Council of Jerusalem

[Michael_C]

Can anyone tell me why the Council of Jerusalem is not counted among the 21 eccumenical councils?

 

[Montalban]

Can anyone tell me why the Council of Jerusalem is not counted among the 21 eccumenical councils?

I think that the time of the Apostles there was a different (temporary) church situation because one could have every Christian bishop assembled in the one place. (It is still ‘possible’ but far more difficult).

And that this was a meeting of Apostles as well. There were no Apostles present at Nicea or subsequent Councils.

 

[Michael_C]

So because it was a meeting of the original Apostles and not ordained Bishops it is not counted as an ecumenical council? I thought the Bishops were the same as the Apostles?

Sorry, I’m not really understanding.

Maybe it is because it was not a council where the entire Church throughout the world at that time was assembled and it was a smaller council? At this point I’m guessing…

 

[rwoehmke]

I am thinking that the notion of calling this meeting a Council may be of fairly recent origin. I can’t recall it being called a Council until fairly recent times, specfically after Vatican II. Perhaps in some of the newer Bible translations. Since it was the Apostles who met it carried the weight of true teaching. You may recall from Scripture that although it was discussed by more than one person, it was Peter who made the decision and James who spoke in support of it. In other words it was not a decision of the group ratified by Peter, it was Peters decision ratified by the others, some of whom still disagreed.

 

[Michael_C]

I am thinking that the notion of calling this meeting a Council may be of fairly recent origin. I can’t recall it being called a Council until fairly recent times, specfically after Vatican II. Perhaps in some of the newer Bible translations. Since it was the Apostles who met it carried the weight of true teaching. You may recall from Scripture that although it was discussed by more than one person, it was Peter who made the decision and James who spoke in support of it. In other words it was not a decision of the group ratified by Peter, it was Peters decision ratified by the others, some of whom still disagreed.

Hmmmm…Maybe. In a council there are votes and documents. I keep searching but find nothing definitive on the internet, other than the great Majority of Christian denominations agree with it’s results. Doesn’t really explain it.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[mercygate]

Hmmmm…Maybe. In a council there are votes and documents. I keep searching but find nothing definitive on the internet, other than the great Majority of Christian denominations agree with it’s results. Doesn’t really explain it.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Well it was documented in the Acts of the Apostles!

 

[I_A]

Can anyone tell me why the Council of Jerusalem is not counted among the 21 eccumenical councils?

Custom

 

[Montalban]

So because it was a meeting of the original Apostles and not ordained Bishops it is not counted as an ecumenical council? I thought the Bishops were the same as the Apostles?

Sorry, I’m not really understanding.

Maybe it is because it was not a council where the entire Church throughout the world at that time was assembled and it was a smaller council? At this point I’m guessing…

The Apostles were founders of churches. James stopped going around founding churches to head (or to be bishop of) the church in Jerusalem.

It is why some early commentators say that Peter was NOT the first bishop of Rome, because Peter’s function was different in the church (along with the others that acted as Apostles).(see endnotes) This is not to detract from Peter’s association with Rome, but it’s also believed that after going to Rome he went to Spain before returning to Rome (where he died). If this were true, it would add weight to the idea that he continued to go about founding churches.

Else in Acts why was it a big deal to simply make up ‘the 12’? by choosing a replacement for Judas. If Apostle and Bishop did the same thing why not pick both candidates, because the limit of 12 wouldn’t have mattered; conversely we’d still today only have 12 bishops… if the functions were identical. Each time a replacement would be found to make up the 12

Endnotes
Eusebius also accepts this role for Linus "The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
Eusebius “The History of the Church” Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome cited at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-10.htm#P2930_1381485

That is, Paul and Peter founded the church and conferred the office of bishop upon Linus.

“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter."

“Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions,” Book 7, Chapter XLVI – “Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?” quoted at

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm#P6959_2343426