It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 05-17-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

Msgr. Charles Pope • May 17, 2017 •

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.

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). The Gentiles were now to be summoned and included in the ranks of discipleship and of the Church.
2. 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 Peter’s sermon, and more than 3000 converted, they were all Jews (Acts 2). In fact, there seems little evidence of the Church moving far from Jerusalem 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, because 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 between 12 and 15 years before the baptism of the first Gentile took place! If this is true, then another nudge or push from the Lord was surely needed. There was strong racial animosity between Jews and Gentiles, which may explain the slow response to Jesus’ commission. Although it may explain it, it does not excuse it. However, the Lord does not fail to guide His Church.
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 (the 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 about it. Peter explains his vision and also the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, insisting that this is how it is going to be. 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. 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 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!

[boatbums]

Too many take their religious position,
Based mainly upon their tradition.
It would be quite right,
Should they put up a fight.
To point them to the Great Physician.

Eh? My first try. ;o)

[Mark17]

Els meister, it would appear we have, shall we say, some competition, no? Someone is trying to horn in on our lucrative, exclusive, Limerick writing business. What are we to do? Grade her, or encourage her? 😆😃😄
Good work BB, on your first one. May you conjure up many more. 😃😊😁

[Elsie]

Can we identify with some person, born into a non-religious family in the USA, being 'educated' in a public school; hearing and seeing Ancient Aliens on cable; being bombarded from all sides by varying isms, cults, the Truth, politicians, headlines, bylines, and FR?

What's he to make of it all?

[Elsie]

What's he to make of it all?

Where are the compelers today?

---

Luke 14:23

And the master said to the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled

[Elsie]

Ya got the rhyming, the pacing and the Message down.

You are good to go; Brother!

[Elsie]

Son; you need a BIBLE lesson!

---

(and from your namesake no less!)

---

Mark 9:38-41

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

[Elsie]

UH.... Sister.

[Mark17]

In other words, we should encourage BB, to continue on her way. 👍

[imardmd1]

Butting in here, . . .

No butting perceived, but rather a welcomed participation in the matter at hand. Thanks for your view!

it was not the Jerusalem leadership that sent out Paul and Barnabas

Perhaps, reading through, my point to that effect was not made clearly enough.

I do not think Gal. 2 happened before Acts 15

We might not agree on this, but the timeline that I feel is played out comes from Luke, whose writings are deliberately sequential:

-- In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas are sent out
-- In Acts 14, their return back through the sites of their first trip out to and among the Celts
of Galatia, arriving at their sending home church Antioch of Syria.
-- While there, Paul hears reports from the Gaulites, and writes the letter to them that we have,
concerning their response to Judaizers that followed P & B around (?).
-- Their stopover at Antioch is noted in Acts 14:26-28, and the tiff with Simon was included in that letter. That must have happened before Paul, Barnabas, and other witnesses from Antioch went to confront the Jerusalem leaders about the Judaizers emanating from Judea.
-- Also, Simon must have decamped and gone back to Jerusalem beforehand; for what purpose is not clear.

I'd appreciate your view of how Acts 15 came before Acts 14 and the letter to the Galatians.

[daniel1212]

I'd appreciate your view of how Acts 15 came before Acts 14 and the letter to the Galatians.

Obviously Acts 15 did not come before Acts 14, and likely the visit to Acts 14:26-28 includes the Gal. 2 so that Acts 15 came later, and what I was thinking of is a re Acts 10 coming before Gal. 2, wherein he had attested "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

Thus Peter already knew he could and should have fellowshipped with the Gentiles, and that "Peter's declension was one of weakness, of fear (been there), but this was a rare exception, and inconsistent with his professed belief and support of Paul," versus trying to "dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team," which was my actual contention.

[daniel1212]

Even the Orthodox Churches don’t believe that tale - never have and never will.

Indeed, for though they hold to many of the same unscriptural traditions of men . Roman papal supremacy and infallibility is not one of them. See what http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx provides about the latter.

[imardmd1]

“dissolving the P/B team” was my conjecture, and I should have said so. But the team really was dissolved, and Barnabas was not heard of thenceforth from the John Mark episode. Interesting that Mark became essentially Peter’s amanuensis later on. Somebody had/has a burr under the saddle, and Peter has been it for two millenia.

[metmom]

Els meister, it would appear we have, shall we say, some competition, no?

I would say so.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I believe you’re suppressing a vocation to be a canon lawyer :o)

[Mrs. Don-o]

My opinion.

[imardmd1]

Let me answer your Post #136 in two parts.

========= Part I ==========

I wrote:

the Greek verb "harpadzo" meaning "to snatch away":

Expanding on this, it is the sense of removing something or someone suddenly and forcefully that the word "harpadzo" confers to an action. Several words or phrases in English can describe the action, and are chosen by the translator to be consistent with the context. First, those words are the ones defining the Greek word:

==========

Strong's Number G0726

ἁρπάζω
harpazō
har-pad'-zo

Strong's Definition:
From a derivative of G138; to seize (in various applications): -
catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force).

Thayer Definition:
1) to seize, carry off by force
2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3) to snatch out or away
Part of Speech: verb
============

Then, the verses in which harpadzo is used, followed by the Latin equivalent from the Vulgate Bible, then thirdly by the English as in the Authorized Version are as follows: Mt. 11:12, αρπαζουσιν ; rapiunt ; to (violently) take by force
Mt. 13:19, αρπαζει ; rapit ; to catch away
Jn. 6:15; αρπαζειν ; raperent ; to take by force
Jn. 19:12; αρπαζει ; rapit ; to (suddenly) catch
Jn. 10:28; αρπασει ; rapiet ; to pluck out
Jn. 10:29; αρπαζειν ; rapere (infinitive form) ; to pluck out
Acts 8:39; ηρπασεν ; rapuit ; to catch away
Acts 23:10; αρπασαι ; rapere ; to take by force
2 Cor. 12:2; αρπαγεντα ; raptum ; to be caught up
2 Cor. 12:4; ηρπαγη ; raptus ; to catch up, or be caught up
1 Thess 4:7; αρπαγησομεθα ; rapiemur ; to be caught up
Jude 1:23; αρπαζοντες ; rapientes ; to (suddenly) pull out
Rev. 12:5; ηρπασθη ; raptus ; to be caught up, to catch up
===========

harpadzo is found 33 times in the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Greek Bible.
============

The meaning of the Latin verb "rapere" in terms of English word use:

Source: "William Whitaker's Words" (University of Notre Dame)

rap.ere ; V 3 1 PRES ACTIVE INF 0 X
rap.ere ; V 3 1 PRES PASSIVE IMP 2 S
rapio, rapere, rapui, raptus V [XXXAX]

drag off; snatch; destroy; seize, carry off; pillage; hurry;

Source: "Online Latin Dictionary"

rapio = verb form first person present active; rapere = infinitive

1 to drag off
2 to snatch
3 to destroy
4 to seize, to carry off
5 to pillage
6 to hurry

===========

Source: "Latdict"

rapio, rapere, rapui, raptus

verb
conjugation: 3rd conjugation
Definitions:
1. destroy
2. drag off
3. hurry
4. pillage
5. seize, carry off
6. snatch
Age: In use throughout the ages/unknown
Area: All or none
Geography: All or none
Frequency: Very frequent, in all Elementry Latin books, top 1000+ words
Source: General, unknown or too common to say
=========

Now, as far as expressing what the "rapture"--a theological concept and event, the pertinent definition from the Webster's New International Dictionary (Unabridged) 1981 is:

3 a : a carrying of a person to heaven
3 b : Christ's raising up of his true church and its members to a realm above
the earth where the whole company will enjoy celestial bliss with its Lord

(Note: This event we are discussing is not some kind of emotional or ecstatic overwhelming feeling, like some religious people seem to experience. That would be another kind of rapture, not the one described in 1 Thessalonians 4/l17.)
========

You say:

The rapture is a modern teaching that was not part of the tradition of the one holy catholic apostolic church.

The teaching is not modern. It is so obviously verbal and literal to the Thessalonians, and from then on to anyone possessing the Scriptures, that it cannot p[ossibly be considered a "modern" teaching. It is true that the RCC denomination has withheld information from its constituents so that they are quite ignorant of the event in which the saved of Christ will all be called out of this temporal dimension at some point in time, and each true believer rejoined to his/her own spiritual body for all time and eternity.

Also obviously, this is known to the lexicographers of the English language, isn't it? If you have not been spiritually taught in this doctrine, your teachers are without excuse (Rom. 1:16-20).

======= end of Part I =======

[Elsie]

I would say so.

Somewhere between the Three Musketeers and the Three Stooges; I suspect.

[MHGinTN]

Wow, that was so good, can't wait for Part 2! [ 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. ... I'll explain that more deeply, if requested, but I have a feeling you're going to do it better than I could stumble through. ]

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for that quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility vs Divine Inspiration. Scripture is directly divinely inspired in a manner which is unique. Other statements, whatever their level of authority, are not.

[af_vet_1981]

The teaching is not modern. It is so obviously verbal and literal to the Thessalonians, and from then on to anyone possessing the Scriptures, that it cannot possibly be considered a "modern" teaching.

Although I assumed this was obvious
1. It is not a modern teaching, if and only if, the rapture is the trumpet at the Second Coming
2. pretrib, midtrib, Third Coming, etc. are modern teachings
3. The Messiah returns and the dead rise with those living rising after them at that same time.
4. No two and a half advents, two and three quarter advents, three advents.
5. Two advents, birth and return,