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!
"Controls," in the sense of overriding direction, no. Any given Pope cannot be regarded as a personal Holy Spirit "pick," --- except in the sense of the general superintendence of Providence, present also in the outcomes of U.S. presidential elections, marriage proposals, freshman algebra tests, and poker games.
We pray hard for Popes, before, during and after papal conclaves. The Lord's objective goodness towards His Church does not fail --- even though his permissive will (which permits our wills to be in play) has admitted mixed outcomes in our two millennium papal history since, and including, Peter.
Where is the word rapture?
Where is the word sola scriptura?
I thought you meant Free Republic and got it backwards.
Go to sleep, Mark. Don't wake this thread-robber up, Bro, if it infects this thread too, it might get shut down.
I think you're tired,
sleepy
sle-e-e-epy
z-zzz-zz-zzzz-zzz
1 Th 4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (Vulgate)
of the Greek verb "harpadzo" meaning "to snatch away":
1Th 4:17 επειτα ημεις οι ζωντες οι περιλειπομενοι αμα συν αυτοις αρπαγησομεθα εν νεφελαις εις απαντησιν του κυριου εις αερα brκαι ουτως παντοτε συν κυριω εσομεθα (Textus Receptus)
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:
and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (Authorized English Version) **************
That’s not an answer.
Show me from Scripture that y’all Catholics claim your church wrote where the word “pope” occurs.
Funnt that Catholics complain about the word “rapture” not showing up in Scripture and there it is in the Latin VULGATE that THEIR church translated the Greek into.
Funny not Funnt.....
I remember how a few long time Freepers were zotted not that long ago for posting numerous threads that some perceived as anti-Catholic when, in reality, they were promoting the Reformation and the changes it brought as well as the reasons why Protestant/Evangelical theology is superior to the Roman Catholics'. In other words, not any different from the subject matter presented in these regular postings that bring a "strong reaction" only reversed. If someone is going to post threads they already KNOW from experience will provoke such reactions, then they should be careful to not come across as smugly mocking those they know will respond. When you invite discussion, welcome it.
17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 NASB
Where is the word sola scriptura?
While the phrase sola scriptura is not found in the Bible, the Bible testifies, as God's written word of the necessity of reading His Word to learn the truth. Which is the essence of sola scriptura.
Everything one needs to know how to have a relationship with God can be found in the Scriptures.
The phrase, "it is written" is attested to 76 times in the Bible. 16 in the OT; 60 in the NT.(searching on "it is written" using NASB at biblegateway.com).
We have 166 uses of the word book..indicating a written record of some form...129 OT; 37 NT.
Obviously there is great importance in God communicating to His people in written form.
We have the earliest example of the Ten Commandments where the Lord Himself wrote the Ten Commandments
Now the Lord said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.” Exodus 24:12 NASB
Now the Lord said to Moses, “Cut out for yourself two stone tablets like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets which you shattered. Ex 34:1 NASB
The OT Law was written so the people would have a permanent record.
When Jesus was tempted by Satan He appealed to, "it is written" and quoted Scripture in each reply to Satan.
In Paul's most theological writing in Romans, he appealed to, "it is written" 16 times. More than any other book in the Bible.
John wrote twice on the premise of why he wrote. 13These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13 NASB
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:31 NASB
Paul directed Timothy to the Scriptures for truth.
14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB
The appeal to the written word as authority is clear for anyone with an open mind to read and study.
Christianity can point to far more examples of what we believe than can the Roman Catholic dare to.
Kinda goes against the RCC message doesn't it.
My cousin Marvin might have carved statues of Mary. He owned a business that made awards, medals, trophies, and similar products out of wood and metal. He would not have made them for himself, though. He was Baptist.
Thank God for what is good.
No where in the Word of God is Peter ever designated 'the first Pope'.
Sure doesn't sound like Roman Catholicism does it?
The advantage of the written word is that it does not change.
We can still go back to the oldest manuscripts available and look at them and they are still the same as they were almost 2000 years ago.
Word of mouth, and tradition, no matter how sacred it is claimed to be, just cannot compete in the reliability department.
Why anyone would think to put that on the same level as written Scripture is beyond me.
Well, not really. I mean I know some people have their pet dogmas and doctrines that they want support for but I cannot see why they stick to them when shown to contradict Scripture instead of changing what they thought.
Butting in here, it is note that it was not the Jerusalem leadership that sent out Paul and Barnabas, much less Rome, nor even any apostles, but certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. (Acts 13:1)
However, it is not indicated that Peter was trying to dissolve the Paul/Barnabas evangelistic team, but that in when "certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." (Galatians 2:12)
Peter's declension was one of weakness, of fear (been there), but this was a rare exception, and inconsistent with his professed belief and support of Paul, for as he attested (I do not think Gal. 2 happened before Acts 15), "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)
Yet this does not support the RC papacy, which cannot even find Peter in the letter to the church at Rome, and which absence results in the absurd RC pleading that Paul did not mention him because of persecution, yet he has no problem mentioning over 30 other people!
And actually, “rapture” has a nice sound to it. Sounds sort of ethereal, with a sense of urgency. But “caught up” does the trick. Perhaps you remember that Jesus used harpadzo in telling how firmly we are in his grasp, as well as the Father’s, once we have become his property (Jn. 10:28,29); to seize or pluck someone out of an existing constraining force or condition.
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.