; and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.

Origen: Let him then be without blame who binds or looses another, that he may be found worthy to bind or loose in heaven. Moreover, to him who shall be able by his virtues to shut the gates of hell, are given in reward the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For every kind of virtue when any has begun to practise it, as it were opens itself before Him, the Lord, namely, opening it through His grace, so that the same virtue is found to be both the gate, and the key of the gate. But it may be that each virtue is itself the kingdom of heaven.

[lupie]

But you are UTTERLY WRONG if you think that my Church was based upon the false usurpation of Roman Catholic Authority.

The Scottish Church was originally founded by Greek Missionaries from Asia Minor, NOT the later domination of Roman Papacy; and Calvinism traces its spiritual heritage to that foundation, AND NOT the later megalomaniacal claims of the Roman Pope.

I did not know that. Thank you for that information.

[annalex]

The keys have been returned to Christ

re-gifter

This is quite hilarious. The places sola scriptura would take you are strange indeed.

You must be forgetting that Luther discovered a video of the Gospel of Matthew. The video clearly shows Chrsit removing a pebble from His shoe, showing it to Peter, then pointing to a big rock far off. As Peter appears humiliated and crestfallen, Christ says "arright, arright, I'll let you borrow the keys sometime".

The same video shows Christ holding his fingers secretly crossed as He preaches necessity of works. It is a valuable exegetical tool.

[Campion]

By "feeding" the lambs and sheep, he will be what? yes, preaching the Gospel and the Word, to them.

Everyone is commissioned to do that, though. Jesus is specifically, personally commissioning Peter to do something that not everyone is personally commissioned to do.

[zeeba neighba]

Well that is reading into scripture something that is just not there, other than preaching to the Jews and to the converts, who were the lambs and sheep.

He is an example to us.We can relate to him as he was a flawed and weak individual. Even seeing Christ transformed at the Transfiguration, he proposed building 3 shrines, one to Christ, and one to Elijah and one to Moses. Paul says that he, Paul, is the least of the apostles, and he himself had to correct Peter on occasion, after the Lord was gone. So, no, he wasn't given anything more than the rest were.

[zeeba neighba]

Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26).

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal--the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry--and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, "But not so with you." Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

[HarleyD]

Personally I find jude's statement a little strange coming from a Protestant. Catholics base their interpretation upon what comes from the Church as the Church interprets it. Protestants review the different councils and creeds, compare it with the scriptures and then see if they agree with it or not based upon how God speaks to their hearts. The Protestant view puts more responsibility upon the believer to study the word and show themselves approved.

We all harbor prejudices but frankly that is not an excuse. Saying you agree with what is written in councils and creeds can be dangerous and, frankly, very Catholic in nature. How does one know a council didn't harbor prejudices and that you are supporting those prejudices?

I would simply point to those in the early church who were being swayed by the Jews who said it was wrong to eat unclean animals. Even though Paul was young in the church and certainly not a raking member he found it necessary to stand up to such people as Peter, James and John by going back to the scriptures and reason. It set them on the right course.

To hide behind councils and creeds is not the intent of Protestantism. Councils and creeds only serve as guidelines which, if found untrue, should be tossed. The only thing we know is true is God's word. Protestantism correctly recognize everyone is a priest before God accountable for their OWN actions.

[annalex]

those in the early church who were being swayed by the Jews who said it was wrong to eat unclean animals. Even though Paul was young in the church and certainly not a raking member he found it necessary to stand up to such people as Peter, James and John by going back to the scriptures and reason. It set them on the right course.

I think you got your scripture wrong. It was St. Peter who received the vision about unclean animals, and convinced the Jerusalem council (Acts 10-15).

You probably meant the episode about not eating with the Gentiles, related by St. Paul in Galatians 2.

[HarleyD]

You're right. Thanks for the correction. I'm in a bit of a hurry tonight.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

Amen.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- 1 Timothy 2:5

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Great tag, Harley.

[HarleyD]

Only a Reformer would understand it.

[bornacatholic]

LOL

[RnMomof7]

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal--the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry--and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, "But not so with you." Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

The Bible has many passages where the offices of the church are listed, not one mentions the office of pope. One would think the "primary " office that would be fill by succession would surely have been noted but the office of Pope is never mentioned in all of scripture.

Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there and never once did he send greetings to Peter. There is no contemporary or historical mention of peter as Pope until much later in church history . If there was a pope or bishop of Rome, why would Paul need to write a doctrinal thesis to them ? They would have been under the teaching of the pope. Paul confronted Peter openly, something one would never do If he understood that Peter had headship of the new church in fact in Galations he indicates there was a joint leadership among the apostles

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

[RnMomof7]

As a Magisterial Presbyterian -- the Heir of the Scottish Church founded by Greek Missionaries from Asia Minor long before the Roman-Papist Usurpation -- I do not doubt, deny, nor dispute the Scriptural Fact that Jesus Christ did Himself Personally-ordain the Apostle Saint Peter to play an absolutely-foundational role in the establishment of the New Testament Church amongst the Jews, just as Our Lord also Personally-ordained the Apostle Saint Paul to play an absolutely-foundational role in the establishment of the New Testament Church amongst the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8)

I have oft noted that if Peter had gone to Rome and established a church there, or taken a leadership position he would have been disobedient to the mission God had given to him , which was the apostle to the Jews.

People mistake the refusal to accept on faith alone ( as there is no contemporty proof of this) that Peter was disobedient to God and instead of completing his mission to the Jews, he went to the gentiles.

[RnMomof7]

I think you got your scripture wrong. It was St. Peter who received the vision about unclean animals, and convinced the Jerusalem council (Acts 10-15).

Peters actions were the CAUSE of that council, James was the leader in that council

AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.

It is clear here that James was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.

Peter was the problem not the solution

Please READ the words of James

Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace,James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:

Not to Peter, listen" to ME"

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

That is James making the decision NOT PETER's

Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible . For he was in error on this serious matter and was taken to task by Paul

Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today

Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles

"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).

It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church. He would have been in rebellion to the call of God on him if he had gone to the gentiles

It is Paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the "bishop " of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20).

When Paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed

Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles.

66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.

Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church

[annalex]

St. Peter converted the first group of Gentiles.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

(Acts 15:7)

Yes, St. James appears to be presiding over the Jerusalem Council. Not surprusing, given that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. There is nothing though that indicates any disputation with Peter over the matter of treatment of the Gentiles, and the divine inspiration that the dietetic law of Moses should be lifted was given St. Peter.

There was an instance where St. Paul contradicted St. Peter, over his not sharing meals with the Gentiles. Yes, a similar level of disagreement, and in fact quite larger is possible today with respect to the pope. Besides, there is no indication that St. Peter was pope at the time Galatians (or Romans) was written. In fact, your own timeline shows St,. Peter in "Babylon" in AD 66, full 15 years later. That Babylon was code word for Rome, not the ruins of Babylon in Mesopothamia, which no one had any business visiting.

The two letters of St. Peter are intended for the entire Christian ecumen. In fact, he finishes the Second Letter with a reference to the Letters of St. Paul, which shows that he was apostle to all, not just the Jews. Peter early indicates awareness of his divine commission and his intention to pass it down through generations in his Second Letter:

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 12 For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. 13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.

16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

[RnMomof7]

And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (Acts 15:7)

Peter ADDRESSED the council, he did not oversee it. If there was a common understanding that HE was the leader of the new church and infallible, no one would have questioned him, and certainly he would have been the one in charge of the 1st church council.

In fact, your own timeline shows St,. Peter in "Babylon" in AD 66, full 15 years later. That Babylon was code word for Rome, not the ruins of Babylon in Mesopothamia, which no one had any business visiting

Now if as Protestant says Babylon the great in Revelations there is a huge outcry, are you saying that Babylon in scripture IS Rome?

Eusebius relates that by Babylon Peter meant Rome " but that cannot be proved, nor is there any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed.

Babylon in Assyria,was the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews . Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, so it would seem in obedience to God that is where he should have been. This area of the world contained may of the "purest Jews" . It was a place of learning with Universities there .

There is nothing to indicate that Peter was in Rome when Paul wrote that letter. He certainly would not have left the name of the POPE out of his greeting. He certainly would not have planed to catechize the church in Rome if peter had been there.

While it is true that the epistles were circulated throughout the church, the ones to whom it was first sent is clearly stated under the operation of the Holy Spirit. All the disciples preached to whomever had ears, but God had divided the work of the church and there is no indication that it was ever changed.

Paul felt called to go to Rome because his call was to the Gentiles. (The Jews had been sent out of Rome)

There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome except folk lore that has never been proved historically, as there is no contemporary work to verify that.