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!

[daniel1212]

“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.

A fight in the team dugout btwn two good and determined (Barnabas determined to take with them John), men, likely with different gifts besides commonly held ones. Perhaps the same kind of heart that led Barnabas seek out Paul and bring him to the wary disciples is what led him to see Paul as too demanding, but Paul the leader could not risk taking on a solider who went AWOL once, and i Scripture affirms his leadership.

The paradox is that while Acts is mostly about reconciling corporate division (though it did not end, yet one side was now officially reproved), it also testifies to division btwn a team of of men whose mission and testimony helped rectify this corporate division.

Yet as often with Prot divisions btwn those who love God and His truth, this cell division likely resulted in a greater increase of souls being reaped, though such should come out of core unity of heart and mind.

But it was Peter who wrote,

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Thus the first "pope" foretold of so much RC (if not alone) abuse of Scripture.

[imardmd1]

. . . unlearned . . .

amatheteuo

undiscipled

So many undiscipled "believers" today

liable to twist the word

I appreciate your insights.

[imardmd1]

Two advents, birth and return, . . .

And two phases to each of them.

But you're jumping ahead of Part 2. Advent 1 had a private phase and later on a public one.

In this second advent, the Messiah will come privately for His saints, then after the marriage feast with His Bride, He will return with His saints, and every eye will see Him.

[MHGinTN]

The Camp of Hebrews, escaped from Egypt, headed out when the last trump sounded.

You have posted an opinion, probably the opinion taught to you by your religious organization or endorsed by them. Can they show you what Paul taught the Thessalonians, to which he referred in the 1 Thess letter? Well, no they have no more clue than you or I, except we can piece together a likely list of things because we have Paul's other letters and the 2 Thess letter.

Also, if you read your Bible carefully, you will notice that Paul says 'the dead in Christ rise first (at the Rapture event), then the alive remaining folks IN CHRIST are caught up together with the suddenly risen members of the EKKLESIA into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. ... The Bride goes to meet the Bridegroom.

A proper reading of Revelations reveals the Bride of Christ returns with HIM at the end of the Tribulation. The dead both great and small are resurrected at the end of the Age of the Reign of Christ and His bride, to face judgment and be sorted. IF you want to be in that last crowd, just keep poo pooing the Rapture and scoffing at God's Word, you'll strive right into the Great White Throne of Judgment.

A careful reading of Daniel 9 also reveals a gap between Messiah's First coming and HIS return to deal finally with Israel. The gap ends and evangelization upon the Earth is then tasked to JEWS who then know precisely when Messiah will set foot again upon the Earth, at the end of the 7 years of Jacob's Trouble.

Here is a resource where you can begtin to educate yourself on The Rapture. Maybe we will see you in the clouds even yet!

[af_vet_1981]

And two phases to each of them.

I did not find the word "phase" in the scriptures. Which Hebrew or Greek word in which scripture passage is the basis for your theory ?

Summary:
1. First Advent : He was born on earth
2. Second Advent : He will return to earth
3. Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians specifically mentions "by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him" shall not occur except "there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed"
4. The second advent occurs first, or together with "our gathering together unto him"
5. Are you claiming the "falling away" is the rapture ?

[ealgeone]

We’ve asked numerous times for what else Paul taught but to date no Catholic as been able to provide us with anything.

[MHGinTN]

And the typical response is to offer a rabbit trail, like #5 in the post just before yours.

[daniel1212]

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.

A substantial distinction and contrary Charles Pope. The word of God is more than simply being assuredly correct, as due to its full inspiration "the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

Which places it in a class by itself, above the mere words of men, thanks be to God.

[boatbums]

I may be a one-and-done limmericker. No worries on the competition threat! ;o)

[af_vet_1981]

IF you want to be in that last crowd, just keep poo pooing the Rapture and scoffing at God's Word, you'll strive right into the Great White Throne of Judgment.

Some follow the bridge rule regarding one holding a contrary view concerning the rapture.

Emo Philips:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

[Elsie]

The Messiah returns and the dead rise with those living rising after them at that same time.

Would THESE be the Dead in Christ?

[Elsie]

Or not.

They sneak up on you when you least expect them.

[Elsie]

IF you want to be in that last crowd, just keep poo pooing the Rapture and scoffing at God's Word, you'll strive right into the Great White Throne of Judgment.

Where it appears we'll ALL be; if you can believe the Scriptures...

---

Revelation 20:11-15
"Then I saw a great White Throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and THE BOOKS WERE OPENED.

Another book was opened WHICH IS THE BOOK OF LIFE. The dead were judged according to their works as recorded in the books.

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to their works. 

Then death and Hades were thrown into the Lake of Fire.

The Lake of Fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

[MHGinTN]

No, Els, you and I will have been snatched away long before that ... the dead IN CHRIST rise first, then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. The scene you quote is much later, and those are not ‘the dead in Christ’ for they are being resurrected for judgment.

[daniel1212]

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. Rather, as manifested, it is as history is recounted, and the early church’s catholicity is made to support "Catholic ecclesiology" = "presided over by the Pope," "the Pope resolves the debate," "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," decrees and doctrines that issue forth from councils of the bishops with the Pope are inspired by and authored by the Holy Spirit Himself."

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.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“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??”

[imardmd1]

I already told you that you are jumping in advance of Part 2. Do you want information, or do you just intend to move ahead with a closed mind rather than keep your mind open and search the Scriptures to see if it be so?

And if you intend to use the information as a springboard to argue with a closed mind, your approach is not worthy of preparing a lesson, since no learning will take place.

Choose.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“or do you just intend to move ahead with a closed mind rather than keep your mind open and search the Scriptures to see if it be so?

I think you described the extreme majority pretty well.

[af_vet_1981]

I already told you that you are jumping in advance of Part 2. Do you want information, or do you just intend to move ahead with a closed mind rather than keep your mind open and search the Scriptures to see if it be so?

I asked you a very simple question. You could answer
1. yes, the "falling away" is the rapture, or
2. no, the "falling away" is a great heresy.

[metmom]

Just following Rome’s example of how to deal with *heretics*.

Old habits die hard but fortunately outside of Catholicism, they do fall by the wayside.