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!
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....
There is nothing distinctively Roman Catholic in Acts 15, and the Reinterpretation Train is that of Rome, and it is RC who bumble through some retelling of straight forward history to make it seem as much Roman catholic as possible..
Consider,.
1. Rather than Peter being looked to as the supreme infallible pope reigning supreme over the church from Rome, this council was not called for by Peter, who never calls any council, in contrast to Paul, who when he was come from Miletus "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." (Acts 20:17)
Nor did the Paul and Barnabas decide to see the pope, but they determined that they and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders plural about this question. (Acts 15:2)
2. Peter, as the street-level leader among the 11, and the first to use the keys to the kingdom - which is the gospel, by faith in which one is translated into the kingdom (Col. 1:13) - does indeed rise to give his testimony and exhortation as to what should be done. But Peter did not provide the final judgment as to what should be done, and settle the matter.
Instead, after the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, it is James who provides the conflative and Scripturally substantiated final judgment as to what should be done, to which all assent and concludes the matter.
3. What Peter affirmed as the saving grace of God was the evangelical gospel, that,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
Thus they heard the word of the gospel, and believed, and the hearts of these lost seekers were purified by faith, and they received the Holy Spirit, all before baptism, which then followed. (Acts 10:47)
4. Rome is nowhere in this picture as the chief church, and the judgment is sent to "the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia."
5. No ordained Catholic priests were present (anywhere), since there was no separate class of sacerdotal believers distinctively called by the same distinctive name (hiereus) which identified such OT clergy, as instead all believers constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Thus (married) Peter is more an evangelical preacher here than a Catholic one. In addition, there were no manifest apostolic successors voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)
Neither were these Gentiles told to particularly submit to Peter nor is this seen in any letters to churches.
“Peter was the First Pope. Or this that not in your history book?”
Not even in Scripture.
Nor has the chain been unbroken.
Peter was the leader. Christ gave him the keys of the kingdom and told him to feed his sheep, tend his lambs and feed his lambs. It’s in the Bible.
“It’s in the Bible”
Nah. I know you were taught this, Salvation, but it’s a tale made up later.
Even the Orthodox Churches don’t believe that tale - never have and never will.
There’s no pope as a NT church office in any list of offices in Scripture.
Daniel1212 does a very good job on Acts 15 just a few posts before this showing Peter was not the leader.
Best to you.
Salvation, I encourage you to get a copy of the Word and read Acts for yourself. No study aids. No Catholic talking points. Just read the Word.
Good work again, brother!
Except that wasn't what that first council did. They ALL agreed that the Holy Spirit guided their decision concerning the Gentiles. There was no "Pope" and Peter certainly did not have the authority to resolve the debate and make a decision that binds ALL Christians. In fact, James, as the head of the Jerusalem assemblies, summarized the decision they had all reached and wrote the letter to be communicated to all the other assemblies.
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 Roman Catholic church presumes too much. As we can plainly see throughout their history, the Holy Spirit was NOT speaking "with" them especially in the areas of Biblical canon, indulgences, submission of all to the Pope of Rome being necessary for salvation, the doctrine of justification by faith changed, the observance of the Lord's Supper being changed to a expiatory sacrifice, etc. etc.
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.
Hogwash! I'm surprised he even said that. The "Biblical model" is that the Bible is the source for truth and ALL are to be in submission to God's revealed word - what was handed down to ALL believers from the Apostles. When any church presumes to invent doctrine not found in sacred Scripture and make it mandatory on all Christendom to accept and receive it under threat of excommunication, they have gone beyond that which is written and forsaken God's commands that leaders must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
I rate this article of Pope's to be poor and intentionally provocative to all faithful Christians outside of Rome's doors. He should apologize.
Which I imagine was your intention for posting it. I think you LIKE and enjoy stirring up dissension among Freepers. Yuck it up!
They do so love their myths, don’t they?
Nailed it!!!
Except today there IS a complete Bible, translated into thousands of languages and most people CAN read. Add to that the indwelling Holy Spirit within each believer who will guide us into all truth. Why, then, is this three-legged stool still in place? Don't you realize you have placed tradition and the magisterium on the same level of authority as the Divinely-inspired Scriptures? Jesus came down pretty hard on the Jews for doing the same thing, you know.
That's Rome's fictionalized Netflix version. Jesus gave ALL the Apostles the keys to kingdom - it was the GOSPEL! It's in the Bible.
Please notice....NOTHING James said and the council agreed to by the leading of the Holy Spirit could not be found already in Holy Scripture (the books of Moses). They did not invent any new doctrines and hold everyone to believing them under penalty of excommunication or hell.
The last thread was shut down after a thousand or so posts because of “childishness”. I wonder how long this one will go before someone gets their knickers in a knot? Some folks just can’t seem to bear to hear their vaunted “history” get challenged!
Which I imagine was your intention for posting it.
She has been doing this for some time now, possibly several years. Most of the posts draw little interest, attracting less than ten comments. But some articles do provoke a strong response. This is one of them.
I do hope you viewed the video. I believe we can all agree that it is an accurate depiction of the events described in Acts 15. I, too, thought it was excellent.
Like Catholics aren’t?
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.
Good luck getting a straight answer to THAT one.
I’ve been trying for years and not gotten one yet.
I'm also not a fan of the tit for tat childish stuff that goes on as well.
I like the open discussion that some of these threads generate. Some more than others.
We all need to be reminded of the RM's position on the open threads....I paraphrase....because religion is personal to us, when challenged we may get our feelings hurt. If you're unable to handle the discussion stay in the caucus threads.
I look forward to continuing open and educational discussion.
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.