Posted on 05/22/2017 7:51:58 AM PDT by Salvation
The first readings at daily Mass this week recount the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 A.D. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church, because it would set forth an identity for Her that was independent of the culture of Judaism per se and would open wide the door of inculturation to the Gentiles. This surely had a significant effect on evangelization in the early Church.
Catholic ecclesiology is evident in this first council in that we have a very Catholic model of how a matter of significant pastoral practice and doctrine is properly dealt with. What we see here is the same model that the Catholic Church has continued to use right up to the present day. In this and all subsequent ecumenical councils, there is a gathering of the bishops, presided over by the Pope, that considers and may even debate a matter. In the event that consensus cannot be reached, the Pope resolves the debate. Once a decision is reached, it is considered binding and a letter is issued to the whole Church.
All of these elements are seen in this first council of the Church in Jerusalem, although in seminal form. Let’s consider this council, beginning with some background.
Peter arises to settle the matter because, it would seem, the Apostles themselves were divided. Had not Peter received this charge from the Lord? The Lord had prophesied, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat but I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:31-32). Peter now fulfills this text, as he will again in the future and as will every Pope after him. Peter clearly dismisses any notion that the Gentiles should be made to take up the whole burden of Jewish customs. Paul and Barnabas rise to support this. Then James (who it seems may have felt otherwise) rises to assent to the decision and asks that a letter be sent forth to all the Churches explaining the decision. He also asks for and obtains a few concessions.
So there it is, the first council of the Church. That council, like all the Church-wide councils that would follow, was a gathering of the bishops in the presence of Peter, who worked to unite them. At a council a decision is made and a decree binding on the whole Church is sent out—very Catholic, actually. We have kept this biblical model ever since that first council. Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no pope to settle things when there is disagreement. They have split into tens of thousands of denominations and factions. When no one is pope, everyone is pope.
A final thought: Notice how the decree to the Churches is worded: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us (Acts 15:28). In the end, we trust the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in matters of faith and morals. We trust that decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself. There it is right in Scripture, the affirmation that when the Church speaks solemnly in this way, it is not just the bishops and the Pope speaking as men, it is the Holy Spirit speaking with them.
The Church—Catholic from the start!
Monsignor Pope Ping!
excellent...now let’s wait for the Reinterpretation Train to arrive at the station, and bumble through some retelling of straight forward history to make it seem as little catholic as possible....
I thought the article and the video were both excellent. I concur with your second thought. LOL!
Yes, I agree. This article was a bumbling re-arranging of straightforward history, turning the wider truth of the matters sideways, ending up almost entirely upside down on it's head --- when essentially, it's asserted the Latin Church (as it is now, and has been for say, the last 1200 years or so) is continuing epitome of the earliest ages of the Church.
I wouldn't much care, but I hate to see God's name (and the Holy Spirit) so casually dragged through the mud.
Allllll Aboard !!!!!!!!
But now, if no non-Catholic replies to this post, then that is affirmation from silence. And if they do, it is just someone bumbling through the text. A nice inoculation from discussion, and a game that is rigged so that your point of view prevails either way.
No thanks. I'll not join in with Charles Pope's cunning, and grievous errors.
I much prefer the real truth.
protestants, they’re nothing if not predictable.
no one is saying you cant discuss, i merely pointed out that as soon as history is recounted, and straight forward history of the early church’s catholicity, itz only a matter of time before protestants chime in with the usual hermeneutical nonsense that makes a sham out of church history...
reinterpret
revisionist history
etc etc
lather, rinse, repeat.
yes, the ‘real truth’ as long as it denies a straight forward reading of history....
enjoy your fictionilized netflix version of ‘church history’
Tickets Please....
In other words, your point of view is that the Roman schismatics from 1054 have the only correct view on how to understand this passage, and the Ship of Thebes that constitutes the current RCC is exactly the same as the first century church?
im saying a plain reading of the text this article is about clearly shows the seminal catholicity of the early church, and that folks, like you and others, will always be counted on to come in and bring up some nonsense, such as this most recent reply.
does this article mention anything about 1054?
If the Holy Spirit guides the RCC, does that mean the Pope Francis was put there by the Holy Spirit?
reread what i said and what the article says, it is the SEMINAL church council.
Peter was the head of that council, despite fictionalized attempts to make it seem that he was just ‘one of the guys’ discussing things....
and down to today with the Pope being in charge of all councils, etc.
there has been no adding of doctrine that wasnt in, for a lack of repeating myself, seminal form in the early church.
there has been no change in doctrine, only a fuller understanding.
this sort of, again, hermeneutical nonsense, from protestants, is a greater problem than ever before.
The holy spirit has guided all those bishops down over the eons to pick the right man to lead the church, the holy spirit wouldnt be needed if the church just needed ‘another guy’ to hang out and discuss things with.
So, Pope Francis is the "right man to lead the church"?
I just wanted people to know the truth. There is no caucus on it.
yes, he was chosen. are you saying the infallible Holy Spirit has errored?
Peter was the First Pope. Or this that not in your history book?
I don't accept that the Holy Spirit choses popes. And from what I have read on the RF and elsewher, it seems many Roman Catholics believe the current pope is the wrong man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.