Gary Sheldrake
Member
The first successor to Peter was Clement. Clement states that Peter actually was only the Bishop of Rome and that Peter in fact reported to the "Bishop of all Bishops" who was Jesus' brother James. James was the leader over the Jerusalem Assembly, which was the seat and headquarters of the early church. The primacy of Peter and Apostolic Succession is a tradition that developed over time and is not an historical reality that is documented from anyone from the time of Peter. Clement was from the time of Peter and was the next Bishop of Rome after Peter was executed. He knew Peter and was the second Pope. He says the head of the church was James. James was not a Christian, and the term was actually not known at the time. James was a Jew who headed up a Jewish messianic sect, steeped in Jewish tradition and devoted to one of the many self proclaimed messiahs of the time, all of whom healed the sick and performed miracles, and most of whom were crucified by the Romans. The sect of Jesus the Nazarene most likely persisted because of the fantastical writings of Paul, who never met Jesus and of whom, Peter and James were very suspicious. Everything I have posted can be researched and verified, or by enrolling in a religious studies program at an accredited university (including Catholic universities). One of the main problems in religious studies programs and seminaries is loss of faith. It usually happens sometime the sophomore or junior year, once students have had ample exposure to the actual texts and the sources of texts. This can be researched and verified as well.
As a disclaimer, I will volunteer that I think Jesus was simply a man, but I have no problem with anyone believing he was the Son of God or whatever, but historically, Jesus did not found the Roman Catholic Church. That was codified some 300 years later by people with agendas other than religious. As another disclaimer, I like Pope Francis.
All the best,
Gary
