Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.
Short question, potentially very long answer.
I'll try to focus briefly on some basics, beginning with the foundational matter of authority.
The Roman Catholic Church understands the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, as do we, but alongside the Bible, stands the authority of the tradition of the church, the decrees of its councils, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of its popes. Tradition, councils, and popes tell the faithful what the Scriptures teach and can add dogma to what the Scriptures teach (for example, the immaculate conception of Mary). We regard this as man exercising authority over the Word of God rather than sitting in humble submission before it.
In contrast, this is what we confess to the world in our Confession of Faith (a statement which we believe faithfully summarizes what the Bible teaches, but which is wholly derived from the Bible, subordinate to it, and may be corrected by it):
4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God....
6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men....
7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them....
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scripture")
With particular reference to the Church, we hold that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there are no princely rulers in the church, but elders and preachers gifted by the Spirit and called to rule and teach in local churches in subordination to the Word of God. Again, our Confession:
6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof." (WCF, Chapter 25, "Of the Church"; see Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, 1 Peter 5:2-4)
Christ is the King and only Lord of the church. He rules us by His Word, the Holy Spirit who first inspired it continuing to work now by enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the Scriptures. Elders and preachers are gifts He gives to the church to guide and help us understand and obey the Word, but they are not infallible.
Our Confession again,
1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (WCF, Chapter 30, "Of Church Censures"; see Acts 14:23, 20:17,28, Heb.13:7,17, Eph.4:11,12, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:17-21, etc.)
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures as occasion shall require. (WCF, 30.2)
1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as a commonly called synods or councils, and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. (WCF, Chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils")
2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministratiion, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. (WCF, 31.2)
3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (WCF, 31.3)
4. Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs ... [exceptions stated]" (WCF, 31.4)
A key point here is our understanding that church authorities are to act "ministerially" and based always on the Word of God. They cannot make laws in addition to God's revealed Word, but must labor to understand that Word properly and then declare it to the church and base their governing and disciplining actions upon it. We do not claim for any merely human governors of the church a magisterial authority.
From this fundamental difference in regard to authority and to the relative roles of the Bible, tradition, decrees of councils, and edicts of popes, flow the other differences. Why do Presbyterians not pray to Mary and the saints? Because the Bible nowhere tells us to do so; it is an invention by gradual accretion in the tradition of the church. And because, on the other hand, the Bible tells us that "there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," who is our Great High Priest, through whom we have boldness to come to God's throne of grace (1 Tim.2:5, Hebrews 4:14-16). Christ is all the intercessor we need (Heb.7:23-28).
There are fundamentally different approaches to worship, which might be summed up this way:
Roman Catholic:
Whatever the tradition and councils have given us is what we do in public worship.
Presbyterian:
We give to God in worship only what is revealed in His Word as pleasing to Him (see Lev.10:1-3, Exodus 20:4-6, Mark 7:1-8).
While we are looking at worship, we observe that Presbyterians differ fundamentally with Roman Catholics in regard to the Lord's Supper. We both agree that Christ Himself ordained the observance of communion by His church and that this involves bread and wine. From that point on we agree on almost nothing. But let me try to summarize:
Roman Catholics:
By the grace received in his ordination the priest has power to utter the words of consecration by which mere bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ for sacrifice on the altar, and by receiving this mystical body (and blood) of Christ the faithful receive Christ Himself bodily and His grace to wash them clean of all their sins.
Presbyterians:
(a). The minister is not a priest; Christ alone is our priest in the sense of interceding for us before God by sacrifice. The minister is a servant, who declares the Word so that the faithful may understand what is taking place.
(b). The power of the minister is to declare what the Scriptures teach, not to say words that change bread into Christ's body.
(c). The bread and wine symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. When Jesus at the Last Supper said to His disciples (of the bread), "This is My body which is broken for you", He was standing before them in His body, whole and intact. He meant this bread symbolizes My body. (When He said, "I am the door to the sheepfold," He was similarly speaking symbolically, or "I am the light of the world").
(d). There is no sacrifice of Christ on any altar, for He offered Himself once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26-28, 10:10). So perfect and acceptable was the sacrifice of the God-Man of Himself for sinners that no other sacrifice is required. When on the cross He said, "It is finished," He meant not only his suffering of death, but also His making atonement by His suffering. By that "one sacrifice for sins for all time," that "one offering." "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb.10:12,14). We hold it to be a great dishonor to Christ's once-for-all atoning work on Calvary to claim that His body and blood continue to be offered as sacrifice for sin. This is why we speak of the communion "table", not altar.
(e). The faithful receive Christ by faith, not physically. The elements are signs. They point to Christ and what He has done to atone for our sins. They point to Him also as our risen and living Savior and Lord who is present in His Church by the Holy Spirit, continuously offering Himself to believers. The bread and wine call us to draw near to Christ by faith, to receive forgiving and sanctifying grace from Him, to grow in our union with Him. But it is all spiritual and by faith.
I could go on listing differences, but two very important ones remain. I will deal with the most important last.
Presbyterians believe that God's Word is a sufficient revelation of His will for our lives (see above, Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, especilly Sections 6 and 7, and read 2 Timothy 3:15-17).
We think it is an arrogant usurpation of Christ's authority for church rulers to presume to have authority to add to His word rules and commands. Where does the Bible require ministers in Christ's church to be celibate? It doesn't, but rather teaches the opposite (1 Tim.3:2-5,12, see 1 Cor.9:5). But Catholic authority requires Catholic priests to take vows of celibacy, which are contrary to human nature and create terrible stumbling blocks leading to sin (which is now being plastered shamefully all over the public media). For centuries the Catholic Church told its people they must refrain from eating meat on Fridays; to do otherwise was sin. Now it's okay. It was a sin. Now it's not. The church says so. But the Bible does not say one word, except Colossians 2:20-23 (and 1 Timothy 4:1-5).
Appeal may be made to Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18), which read this way: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (and vice versa). There! The church officers make a binding decision on earth, and heaven will ratify it. But the passage actually says exactly the opposite. The second verbs in each case ("shall be bound" / "loosed"), are future perfect tenses, properly translated: "shall have been bound / loosed". So that the correct reading is: "Whatever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in heaven". That is, officers of the church on earth must base their decisions on what heaven has already determined. And what would that be? That would be what "Heaven," that is, God, has revealed by the Spirit in His Word, the Scriptures.
But the most important issue concerns salvation. We believe the Bible teaches that the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ and the perfect obedience of Christ, offered to His Father in our behalf and given to us as God's gift in the declaration of justification is all the basis for salvation that a sinner needs. See Romans 3:19-30, Philippians 3:2-9, Galatians 3:10-13, Romans 8:1-3. We believe that we receive this gift only by faith, Ephesians 2:8,9. Good works enter in as the fruit of saving faith, as its outworking in our lives. But the moment I throw myself on the mercy of God trusting in Christ's saving work for me, I am then and there and once and for all justified in God's sight and nothing I do after that in the way of good works can add to what Christ has done or to God's justification.
This has gone on quite long. As I noted at the beginning, your question is very short. Maybe you were looking for something other than what I have given you. But I do want to close with a few clarifications.
"Presbyterian": This is from the Greek word in the NT, presbyter, meaning elder. Presbyterian churches are churches which believe that Christ governs his church through the work of elders, a plurality of elders in each local church, and councils of the elders of the churches in a region or a nation.
Historically the "Presbyterian" churches were churches of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland and England that shared with other Protestant churches on the Continent a common understanding of Bible doctrine that is often referred to as "Reformed" (and historically associated with John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland). In the 1640s the pastors and teachers of the Church of England met to officially reform the English church in the light of Scripture. Among other things they spent several years writing the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. These have since been the defining documents of Presbyterian churches.
Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, many Presbyterian churches have wandered away from their Confession because, at bottom, they were accepting man-made philosophies and ideas as being more true than the Bible. So not all "Presbyterians" believe what I have given you above. But those who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and who still believe - as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does, by God's grace - the summary of its doctrines in the Westminster Confession, would agree with what I have told you.
I hope this is helpful to you. I have not meant in any way to offend, though sometimes stating things starkly can have that effect. I have tried to be clear about the differences, which is what you asked, and I cannot pretend that I do not think truth is on one side and not on the other. You, of course, may speak with equal frankness and I welcome a reply or further questions.
The Lord guide you in His paths of truth and righteousness. (DK)
”I am not competent to give an official answer.”
Mad Dawg, I didn’t suppose you to be a church official, but I thought you sufficiently conversant with Church Doctrine to provide a reasonably authoritative, if albeit layman’s, reply. My fault surely; a poor choice of terms.
”I'm thinking maybe you are thinking of the whole heretic barbecue thing.”
I prefer backyard barbecues, whether it be Texas style or KC style. If you’ll take the trouble to briefly examine my posting history (an exercise I don’t particularly recommend), you will see that I’ve consistently sought to defend the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization by observing (among other things) that, unlike Islamic lunatics and Marxist Atheists, we’ve learned to develop more civilized methods of persuasion than inquisitions, water dunking, and branding irons. But you apparently don’t consider me a part of “we,” and there really doesn’t seem to exist a “we” from your perspective.
What I sought from both of you was a confirmation that my thesis is reasonably correct. I suppose, to some degree, I have received that confirmation, but your remarks leave me with the impression that my participation is not welcome, since you obviously do not appear to consider ‘Protestants’ (spit) to be Christians, and consider Jews, likewise, beyond the pale. I really had not considered the proposition before perusing this thread, but apparently you do not recognize the existence of a Judeo-Christian tradition, much less exhibit a desire to defend it.
It appears that the Gelasian Decree was not written by Pope Gelasius I:
“Decretum Gelasianum
The most famous of pseudo-Gelasian works is the list “de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis” (”books to be received and not to be received”), the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, supposed to be connected to the pressures for orthodoxy during the pontificate of Gelasius and intended to be read as a decretal by Gelasius on the canonical and apocryphal books, which internal evidence reveals to be of later date. Thus the fixing of the canon of scripture has traditionally been attributed to Gelasius[6] and a non-historical Roman synod of 494 has been invented as the supposed occasion.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gelasius_I)
Thus, there appears to be no problem with Papal Infallibility in this matter.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article mentions nothing about the Assumption once being considered heretical, nor does the excellent Wikipedia article on this subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary).
Also, unless Pope Gelasius was speaking ex cathedra, the doctrine of papal infallibility does not come into play. Sort of like Pope Benedict’s current pronouncement about global climate change - his opinion, that’s all.
Here’s to hopes that God smiles on the Republic this coming year.
Well, maybe I’m too soft, but if they’re baptized and if they still think they love Jesus, the Son of God, then I still think they are just really messed up Xtians.
As to my answer about my lack of competence, having lived through the adolescence of my daughter I am not accustomed to anyone thinking I am competent at anything. As it happens I really don't know what we're supposed to do about excommunicated persons. I do remember that in the 39 Articles they are to be shunned, but I don't know were we stand on it. I am pretty much an autodidact on a lot of Catholic stuff, so I suffer the gaps autodidacts suffer. I shudda just said, "I dunno." That would have been just as true and clearer. Again. I am sorry.
As to the barbecue line, that just comes from some goofing around a few years ago when I suggested that an auto-da-fe was incomplete without marshmallows.
I am confused and at a loss to determine what I might have said that would lead you to believe I think Protestants aren't Christians. OR the Jewish stuff.
My church teaches me to refer to the Jews as my elder brothers in the faith, and I am happy to do so.
As to Protestants and Xty the full answer is lengthy and I've given it before, but here goes: If you are validly baptized you are a Christian and a member of the body of Christ, grafted into his death and rising. In some sense the old man is dead and the Spirit of Christ is in you. You are in the one and only Church.
In that sense, speaking scandalously, I would say that it is not wrong, from our POV, to say that everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. It's more politic to say that baptism is not a denominational thing.
Though the theology is vexed still, the initiation is not complete, the full benefits of the Church are not enjoyed, unless one is admitted to sacramental communion and is, sooner or later, confirmed.
This is why when a baptized person, reared and "formed" in another communion wants to become a full-bore (I've got the boring part down, anyway) Catholic, though we loosely speak of "conversion" IMHO the only proper language is that so-and-so is admitted to full communion. The implication is that SOME communion already existed.
As has been noted, we papists are good at weasel words. One of our weasel words is "ordinary" and its cognates. I mention this because baptism is said to be the "ordinary" way of coming into the Church. We make that specification because we allow that, through some extraordinary benefit coming from the atonement wrought by Xt's sacrifice, some people may be grafted into Christ without Baptism.
The famous ways are "baptism by blood" - someone is martyred for the faith before he is baptized, and "baptism of desire" - you get hit by a train or a piano falls on you while you are on your way to your baptism. But that list is not exhaustive, God being wiser, better, and less predictable than we.
I think the "Protestant (spit!)" words were trying to portray an attitude or tone that I do NOT have, but that sometimes we Catholics are accused of.
I hope that is clearer and credible, and I eagerly await your response.
For instance IMHO Acts 15.
Does not the Catholic Church consider the SPXX to be in apostasy? Given time I'm sure I could come up with more. There are good Protestant groups and there are bad, just the same as in the Catholic Church.
I'm sure there is a patron saint of ED somewhere among the 10,000. :O)
All the Franciscan groups would make another, as would Benedictines, Carmelites, etc. And I guess the last thing to say is that all these are approved ways of being Catholic.
Why should there be any groups with differing orders, rules and regulations? If you were to transgress the orders rules, wouldn't they kick you out?
I’m kind of interested in that Catholic’s decree of erection but there are ladies present. :O)
Once again NO where in scripture is the church taught as infallible.. BTW Gates are defensive, not offensive.. that scripture is saying the church can storm the gates of hell and prevail ..when was the last time your church stormed the gates of hell with the gospel??
1) Sola scripture is not taught in the Sacred Scriptures.
Of course it is 2 Tim3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Even your church fathers knew that scripture was to be the FINAL authority in matters of faith (what sola scriptura means)
"Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskillfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35)
"In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters." (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2)
"Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)
"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not "be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;" but be wise, as himself saith, "unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith." (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)
Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; ... For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. (Augustine, On the Nicene Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens,
"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Clement of Alexandria, book 7, ch 16, Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished)
I could go on but you get the point..
2) Sola scriptura is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question, in as much as the canonical scriptures never identify what is and what is not Scripture.
Jesus clearly defined what was OT scripture..The Holy Spirit defined NT scripture
BTW this is is a lousy argument from a church that CLAIMS ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE SCRIPTURES..
3) Sola scriptura was not believed by anybody until the Reformation, and is thus a tradition of man, condemned by our Divine Lord Jesus Christ.
Do you want more quotes from "your church fathers? They all looked to the scriptures .... until it was more profitable to maker it up as you go along
4) The Sacred Scriptures teach that oral tradition is a source of revelation.
Where? What tradition do you suppose they were referencing? 95% of your church "tradition" came long after the scriptures were written...why call them "sacred when they are secondary to private revelation?
5) The Sacred Scriptures show the Catholic system of authority.
Could you point me to the scripture that has the role of priest in the new church (hint there is none) How about infallible pope? where is that ??(hint no where)
6) The writings of the earliest Christians show the Catholic system of authority." or the "sacred scriptures"...
The truth is 100% of what you call the RC church traditions do not begin until 250 years after Christ with a huge number not until the 1200 and later.
Certainly Hitler wasn't as bad as Tynsdale who translated the Bible into English and was excommunicated AND burned at the stake (after being strangled). That evil person.
Another great moment in Church history. ;O)
The bishops of SSPX were excommunicated for over twenty years for the schismatic act of being illicitly consecrated bishops, and even now are still considered suspended a divinis (not a good thing). There is a process ongoing to regularize them back into the Church - which would then put them on the same footing as the other orders on the list earlier in the thread.
But if the OPC looks at PCUSA the same way that the Catholic Church looks at apostate "Catholic" groups (such as the American Catholic Church or the Polish National Catholic Church which are regarded as non-Catholic regardless of what they consider themselves to be) then that's quite different from how the Catholic Church regards religious orders within itself.
Always the gentleman.
Maybe if there were persistent transgressions, but that wouldn't necessarily have any effect on your access to the sacraments. But it's a serious thing to be kicked out. I think in most cases people are not so much kicked out as they ask to be released from their vows.
In my case, I promised to be sorta like a "novice" for a year, and now I am finishing the first year of my temporary promises, to which I am bound for 3 years. Then I can either quit, ask for one more year to make up my mind, or promise to keep the rule for the rest of my life.
It's interesting here that Dominic said breaking the rule of the Dominicans was NOT a sin (even though obedience is implied in the promises we make) and that if he found that any friar was saying breaking the rule was a sin he'd personally go through all the books of the rules and scratch the rules out with his knife. This was because the main driving mission was evangelism and preaching and sometimes that doesn't make for a well ordered life.
I think, as a generalization, one might guess that Catholics are more about community than a lot of Protestants are. And so, while I know of quasi-"religious" groups among the Protestants, like Taizé, from the time of the desert fathers, through Benedict and up to Mother Theresa Christians have formed groups around a shared ideal or mission.
Also groups, "orders" provided needed services for diocesan bishops while maintaining a kind of credibility and a degree of autonomy. Once Francis and Dominic had established their orders reputations, they were given permission and even asked to go into various areas and carry out their ministries which were too demanding for the indigenous clergy.
It's sort of trivial in comparison, but in our chapter of lay Dominicans is a general practitioner.. She gets a lot of complaints because she will not prescribe contraceptives, only prescribes viagra, etc. for married men, and so forth. I know it means a lot to her that she has a small group of "brothers and sisters" that she can call on for prayers and support or to whom she can vent when the fertilizer is flying thick and fast.
Or here's something about the brotherhood in orders: You know of this deal the Pope has just done where Anglican groups can come into the Church and maintain much of their Anglican identity? Well, about a year ago our chapter was contacts by our former pastor who was by then #2 guy in the Eastern Province (eastern US) of the Dominicans. We were asked to pray daily for 40 or so days for God's will to be done in some enterprise the nature of which we could not know.
When the dust settled this Fall, we were told that a Dominican who is an archbishop and a muckety muck in some Vatican bureau or commissariat or whatever was working with PapaBenXVI on this whole thing. So he had requested the prayers of literally hundreds of Dominicans around the world.
Anyway, why do people join clubs or benevolent associations or things like that? Something like that contributes to the formation of orders.
Mother Theresa had people coming from all over the world to Calcutta to live, pray, and work with her, and some decided that's what they wanted to do for the rest of their lives. So, "Missionaries of Charity" with 4,500 women around the world, giving their lives in prayer and service. Pretty cool.
Tired, drugged and sick, and hoping I'm making sense and being helpful. And sometime we will share adult beverages and consider with more attention the whole decree of erection question. Right now most of my considerations are not suitable for this forum.
Go big or don’t go at all!
"For instance IMHO Acts 15."
The letter from the Jerusalem church was a political tract; a compromise that neither the orthodox Jewish christians nor Paul took seriously. Before Paul and Silas could start the second missionary journey, the orthodox Jewish christians had beaten them to the churches in Galatia and were convincing them that they had to be circumcised, contradicting the letter (Acts 15:24). Paul was distancing the gentile churches from the Jerusalem letter. In Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 he tells the churches that it is alright to eat meat offered to idols as long as they don't have personal scruples concerning it or it does not hinder a weaker brother. There is no mention of the letter. The only lasting importance of the letter was the acknowledgment of Paul's mission to the gentiles. But the warrant for his mission came directly from the risen and reigning Christ, not from Jerusalem.
So I'm not surprised or scandalized by the resistance to the decision at Jerusalem, or by Paul's maybe taking the bit in his teeth and running with it.
We cannot bear the burden, encouraged I fear by our own rhetoric sometimes, of a sort of Disney-esque or Ozzy-and-Harriet vision of the Church at any time. Things were wild and woolly in the 1st Century and in most of the intervening centuries. While I admire the heck out of Paul for many reasons, I don't think I would have liked to negotiate with him.
TO me the importance of Acts 15 is that it was a council which not only reached a conclusion but which promulgated that conclusion as seeming good to the Holy Spirit as well as to the council participants.
We are castigated for the authority we think our apostolic leaders have. Our answer is that we see in Acts 15 precedent for that kind of authority. Our leaders are disobeyed now, those leaders were disobeyed then.
As to the letter's being political, my response is similar. It's in the movies or in paintings, but only rarely in real life, that everyone assumes the poses of classical sculpture, with their clothes draped just so, and light shining through a high window or a hole in the clouds on just the right people.
Real life is messy. The Catholic Church is VERY messy. when we say earthen vessels, we ain't kiddin' around.
“Real life is messy. The Catholic Church is VERY messy. when we say earthen vessels, we ain’t kiddin’ around.”
You are beginning to sound like a Baptist. Do you have a favorite covered dish for the next pot-luck?
A while back when I was an Elder in my church we had meeting one night every week and sometimes on Saturday. Most of the elders were research Engineers, used to working collaboratively in teams and just brought that mind set into the church.
By nature I am a loner who likes to work alone and come to meeting having done the homework and expect the meeting to be short.
I fought this for 15 years and then the Lord took pity on me and provided a way out. Someone posted and article here on FR entitled “Meetings Make You Stupid”. I e-mailed it to all the Elders and Pastor and very quickly was asked to resign which I took as sort of my own “Damascus Road experience”.
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.