It Is The Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us - A Teaching on the Catholicity of the Early Church

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 05-14-20 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Posted on May 14, 2020May 14, 2020 by Msgr. Charles Pope

It Is The Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Teaching on the Catholicity of the Early Church

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!

[cloudmountain]

In the three pillars topic: does the living magesterium include the current pope Francis???

You know it does.

If Pope Francis were so horrible then you must blame ALL THE CURRENT CARDINALS who voted him in. He wasn't self appointed. He was ELECTED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_cardinals

[Zuriel]

Well, then the current third pillar doesn’t seem to have much respect for the first two pillars. Maybe the current third pillar’s condition was enabled by centuries of misuse of the first two pillars. (imho)

[Salvation]

She liked to stay in the background.

[Salvation]

Wrong. Where do protestants get this idea. Peter was the person put in charge by Jesus.

[Salvation]

Wrong. Are you saying that Jesus was wrong when he gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter and put him in charge of the Apstles?

[smvoice]

How do you jump the shark so easily? I’m saying there never WAS a pope. That if James was HEAD of the Council at Jerusalem, then obviously James was HEAD over Peter. Did Peter let James “play” HEAD? it’s to attempt to show you that God’s word does not contradict itself.

[ealgeone]

She liked to stay in the background.

Now that's comical...and about one of the worst apologetics I've read on these forums.

[ealgeone]

Wrong. Are you saying that Jesus was wrong when he gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter and put him in charge of the Apstles?

Comical again and incorrect on so many levels.

******

6But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:6-9 NASB

[ealgeone]

She liked to stay in the background.

You're good at posting the RCC talking points....but your not good at apologetics on your own.

[cloudmountain]

Well, then the current third pillar doesn’t seem to have much respect for the first two pillars. Maybe the current third pillar’s condition was enabled by centuries of misuse of the first two pillars. (imho)

Is this based on your knowledge of the Magesterium? Who is on it now that you don't like or trust? Have you read what the various cardinals have published? Do you know what their opinions are? What of those publications do you find offensive?

You separate the Pillars like they are a loaf of bread. They are all intertwined and have existed intertwined for 2000 years. They wouldn't have continued so long if they weren't genuine. The Holy Scripture goes back to Moses, 1291 B.C. How can you rate his words from God?

What do you know of the misuses over the last 2000 years? Or is it that you just "don't like" Pope Francis and therefore pin all the 2000 years of errors on ONE person?
You aren't making much sense and your thinking seems to be incomplete, scattered and biased.
Thank you for your thoughts anyway.

Pax tibi.

[cloudmountain]

You’re telling us that MARY, the RCC “CO-REDEMPTRESS, THE QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE(acc.to the RCC), THE “THROAT BETWEEN THE BODY AND THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH the BODY OF CHRIST(acc.to RCC) could have been there and just not mentioned?!?!! This tops the pile of ridiculous excuses that the RCC has foisted on gullible, too lazy to look for the truth members.

You seem to expect Mary to be included in everything. Since when are YOU a critic of the Bible, what should be and what shouldn't be included?

Who made YOU Mary's critic? I thought that these were the WORDS OF GOD given to mortal men to write down for the world to know of God, His only Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?

Do you really think that YOU deserve to criticize the Bible, who's in it, when s/he should or should not be in it?

That seems to be a whole lot of arrogance, PRIDE, the first and the worst of the seven deadly sins...if you even know what they are. And, guess what? They were enumerated by POPE GREGORY I, yet another Pope. Oh dear.

Protestants sure didn't do it. They didn't even EXIST until ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS after Jesus rose from the dead.

AND Protestantism began with an excommunicated Roman Catholic priest. So YOUR faith was founded by a Catholic outcast. Father Luther spent almost his entire life as a devoted servant of the Catholic Church. He was a BRILLIANT man but suffered from pride. He had many chances to recant but his stubborn pride showed that he listened to Satan.
SATAN would be the only being who would want to destroy Jesus' Church.
But, as usual, Satan failed. God KNEW that Lucifer would betray Him. God allowed Satan his free will. Satan chose Hell.

Excommunicated Father Martin Luther listened to Satan and tried to destroy Jesus' Church. He failed.
There are 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the world, as of 2013.

PAX TIBI!

[ealgeone]

You seem to expect Mary to be included in everything.

Perhaps because Roman Catholic writers have advanced this narrative.

[ealgeone]

Seven deadly sins?? LOL...all sin is deadly.

[smvoice]

Lol! That’s rich..coming from a religious system whose very religion comes entirely from traditions and doctrines of men. The Bible is added to or taken from in order to justify every one of your beliefs. Do not lecture me about the Bible, sir. You aren’t familiar enough with it, it seems

[cloudmountain]

Seven deadly sins?? LOL...all sin is deadly.

Murder is worse then taking your brother's dessert off his plate.

NOT ALL SINS are the same. There IS mortal sin (murder) and venial sin (taking your brother's dessert)
But, you know that.

Or do you really believe that both of those sins are equal and deserving of hell, everlasting punishment?

[smvoice]

You’re bragging about the size of your church? Paul said “we dare not make of ourselves a number”. Do you think numbers mean correctness? How do you square with muslims?

[cloudmountain]

You seem to expect Mary to be included in everything.
Perhaps because Roman Catholic writers have advanced this narrative

What do you mean by "advanced this narrative"--?
How does one "advance a narrative" about Mary?

[ealgeone]

Or do you really believe that both of those sins are equal and deserving of hell, everlasting punishment?

23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23 NASB

[ealgeone]

Roman Catholics like to claim big numbers when it's convenient for their argument. However, bring up Nanzi Pelozi, Biden, Kennedy, etc and they will disclaim them in a heartbeat.

Hate to break it to the RCs, but God is not impressed with numbers.

[ealgeone]

One just reads Roman Catholic writings on the topic.