Peter's commision to the Jews

[Daniel Smith]

Ok, I have to be specific here: I am orthodox, I Recognize peter's primacy in the pope when he is orthodox, but not supremacy. THat being said, alot of Romans try to use the Scene in John where jesus reinstates peter and tells him to feed his sheep, as a proof text for his universal jurisdiction. I disagree.

First of all, Peter was the apostle to the Jews, Paul to the gentiles. Not rigorously so, but those were their individual callings:
7 “But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. 8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision”
Galatians 2:7-9.

Second, Jesus often refers to the jews as sheep:
23 Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us: 24 And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep, that are lost of the house of Israel. 25 But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me.
Matthew 15:23-25
Again
5 These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. 6 But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Matthew 10:5-15

So, my question is, does anyone know of any patristic texts that back the interpretation that this verse is Jesus COmission to Peter to go to the jews?

[Kosta]

Peter indeed specialized reaching out to the jews, but this should not be mistaken that it somehow extends to a bishopric which has inherited a special commission to convert jews, (due to a belief it is an ongoing extension to Peter's mission). When Paul reached Rome the jews sought him out. It was Paul who first preached the christian gospel to the roman jews not Peter (anotherwords Peter was not yet in Rome inspite of what the roman church today claims, Acts 28.20-29).

Originally the Church of Rome was found by both Paul and Peter. And the roman church are actually disciples of the apostle Paul not Peter (if any doubt read Acts and the epistle to the Romans, I believe it was Pope Gregory the Dialogist who also says this.)

As time went on Paul's name was less associated with Rome due to the elevation of Peter as "prince of the apostles' and other titles given to him, thus Peter became a better 'marketing' tool for Rome.

Of course the OP makes an interesting point, and that is why does the Roman church interpret Matt16.18 to refer to themselves as head of the Church, and not that perhaps Jesus meant to find a synagogue and be a sect of judaism, afterall Peter had the apostleship to the jew and as Rome interprets the assembly is found on Peter.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Ok, I have to be specific here: I am orthodox, I Recognize peter's primacy in the pope when he is orthodox, but not supremacy.

I remember a thread in which someone here on Monachos wrote an attack of the concept of charismatic succession, the idea that the special charisms of Peter (supremacy, infallibility) are passed on to the bishops of Rome. Such an attack makes a lot of sense to me. But if we are to accept a denial of charismatic succession, we're also going to have to throw out the idea that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is Peter's primacy. If Peter cannot pass on the made up charisms of supremacy and infallibility on principle, he likewise cannot pass on the charism of primacy. And the Tradition of the Church indicates to us that this is the case. Is the see of Antioch granted primacy? Of course not. You can't have two primus inter pares in one Church. And while Constantinople was granted certain prerogatives of the primacy of Rome, it wasn't rendered a second first ranking see as if entirely equal to Rome. Thus I believe it reasonable to say that Rome was granted primacy by the First Council of Nicaea due to its being the prime city of the Roman Empire at the time, not because it had from the beginning inherited the primacy of Peter.

Just a little nit-pick, I suppose.

[Daniel Smith]

I don't mean a separate bishopric, I simply mean do any of the fathers interpret jesus threefold restitution of peter as also his commision to preach to the jews?