It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 05-17-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

It is the Decision of the Holy Spirit and Us – A Reflection on the Catholicity of the Early Church

Msgr. Charles Pope • May 17, 2017 •

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!

[Elsie]

The scene you quote is much later, and those are not ‘the dead in Christ’ for they are being resurrected for judgment.

Not according to verse 15: If anyone's name was not found written IN THE BOOK OF LIFE, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

It is obvious that some ARE found "in the book of life"; therefore they are 'dead in Christ'.

I find NO evidence of THIS occurring: ... you and I will have been snatched away long before that...

---

 

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Listen, I tell you a mystery:

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:13
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.
 

[Elsie]

Just because we’ve told little kids for a long, long time that when Gramma died she went to Heaven to be with Jesus (Fido gets this treatment, too) doesn’t mean it can be shown from Scripture.

[MHGinTN]

Larry, your name and my name are IN the Lamb's Book of Life because we have believed GOD's Promise to us. When that book is opened we will be in attendance at the opening, but as the Bride not the objects of judgment, for being In CHRIST we are already exonerated by The Grace of God in Christ.

If you want to start a rabbit trail away from this thread, we'll take it to private replies. Please don't be another ES.

[MHGinTN]

The Rapture of HIS EKKLESIA is not the Great White Throne of Judgment scene.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Who had the authority to set the table of contents (canon) of the New Testament?

Who actually did it, and when?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Who had the authority to set the table of contents (canon) of the New Testament?
Who actually did it, and when? “

1. God
2. God
3. Eternity past.

[MHGinTN]

Bwahahaha, not the answer she was looking for I’d bet!

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, Granted. In God's eternal "NOW".

But now, speaking of things that happen in time, historically: who and when?

[MHGinTN]

Your tagline is false advertising

[Elsie]

Too important to be hidden away in Private.

[Elsie]

Larry, your name and my name are IN the Lamb's Book of Life because we have believed GOD's Promise to us.

True; and they are going to be found there at the GWT.

[Elsie]

The Rapture of HIS EKKLESIA is not the Great White Throne of Judgment scene.

True; but it's right before it.

[Elsie]

No; it’s TRUE advertising.

However; some minds have been convinced already and they feel no need to INQUIRE any further.

[Elsie]

[daniel1212]

Who had the authority to set the table of contents (canon) of the New Testament? Who actually did it, and when?

The issue is that of "authority" and what it means. Westminster affirms, "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," and general obedience to such is enjoined and even to secular powers one finds themselves under. Rome could enjoin submission to her rule for those under her (the EOs, for one, did not recognize her rule), but the issue is whether her claim to authority over all the church is valid, which it is not, and that she possesses (conditional) ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is a unScriptural novelty.

As for when, in reality the establishment of both men and writings of God was progressively realized, and essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation. And while Rome claims the power to infallibly settle the canon, yet she actually did not infallibly/indisputably settle her canon until approx. 1400+ years after the last book was penned, and after the death of Luther, and thus scholarly debate could and did continue right into Trent.

But why not state your actual argument, which i presume is that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of holy Writ means such are the infallible interpreters of it, and thus the validity dissent is disallowed?

Or in any case, are you arguing that if we accept that Rome settled the canon then that logically means we must accept all else that she likewise officially states? If that is not your argument, than of what weight does the basic oft-parroted polemical statement, "we gave you the Bible" have? Maybe you can ask whoever gave you this argument.

[MHGinTN]

ES took lessons from you, it would appear. I’ll answer on the private coded line ...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But now, speaking of things that happen in time, historically: who and when?”

God makes the sun rise.
The rooster crows.
Yet the rooster only announces what God has done, knowing his purpose isn’t to supplant God.

The Roman Catholic Rooster is a different creature.

God purposes in eternity past:

To create man and woman and bless their union
To restore man after the Fall by the sacrifice of the Promised Messiah
Create a Jewish nation for His own and make unconditional promises to them
To bring forth Messiah from that Jewish nation
To bring forth all Scripture through Jews
To bless every tribe and young and people and nation through Messiah
To pay the price for the sin of mankind through the death of Messiah
To inspire, record, and preserve His holy Scripture through 5,000 years
To give eternal life to all who turn to Him alone for the payment of their sin
- and this apart from merit and by His Glorious Grace

What does the Roman Catholic Rooster do in response to the rising Glory of God?

He crows that he is responsible for everything, stealing God’s glory
He crows about his chicken coup, instead of God himself
He changes the sufficiency and totality of Christ’s payment for sin into a system of earned merits and purchased indulgences
He claims he now owns all God’s unconditional promises to Abraham and his descendants
He crows of the glory of Mary, instead of the glory of Messiah and God the Father Who sent Him to redeem mankind
He claims he is the Greatest Rooster and superior to every other Rooster that God Raised up to His glory
He claims credit for God’s inspired Words in every way
He crows to roosters who are departed, instead of to the God who commands us to “come boldly into His presence.”

In short, the Roman Catholic Rooster has crowed the opposite of all God has decreed and exalted himself pridefully to steal the glory of God.

And why? It is all written in the scrolls God gave him to read. Yet he claims credit for these while missing their message.

Yet he prefers to crow about traditions of pagan roosters and create idols and wear vestments that glorify himself and his earthly chicken coop as the greatest Coup - The Original Coup.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You’re avoiding my question.

[MHGinTN]

No, catholic, he even repeated your question and then addressed the source. You just aren’t getting the responses you want in order to fulfill what he exposed about Catholiciism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Is the Gospel of Barnabas part of the Bible?