Again, that’s your Protestant interpretation of that text, attempting to protest the legitimacy of papal supremacy and infallibility. All Saint James does is reaffirm what Saint Peter had initially decided regarding circumcision. Give me one shred of evidence in the first 1,000 years of Christianity that supports your claim!
I give you their own testimony. Again, my interpretation is taking the text at its word, whereas yours is denying the written testimony in favor of an alien understanding of the text.
Wherefore I judge, and join my judgment with Peter. St. John Chrysostom thinks that James had a special authority in the Council, as bishop of Jerusalem, and because of the great veneration, which those zealous for the Jewish law had for him: but his power was certainly inferior to that of St. Peter, who was head of all, as St. John Chrysostom teacheth, hom. iii. on the Acts.
Feel free to show which verse contains this phrase. No one is arguing that Peter was not an influential voice in the Church. However, as you can see, it is James who is rendering the decision of the counsel, and this after additional testimony by Paul and Barnabas.
Do you want me to show you where the word ‘Trinity’ is, too?
Another conflated non sequitur, your argument of choice it seems. My argument is not that because it doesn’t use a certain word or phrase that a teaching is not in a text. My argument is that your interpretation is flatly contradicted by the text. Two completely separate issues.
That’s a cop out for not being able to provide anything. As if the true meaning of that text went underground and unknown for a thousand years.
Going to the original record, providing the flow of what Luke says, showing the quote, and explaining the meaning of the Greek word in question is the cop out, but going to an opinion almost 400 years later because the text doesn’t support your interpretation isn’t. Interesting definition of cop out. It is also interesting to note that the quote you are using was actually being used to denounce the abuses of authority of the ecclesiastical and political leaders of his day. Quite the opposite intended usage that you are trying to pose it as.
The ‘flow’ of what Luke says? I didn’t know Saint Luke was a protesting Christian. Which Protestant denomination did he belong to?
That is complete eisegesis about the council, but be that as it may, the expression of Apostolic teaching that doesn’t include the development of doctrine of papal supremacy is more historic and true to the apostles.
What I have said is that I am Catholic. And I am. What I have said is that the Catholic Church is not only and exclusively found in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But if my being colloquial and respectful in my references to your communion bothers you, just know that I am that way for others, too.
James’ statement of his judgment does not mean he was in charge.
Why? Because it does not agree with your personal view? Show me some concrete evidence instead of claiming your 1054AD-view as evidence and claiming it as ‘true to the Apostles’.
If you were Catholic then there would be no ‘if I were to join the Catholic Church’. Being Catholic means being in full communion with the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ did not found a Church that would splinter into fragmentations with each separated fragment claiming Catholicity and Oneness. It’s one thing to hold to your own personal views, but to caricariturize the Church Christ founded into this mess of division is to call Him a liar when He promised schism and/or heresy, i.e. the gates of Hell, would not prevail. Jesus Christ did not found the Orthodox Church. The Apostles were not Anglican nor Lutheran. The very doctrine you protest and reject is what grants someone full communion with the Catholic Church. Just because you don’t believe that, or the schismatic Churches and heretical ecclesial communions don’t either, does not make one difference. And, you can call that ‘Triumphalism all you want, because the One Truth will always triumph!
Perhaps another question should be asked…“in what ways can Catholics accept papal primacy today?” My understanding is that the official Catholic position is that those not in communion with Rome are brothers and sisters in Christ and that their churches/ecclesial communities are a means of providing salvation. No longer is calling them “heretics” and all that accompanies that acceptable.JonNC:
Why? Because it does not agree with your personal view? Show me some concrete evidence instead of claiming your 1054AD-view as evidence and claiming it as ‘true to the Apostles’.
If you were Catholic then there would be no ‘if I were to join the Catholic Church’. Being Catholic means being in full communion with the Catholic Church. Jesus Christ did not found a Church that would splinter into fragmentations with each separated fragment claiming Catholicity and Oneness. It’s one thing to hold to your own personal views, but to caricariturize the Church Christ founded into this mess of division is to call Him a liar when He promised schism and/or heresy, i.e. the gates of Hell, would not prevail. Jesus Christ did not found the Orthodox Church. The Apostles were not Anglican nor Lutheran. The very doctrine you protest and reject is what grants someone full communion with the Catholic Church. Just because you don’t believe that, or the schismatic Churches and heretical ecclesial communions don’t either, does not make one difference. And, you can call that ‘Triumphalism all you want, because the One Truth will always triumph!
Those not in ‘communion with Rome’ are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. By Baptism you are my brother in Christ, however, by not being in full communion you are separated.
Providing sanctification, yes. Hearing truths in the written Word of God, yes. May non-Catholics be saved, absolutely. But, to say that non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities are a means of providing salvation undermines the ordinary and necessary means Christ established, through the licit Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Context! I would never dare call anyone a heretic and/or schismatic for the sake of ecumenical charity. That does not mean that they don’t exist. Most heretics are material heretics through no fault of their own and may be saved. But, any grace that comes to them for possible salvation comes from the Catholic Church.
So it seems that Protestants today can accept a measure of papal primacy by thanking God for the privilege of not having His Church any longer torture and burn them at the stake for not being in communion with Rome.Wannano:
Those not in ‘communion with Rome’ are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. By Baptism you are my brother in Christ, however, by not being in full communion you are separated.
Providing sanctification, yes. Hearing truths in the written Word of God, yes. May non-Catholics be saved, absolutely. But, to say that non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities are a means of providing salvation undermines the ordinary and necessary means Christ established, through the licit Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
Context! I would never dare call anyone a heretic and/or schismatic for the sake of ecumenical charity. That does not mean that they don’t exist. Most heretics are material heretics through no fault of their own and may be saved. But, any grace that comes to them for possible salvation comes from the Catholic Church.
The Church did no such thing. The State held, during those times, heresy as a criminal offence punishable by death. The Church excommunicated heretics, the State punished them. Do yourself a favor and do some unbiased research instead of believing unfounded claims touted by souls in the last 500 years.
Without the Church, the State would consider heresy a criminal offence? Sounds like a bucket of whitewash!Wannano:
The Church did no such thing. The State held, during those times, heresy as a criminal offense punishable by death. The Church excommunicated heretics, the State punished them. Do yourself a favor and do some unbiased research instead of believing unfounded claims touted by souls in the last 500 years.
Considering the severity of heresy being a mortal sin and spreading heresy puts other souls in jeopardy of that same mortal sin, one could argue the State was doing many people justice by deterring the diffusion of heresy.AugustTherese:
Without the Church, the State would consider heresy a criminal offence? Sounds like a bucket of whitewash!Wannano:
The Church did no such thing. The State held, during those times, heresy as a criminal offense punishable by death. The Church excommunicated heretics, the State punished them. Do yourself a favor and do some unbiased research instead of believing unfounded claims touted by souls in the last 500 years.
My goodness. One could, but I very much hope one wouldn’t.