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.
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?
The real church history is found in the book of Acts.
BTW, which is the REAL Catholic church? Rome or the EO?
Both make that claim and assert the other is in schism.
They can’t both be right.
Yet, without taking away from Peter's leadership, reiterating some of what was said before, rather than presenting this council as "presided over by the Pope," he did not call this council, nor does the Spirit says Paul etc. decide to go to see Peter, much less in Rome, but to "go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." (Acts 15:2)
Peter only comes into the picture after there had been much disputing and gives his testimony with its evangelical gospel, and exhortation to recognize this manifest grace of God and basic implications, which words from Peter were certainly fitting as the first one to preach to the Jews and Gentiles, as befit his God-given initial street-level leadership. And to which Paul, the reprover of Peter's declension on this, and Barnabas give their testimony, and which collectively enabled the matter to be settled by James, who, rather than simply giving assent, is the one who provides the conclusive basic judgment, confirmatory of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, with the necessary Scriptural basis, acting more like the pope in declaring, "Wherefore my sentence [krinō=judgment, conclusion] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God..." (Acts 15:19) Only after his words is the matter shown to be truly resolved by the church then sending out their collective judgment, with no further mention of Peter but that "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things..." (Acts 15:28)
Had this been written by a Catholic then it would be Peter who declares, "Wherefore my sentence is..." and would have everyone looking to Peter to at least ratify the decree sent out, and would at least include Rome as one of the cities to which it was sent. Of course, that is only one of the many RC distinctives missing in the record of the NT church.
Which includes any manifest preparation for a successor to Peter. For the issue is not the validity of "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith" as the Westminster Confession affirms, though subject to Scripture, nor is the issue the manifest type of leadership of Peter among the apostles and early church, but that of the Roman construance of it, which is not what we see in the only wholly inspired record of the NT church, and which even Catholic scholars provide evidence against. .
Which means it is RC devotees who so often must engage in "hermeneutical nonsense that makes a sham out of church history, reinterpret revisionist history etc etc. " under the premise that in any conflict it Scripture, tradition and history can only mean what Rome says. As even Manning asserted,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
“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 “
Catholic Dude: “Herman who??”