Is the magesterium biblical?
The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, so, yes, it is biblical.
At the council of Jerusalem:
There were no cardinals present.
Cardinals are advisors to the pope, and this position developed later. Is there anything anti-biblical about the head of the Church seeking counsel?
Most Church councils weren’t, and yet, you, as a Protestant, accept MUCH of what the early councils decided.
It was a local church council.
Right. Nobody travelled from anywhere else to attend. Except Paul. And Barnabas. And Peter. And…you get the idea.
The head of the Church, Peter, was there. The
title developed later, but the office existed then.
No appeal is made to infallibility. Appeal was made to Scripture alone.
Huh? “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit
and to us”…where is scripture mentioned?
James-not Peter- gave judgment.
In another thread, you encouraged me to read the scriptures. Let me demonstrate that I have:
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in
Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me.
Symeon (i.e.,
Peter) has described how …” (
Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my
judgment, therefore, that
we ought to
stop troubling the Gentiles” (
Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (
Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who?
Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come
down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the
Jewish faction under James (bishop of
Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (
Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for
them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the
Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (
Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from:
Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm
To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:
As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph,
a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement),
37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and
a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because
he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
(cont.)
