The Decision of the Holy Spirit & Us – The Council of Jerusalem & the Catholicity of Early Church

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – On the Council of Jerusalem and the Catholicity of the Early Church

In the first reading at today’s Mass is recounted the Council of Jerusalem, which scholars generally date to around 50 A.D. It was a pivotal moment in the history of the Church, since it would set forth an identity for the Church 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 here 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 in the Church. 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, which 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 these elements are seen in this first council of the Church in Jerusalem, though in seminal form. Let’s consider this council, beginning with some background.

1. Bring in the Gentiles! Just prior to ascending, the Lord gave the Apostles the great commission: Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Hence, the Gentiles were now to be summoned and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.

2. But the Church was mighty slow in beginning any outreach to the Gentiles. While it is true that on the day of Pentecost people from every nation heard the sermon of Peter, and more than 3000 converted, they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, it seems that at first the Church did little to leave Jerusalem and go anywhere at all let alone to all the nations.

3. Perhaps as a swift kick in the pants the Lord allowed a persecution to break out in Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7). This caused the gospel to begin a northward trek, into Samaria at least. Samaritans, however, are not usually considered Gentiles, since they were a group that had intermarried with Jews in the 8th century B.C. There was also the baptism of an Ethiopian official, but he, too, was a Jew.

4. Fifteen Years? The timeline of Acts is a bit speculative. However, if we study it carefully and compare it to some of what Paul says (especially in Galatians), it would seem that it was 12 to 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile took place! If this is true then it is a disgrace. There was strong racial animosity between Jews and Gentiles, and that may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. It may explain it, but it does not excuse it.

5. Time for another kick in the pants. This time the Lord goes to Peter, who was praying on a rooftop in Joppa, and by means of a vision teaches him that he should not call unclean what God calls clean. The Lord then sends to Peter an entourage from Cornelius, a high Roman military official seeking baptism. Cornelius, of course, is a Gentile. The entourage requests that Peter accompany them to meet Cornelius at Cesarea. At first, he is reluctant. But then recalling the vision (kick in the pants) that God gave him, Peter decides to go. In Cesarea, he does something unthinkable: Peter, a Jew, enters the house of a Gentile. He has learned his lesson and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just. After a conversation with Cornelius and the whole household, as well as signs from the Holy Spirit, Peter baptizes them. Praise the Lord! It was about time. (All of this is detailed in Acts 10.)

6. Many are not happy with what Peter has done and they confront him on it. Peter explains his vision and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, insisting that this is how it is going to be. And while it is true that these early Christians felt freer to question Peter than we would the Pope today, it is also a fact that what Peter has done is binding even if some of them don’t like it; what Peter has done will stand. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically, “God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)

7. Trouble is brewing. So, the mission to the Gentiles is finally open. But that does not mean that the trouble is over. As Paul, Barnabas, and others begin to bring in large numbers of Gentile converts, some among the Jewish Christians begin to object that they are not like Jews and insist that the Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the whole of Jewish Law—not just the moral precepts but also the cultural norms, kosher diet, purification rites, etc. (That is where we picked up the story in yesterday’s Mass.)

8. The Council of Jerusalem – Luke, a master of understatement, says, “Because there arose no little dissension and debate …” (Acts 15:2) it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet. Of course Peter is there, as is James, who was especially prominent in Jerusalem among the Apostles and would later become bishop there. Once again, Luke rather humorously understates the matter by saying, “After much debate, Peter arose” (Acts 15:7).

Peter arises to settle the matter since, 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. And 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. And 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!

What new thing is this? Thank you for another opportunity to expose papal propaganda for the specious polemcal eisegesis that it is!.

He has learned his lesson and as the first Pope has been guided by God to do what is right and just.

There simply is no Roman papacy here, while what he preaches is the evangelical gospel; not that of Rome!

. Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically, “God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)

More eisegesis. Peter does not answered them definitively, which is language used for formally defining a matter of faith and morals, but simply explains his actions by describing what happened in response to preaching the gospel. Which was that " To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) Which happened before baptism.

Once Peter has answered them definitively, they reluctantly assent and declare somewhat cynically, “God has granted life giving repentance even to the Gentiles!” (Acts 11:18)

Nothing here infers cynicism.

it was decided to ask the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to gather and consider the matter. So the Apostles and some presbyters (priests) with them meet.

Note that Peter did not call the council, while there were no NT priests as presbuteros are never called hierus, the fallacy of which was just refuted here on another current thread, by God's grace.

Peter arises to settle the matter...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.

Rather, Peter gives his testimony and consequent exhortation to assent to the evangelical gospel, which Paul also already held to, by which souls were regenerated and their hearts were purified by faith before baptism. Yet there was no attempt to argue from Scripture or oral tradition, nor language such as befits an infallible decree, and Instead of this being set forth as the definitive sentence, it was an exhortation.

And as the matter was not yet settled, Paul and Barnabas added their confirmatory testimony. And then after they had held their peace, James answered and provided Scriptural argumentation confirmatory of Peter and Paul, showing this event as fulfilling prophecy, and then James alone gave the definitive sentence as to what should be done, with Scriptural restrictions. And which sentence all concurred with, rather than Peter's word being the final judgment which settled the debate.

And in no case was all the church looking to either Peter, James or Paul as the supreme infallible authorities, but even the sentence of James was more a proposal, which looked for the confirmatory consent of the faithful on the weight of Scriptural substantiation, versus the veracity resting upon the p novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

At a council, a decision is made and a decree binding on the whole Church is sent out—very Catholic, actually.

The Mormons could claims as much, but as with them, the papacy of Rome and her priests are not Scriptural, nor is her premise of her presumed perpetual magisterial infallibility.

We have kept this Biblical model ever since that first council.

Since the Biblical model did not involve the church looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over all the church, Rome can only claim to be the predecessor of so many sola ecclesia cults.

Our Protestant brethren have departed from it because they have no pope to settle things when there is disagreement.

And as Rome pseudo-apostles fail of both the qualifications and credentials of the real manifest ones of God, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) then it is she which has departed from the Biblical model.

Nor does Scripture ever record or teach any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) nor teach of any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

But as Scripture only teaches of presbuteros being continually ordained as overseers of the church, (Acts 20:28; 1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) so evangelicals ordain these. And as Acts 15 teaches the principle of corporate judgment under leadership, so are they to exercise the same.

The unity under the Roman model of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity a is cultic, not Scriptural. And while a centralized is ideal, the limited degree of Scriptural NT unity was under Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with men who could say they were, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God,... By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left... (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)

The disunity of today is a judgment for lacking this manner of holy men.

When no one is pope, everyone is pope.

Wrong. When no one is pope, then no one is pope, which is NT Scriptural, versus holy men, if not possessing ensured formulaic infallibility. For again, the church did not look to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome over all the church. Which instead was something that developed, much taking upon the form of the Roman empire in which it found itself. Even Catholic scholars, among others, provide evidence against the RC propaganda.

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.

.Such fantasy may comfort the ignorant or devout, but the fact is the Rome is hardly a model of unity. Consider the disunity than can result under the premise of God guiding the church in matters of faith and morals thru the pope, not unchanging Scripture being supreme.

Meanwhile, you left out what can happen when Rome loses her cultic control, and what happened prior to the needed, if imperfect, Reform-ation in the light of RC deformation :

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution."

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

As for modern times, as one poster wryly commented: The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

And consider the disunity than can result under the premise of God guiding the church in matters of faith and morals thru the pope, not unchanging Scripture being supreme./

Rather, God never provided or needed ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility in order to discern Truth or preserve Faith, and in fact the church began in dissent from those whom, like Rome, presumed of themselves above that which was written.

But laymen recognized what was of God without an infallible mag., and God often raised up men from without the magisterium to preserve faith, and thus the church began and has continued as the body of Christ.

The Biblical model has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, with the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome being a cultic substitute.

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.