Acts 15 Question

[Erich]

1. 
   *]It was the prototype, forerunner for councils
   *]The entire church wasn’t represented. For instance: the places Paul had been visiting/preaching, these churches were in their infancy.
   *]St Peter didn’t issue the ruling. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem did.

1. 
   If this meeting is the same as the one related in Gal.2:1-10, then the Council of Jerusalem imposed nothing upon Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law (see Gal 2:6); whereas James’ decree in Acts (after “the whole assembly fell silent” in Acts 15:12, i.e. after Peter – not James – had the last word) instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage (see Lev. 18), the meat of strangled animals, and blood (all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews).
   
   Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independent incidents here. Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.
   
   Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.
   
   In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.
   
   That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.
   
   For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.
   
   James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.
   
   Origen in the beginning of the 3rd century placed this latter council in Antioch: “Wherefore, as there is some obscurity about this matter [food], without some explanation is given, it seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain, namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”” [Contra Celsus 8.29]

 

[SisterSheila]

Wasn’t the result of the Council in Jerusalem adopted by the whole Church, with the amendment made by James and Peter? Another interpretation of the Church regla on Ecumenical Councils may be they are the reglas adopted to address the issues in a time when we live in a divided Body of Christ, as the early Church did not.

Well-defined rules have developed in the Church’s activities when there were reasons to enact them – e.g., when there were contrary actions and disputes about the nature of those actions. “College” has become a well-defined canonical term [see c. 336 and several other canons defining a lawful college], and an Ecumenical Council is a gathering of the College of Bishops called by the Pontiff [see, cc. 337-338]. Canon 339 identifies those who have the right and duty to attend. However, it doesn’t say invitation to all the Bishops is required for validity; it doesn’t use any of the Latin words that are used in the Code to indicate a requirement for validity of an act.

There has been some canonical debate during the last century [a short time in the Church’s deliberations] about what are “strictly collegial actions,” and that debate includes the principle idea that the nature of a college is that it meets. In this interpretation, while the Bishops scattered throughout the world are each part of the College of Bishops, they normally do not act without gathering to meet, discuss, decide, and publish. At the same time, there have been actions claimed to be binding on the Church, taken on the written information submitted to the Vatican Curia by every Bishop throughout the world, and published according to the method for Papal publication and confirmation in the Code of Canon Laws.

Then, too, when we interpret a canon or set of canons on a subject, the general norms are also important to determining the manner of interpretation. See c. 10, only those laws invalidate actions which expressly say so. Then, too, a canon concerning a benefit to the Church and to those with acquired rights, is not to be interpreted strictly [see cc. 4 and 18]. The companion interpretation to the latter is that canons concerning a benefit to the Church, or acquired rights, are to be interpreted broadly or generously in favor of the benefit.

If you wish to make a broad or generous interpretation of the development of the Church’s reglas concerning Ecumenical Councils, as originating with and deriving from the Jerusalem Council [based on the lived experience of the Twelve in gathering with Our Lord to receive teaching during their formation time as Apostles], that is consistent with the founding Divine Laws and acceptable canonical and theological opinions in the Magisterium. It would appear inconsistent to give that origin and development a strict interpretation.