James son of Zebedee did not outlive Peter. His exact martyrdom is disputed, but all seem to agree that James lived less than 15 years after the Resurrection, while Peter’s martyrdom is placed 20 years later.

But that is a mute point since we have no reliable writings from this apostle. The Epistle of James was either written by James son of Alpheus or another James known as “the brother of the Lord”. Some believe these two are the same person, while others believe the latter was not one of the original Twelve. Either way, both of these men (or the same person, whichever your perspective) suffered martyrdom prior to Peter.

John certainly did outlive Peter. His last writing was his Gospel. And in his Gospel, you’ll notice an epilogue that was written after he had concluded his Gospel. Ever wonder why John felt the need to add to his own masterpiece? John’s entire Gospel is different from the others, written with a specific chronology and style that seemed directed to answer questions that were probably raging near the end of his life. And thus, looking at the epilogue is very important in understanding what was on John’s mind, as he felt the need to clarify something left unclear in his own Gospel or the Synoptics.

Here was see Peter doing what the Lord had instructed him not to do - returning to his previous life as a fisherman. John and five others follow his lead - a recognition of his authority. When Jesus reminds the apostles of his lordship in their lives, he pulls Peter aside and tells him three times to feed his sheep/lambs. In other words, Peter is Christ’s shepherd. This was written after the death of Peter. Why was it important for John to establish the primacy of Peter if he was already dead? Would he not be writing something to salvage the authority of the Church if it had been lost? Clearly John recognized the successors of Peter.

In my first post, I established that succession did take place. If it did not, than Mathias and Paul would not be legitimate apostles. The faithful people of the new testament who outlived their Apostle, like Barnabas, Timothy, and Luke would have lived without authentic Christianity. The Apostles would be fools. Christ himself would have convicted himself as a fool.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel of Matthew, the one that offers the indisputable designation of Peter as the foundation of the Church, a Church that would not fail (Mt 16:13-18), earlier sets the stage for this with the analogy of the house builders(Mt 7:24-27). “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his
house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat
upon that house; and it fell not; for it was
founded upon a rock. And everyone thatheareth
these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall
be likened unto a foolish man, which built his
house upon the sand: And the rain descended,
and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was
the fall of it”

The language used is not coincidental. If Peter, the Rock, was truly sand, and he did not establish succession (which as shown in my first post, he did), then Christ was a fool by His own words.

Maybe it would be helpful for Mormons to explain their own scriptural establishment of this apostasy. 2 Th 2:3 states: “and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition”, and the Mormon Bible footnotes this as a reference to the antichrist. Okay, since this apostasy has taken place, please let us know who was the antichrist. The revelation of the identity of the antichrist is inextricable from the “falling away” revelation. If you could identify this antichrist, it could go a long way to giving credibility to your claim.

Thanks for the question. I hope I can do justice to answering it. First of all, can you cite a letter from a bishop who was questioning where the authority resided in his age? I would hope you could not, because the bishops of the early church should have known from whence the power, which resided in the office they held, came. It came from Jesus through the apostles and the laying of hands. Immediately following the Ascension of the Lord, Peter, the first Pope, called for the successor to Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21), “…and his bishoprick let another take.” Some translations read “episcopate” or “office”. At the time Saint John wrote his Gospel, which seems to be in the latter part of the last decade of the 1st century, it would have been completed during the episcopate of Pope St. Clement I or Pope St. Evaristus. To repeat a different way, Saint John’s Gospel, accepted by Mormons as scripture, had not been completed until St. Peter had been succeeded three or four times. And John made sure in his final chapter to emphasize the primacy of Peter. Pope St. Clement confirmed the succession in his letter to the Corinthians:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

The standard modern Mormon position has been that the Great Apostacy occured well before Constantine. But there has never been controversy in the Church as the succession has been well understood and practiced.

At the time of Constantine, there were apostles. The bishops themselves are the successors. They knew that. So while there were many letters, which were required to communicate and maintain unity in those days, I doubt more than a few of them regarded “power”. And any that did were out of ignorance, which is plausible. Some people with little or no religous training were elevated to the episcopate. St. Nicholas comes to mind, a bishop who attended the Council of Nicea before he became known for coming down chimneys.

Whether or not Constantine consulted Pope Sylvester I is uncertain, but very likely. Constantine was from the West, and his Father, though not a Christian, used as much influence as he could to protect Christians during the Diocletian persecutions. So we can assume he had respect for the Seat of Peter. There is also evidence in the fact that Rome sent representatives to the Council. Those reps signed the documents of the Council with the authority of the Pope. Sylvester most likely elected not to attend himself for one or more of three reasons:
1) Arianism was mostly an eastern problem. The East had suffered most under the Diocletian/Galarius persecutions, and here is where Arianism held it’s greatest influence (at this time, at least). And it was pretty clear that the eastern Bishops were unified in their opposition to Arius. Arius was condemned at a local Council in Alexandria just a few years previous, and Arius’ persistance, as well as the Roman civil wars which took place between the death of Diocletian and the final victory of Constantine, made a full Ecumenical Council necessary. Constantine himself probably felt somewhat responsible for the schism in the Church which seemed to persist during the civil wars. Constantine himself was not a Christian at the time, let alone partisan in the nature of the Trinity.
2) The Pope’s own diocese had gone from the Diocletian/Maximus persecutions to being the favored religion of Rome’s absolute ruler. Needless to say, Sylvester had a busy pontificate, transforming the Church in his diocese from underground to establishment.
3) Since the Council was called in Nicea, he was not the presiding Bishop. That was the priviledge of Thaoghonius. Not being the presiding Bishop, he may have felt his attendence was not necessary. It was very common for Popes to not attend councils outside of Rome, and even those within Rome, the Papal attendence was still limited.

But Church leaders were indeed there. Over 300 bishops from the East. Many of these bishops spent years in prison or exile, had their churches burned, and saw their fellow Christians tortured and killed. They were probably more motivated than western bishops to defend the faith from Arius. Those are the successors to the apostles, rememeber, so they are indeed leaders of the Chuch.

So I hope that answers your question. I would like to end by summarizing what I think are incorrect assumptions from your question.
1) There wasn’t any question about the source of espiscopal authority by the bishops around the time of Constantine. They understood apostalic succession, and therefore, were not lost simply because no apostles lived into their three-hundred and tens.
2) Popes do not need to dictate to councils. The pope is not a dictator as many believe. One can rightly call him first among equals. And one can rightly call him the Vicar of Christ. But the Church has survived for 2000 years thanks to the spirit of collegiality that exists in the episcopate.
3) Constantine likely had Pope Sylvester’s approval to call the council. The Pope’s cooperation with the council seems to indicate that. The Pope doesn’t have to call the council himself to bless it.
4) Constantine was a “worldly” leader, but there was no 1st ammendment to the constitution in 325AD. There was no seperation of Church and State. “Worldly” leaders did tend to meddle in religion. But at the very least, he stayed out of the preceedings and allowed the “church leaders” to confirm the dogmas that they already taught.