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!
Toot Toot!!
Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 "'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18 things known from long ago.19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas
36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Catholics, they’re nothing if not gullable.
Wipes out two of Roman Catholicism’s main tenants....idols of Mary and consuming blood at Mass....though this will be denied.
I wonder to whom that applied?
When a story goes to screen; some things change.
When asked; most folks say, "I liked the book better."
There was a young lady from Rome,
that had crucifixes at home.
When she was asked, “Why?”
She replied, “I’ll just DIE!”
If ELSIE turns this into a poem!”
I have been meaning to watch one of his videos. I’ve heard him on radio sometimes and seems rather soft-spoken yet authoritative. Interesting mix.
Self-ping.
For later study by myself.
I seem to recall someone posting on one of these Catholic vs Protestant threads a list of times where Paul spoke authoritatively. (?)
I have been meaning to look into that as well, if you or anyone has such a list thanks in advance.
I was going to post this on another thread, but it has been locked -
There was a FReeper from Tennessee,
Who tried his hand at poetry.
But try as he might,
He did not get it quite right,
Help him out, Mark17 and Elsie.
Good one, Rich! You have a knack.
Catholic apologists at FR just love this pus-laden lie: “The Church—Catholic from the start!”
Amazing how trhis priest cites the Council at Jerusalem, yet ignores the admonition issued therefrom against blood! Typical twisted catholiciism work for satan.
Catholicism is not Christianity, and MAgic Thinking is the hallmark of the Catholicism religion, so twisting truth to fit the cult is to be expected. And in typical cultish style the adherents to that cult insult and malign those who point out the differences. Rejoice brother, Jesus told us this was the future of HIS CHURCH. Catholicims ain’t HIS CHURCH, HIS body of believers born from above contending for the faith once delivered.
You mean, who is going to bring Pope and his fans to account for reinterpreting as in this thread the Holy Scripture? That credits Simon for chairing this council rather than James? For a council that was inaugurated to deal with Judaizers undercutting Paul's evangelization of the Gentiles, which was within his purview and not Simon's?
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9 AV; 'they' and not Kefas alone).
Nothing like imputing ignorance and ill will to those who reasonably see things otherwise, eh?
Wasn't it Paul that verbally and effectively took Peter (= Kephas, meaning 'hollow rock') to the woodshed and soundly spanked him before the authorities of the Antioch assembly for doing exactly the opposite of what Peter finally later admitted to the Jerusalem church?
"But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal 2:14 AV).
Why do y'all do such things to twist the truth that is given to us in the Scriptures? And expect that the Bible believers not legitimately straighten the matter out?
If Pope is not bumbling, then he is likely deliberately misrepresenting the annals of the Acts of the Apostles.
In fact, I see that the result of this local church council was caused by the Antioch church exercising discipline on the Jerusalem church, who ought not to have been sending out representatives that undermined the Pauline effort, including Peter, who even tried to dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team authorized by the Holy Spirit through the doctrinally correct Antiochans to send them out as missionaries.
"As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (Act 13:2 AV).
While they were away, and Peter came to Antioch:
"And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation" (Gal 2:13 AV).
So, what do you make of that?
Or this that not in your history book?
Not in mine, neither in the New Testament text received by all early Christians and compiled by the RCC priest Desiderius Erasmus, nor in my Crown-Authorized English Version that is based on Erasmus' text.
How about supplying the verse(s)from the Greek New Testament that have a "pope" in them. And please, please do not try to pass off Jesus' words to Simon bar Jona in Matthew 16:18 as your excuse. That did not even fly with the patristics, and most certainly Peter's fellow disciple/apostles would not have said so.
"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall
of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby: . . ." (Eph. 2:13-16 AV).
And so they had to send out genuine representatives to acknowlege their coming into line wth the Scriptural template already laid out to the church at Antioch; that is, his gospel taught to him by The Christ, and NOT by the other disciple-apostles:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(Gal 1:11-12 AV).
The Jerusalem church was not the source of Paul's teaching of the doctrine of independence of each church from others, and their autonomous status. It was the gospel given to him apart from the Jerusalem congregation that was preached to, and followed by the early, predominantly Gentile, local churches. This is clearly seen in the New Testament local and general epistles.
They. were. not. protestants.
They were Bible believers, as it was effected amongst them through oral and written instructions.
That was Jesus restoring him from the status of one who had denied him six times the night and the early dawn preceding the crucifixion. The other disciples already had been doing that for many months, and just continued what they had been assigned to do: preaching and practicing the Gospel. But Simon had fallen to another class of humans:
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father
which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."
(Mt. 10:32-33 AV).
Isn't that why he wept bitterly after his sixth instance of denial? But on the shores of Galilee, Jesus essentially asked him, "Simon of Jona, do you love me more than these?" (That is, prefer my fellowship above your own preoccupations and that of others.)
This whole process recorded in John 21 amounted to Jesus restoring him from his fall from faith to his original place among the apostles He had chosen, not above them!
Sal, what is your problem with this? Don't tell us that something is in the Bible. Prove you've read and thoroughly understand what is in it that you are referring to. So many times, you do not seem to.
If you want to be credible, start exercising some scholarship, eh?
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.