[If you haven’t already, we recommend reading the previous post in this series.]
Does the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council (concerning the gentiles) present any challenges to the Catholic view of the Papacy? Whelton believes it does. In Chapter 1 (“Peter and the Papacy”), he writes:
Understandably, the Roman Catholic church has always taught that Peter presided at the council, but James held the episcopal see of Jerusalem. As we see in Acts 15, as befitting his role he (James) summed up the discussion and rendered the judgment. Hence, the obvious conclusion is that St. Peter’s fellow apostles and the leaders of the Jerusalem Christian community did not view him as the sole foundation stone of the Church. [emphasis mine]
How that conclusion is obvious is anyone’s guess, for it does not follow from Whelton’s summary of events. No one denies James's role as the bishop of Jerusalem. But his role and statements in this passage do not imply a rejection of Peter’s authority or dispute Peter's presidency at the council.
Let’s frame our discussion with an analogy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the highest legal authority—the chief rule, you might say—in a large jurisdiction. Imagine believing that because the Ninth Circuit renders authoritative judgments within that jurisdiction, there is no higher authority than it. Such an inference overlooks the hierarchical structure of our legal system, according to which the Supreme Court of the United States serves as the ultimate authority. Even so, unless and until there is a need to go higher, the Ninth Circuit’s judgments are final.
Whelton tries in vain to appropriate a comment from Chrysostom to support his conclusion:
[For] James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory… Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.1 [emphasis mine]
Regrettably, Whelton misinterprets Chrysostom’s remark on this passage and disregards the explicit comments the Saint has made elsewhere regarding Peter.
Later on in the same Homily 33, Chrysostom expounds further on what he means:
And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law [concerning circumcision], this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James says, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise.
Dom John Chapman, OSB, who extensively documented St. Chrysostom’s writings on St. Peter, offers the following explanation for these passages:
Obviously, it is James who has the “rule” and the “great power” as bishop of those believing Pharisees who had initiated the discussion. But the idea that he had άρχή [principle] over Peter is, of course, ludicrous, and the notion that he could possibly be the president of the council certainly never occurred to Chrysostom’s mind. He only draws out a moral lesson from the fact that James was mild for fear of offending his subjects [i.e., converts in Jerusalem who tended towards Judaizing] and alienating their confidence.2
Far from downplaying Peter’s authority, in another homily, Chrysostom comments on the apostolic replacement of Judas and twice observes that Peter could have appointed a new apostle without consulting the brethren or casting lots. The first such comment reads thus:
Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor.3
Shortly thereafter, Chrysostom explicitly says that Peter possessed a unique power, equivalent to a power shared collectively by the other apostles:
[Men and brethren, etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. [emphasis mine]
Finally, in a homily on John’s gospel, Chrysostom speaks to us loud and clear on his view of Peter:
“He says unto him, Feed My sheep.”
And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others… Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and… says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren.
And if any should say, “How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?” I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.4 [emphasis mine]
When all the statements are taken together, even acknowledging James’s “chief rule” within his own jurisdiction, Chrysostom cannot be interpreted as suggesting that Peter possessed equal or lesser authority during the Acts 15 council.
Contrary to Whelton’s assertion, a close reading of Acts 15 reveals that if anyone stands out as the presider of the council, it is Peter. He "permits the question to be moved in the Church" and then rises first to address the other apostles.5 Using the language of authority to address a matter that God Himself revealed to him, Peter rebukes the circumcising party. Although James delivers the closing remarks, he aligns his judgment with that of Peter, thereby affirming what Peter had already said.6 Nothing in the scene serves as a witness against Peter's authority.
As a concluding reflection, let's grant for the sake of argument that James presided over the council in his jurisdiction of Jerusalem. What implications would that bear on Peter's authority? In isolation, not much, as the analogy with the Ninth Circuit illustrates.
The pivotal point, which will resurface in the course of our evaluation of Whelton's arguments, is this: the practice of subsidiarity is no objection to Papal Primacy or Supremacy, and refraining from exercising authority does not imply a lack of authority. Whelton neglects the second passage where Chrysostom asserts that Peter, possessing his own authority, had the capacity to appoint the apostolic successor to Judas in Acts 1 but intentionally chose not to do so:
Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it… This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, “Men and brethren. It behooves” to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils.7
Chrysostom’s comments on Acts 1 show that Peter (in Acts 15) would have been fully within his rights to defer authority amongst his brethren, even though he is “chief authority among” them.
Conclusion
The Acts 15 council does not obviously align with our contemporary understanding of an ecumenical Council, and Whelton provides no evidence for the assertion that the Catholic Church has consistently taught, or even requires, that Peter presided over the “council.” However, the preceding responses have demonstrated that, even if it was a general council, the events in Acts 15 and the writings of St. Chrysostom provide no grounds to believe Whelton's claim that "the leaders of the Jerusalem Christian community did not view him as the sole foundation stone of the Church." In fact, they show the opposite.
Homily 33 on the Acts of the Apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm).
Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (Ex Fontibus Co.: 2015), page 90.
Homily 3 on the Acts of the Apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm). Chapman notes (Studies on the Early Papacy, page 88) that the Migne manuscript renders this passage in even stronger terms: “What then? Could not Peter himself elect? Of course he could.”
Homily 88 On the Gospel of John (21:15) (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm).
Homily 32 on the Acts of the Apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210132.htm).
The case supporting "Simeon" (Συμεὼν) referring to Simon Peter is threefold. Firstly, in other parts of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1), the same Greek term identifies Peter. Secondly, while the term is used for Simeon in Luke 2, it seems unlikely that James is referencing him from decades ago instead of Peter, who is present in the immediate context. Thirdly, James acknowledges that “Simeon” has declared something which aligns closely with what Peter had already said. Though James gives the final word, he echoes Peter’s earlier remarks.
Homily 3.