This are +Chrysostom's words...the New Testament says this:
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Gal 18-19)
+Paul went to see +Peter and +James. He went specifically to speak with +Peter but there is nothing that says here because "so greatly did he honor him and set him before all." That is +Chrysostom's version...it's ain't the Gospel.
+Paul doesn't say why he went to see +Peter or why he also saw +James but not others (maybe because they were busy baptizing the world!). +Paul also doesn't say anything about what they discussed. +Paul doesn't say "I went to see Peters because he is my leader, or because he is above me."
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
There is one instance where the NT "ranks" Apostles: "Peter as the "first" (Mat 10:2) but that can be because he was the oldest. It says nothing about first in authority.
No, the text only says that he went up "to see Peter". That he saw St. James incidentally doesn't mean that was the purpose of his visit.
It seems to me these gaps were slowly "filled" by various Fathers as the time went by.
They explained them in light of other parts of Scripture and the Apostolic traditions.
That the Apostles themselves did not buy into this interpretation as they argued who is first among them.
No, they argued about "which of them should seem to be the greater". That's not necessarily a reference to authority.
"+Paul doesn't say why he went to see +Peter or why he also saw +James but not others (maybe because they were busy baptizing the world!). +Paul also doesn't say anything about what they discussed. +Paul doesn't say "I went to see Peters because he is my leader, or because he is above me.""
+Paul may not have said so specifically, but it is most likely because +James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, whereas +Peter was the leader of the universal Church with universal teaching authority.
That, at least would be the opinion of one Patriarch of Constantinople:
"Here again He alludeth to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. 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."
+John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily #88.
Not that the teachings of the Fathers will have any more influence on you than the Scriptures unless they happen to fit in with the anti-Roman prejudice of modernist eastern theology, no doubt.