Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What are your thoughts after reading Acts 15 in it’s entirety?

St. John Chrysostom:

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that** He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”**

"Hence He shows that many will believe, and raises his thoughts higher, and makes him Shepherd. ‘And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ If they prevail not against it, much less against Me: so be not terrified when thou shalt hear ‘I shall be betrayed and crucified.’ And then he speaks of another honor: ‘And I will give thee the keys of the king of heaven.’ What is this: ‘And I will give thee’ ? ‘As the Father hath given thee to know Me, so will I give thee’…Give what? The keys of heaven, in order that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth may be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth may be loosed in heaven.’ Now, then, is it not His to give to sit upon His right hand and on his left, since He says: ‘I will give thee’ ? Do you see how He Himself leads Peter to a high consideration of Himself, and reveals Himself and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises? For what is proper to God alone, that is, to forgive sins, and to make the Church in so great an onset of waves, and to cause a fisherman to be stronger than any rock, when the whole world wars against him, this He Himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremias, that He would set him as a column of brass and as a wall; but Jeremias to a single nation, Peter to the whole world.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

 

[utunumsint]

I also like this one from his commentary on Galatians.

Ver. 11, 12. “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.”

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it;[2] we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter’s freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount;…

…The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.[1] For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. **Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s disciples with a more lively fear. **Had Peter disputed Paul’s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (oikonomi’as) and not from anger.

Not John calls Peter the master here, showing him to have a greater authority than Paul, and this is why this sham rebuke was contrived. So as to have all the greater impact on the Jews.

God bless,
Ut

 

[BrianH]

Peter doesn’t mention in Acts 10 that we are saved by grace alone.
He DOES in Acts 15 - and is the first one to do so.
James agrees.

HUH?
I don’t understand what you’re trying to get at.
**My point was that James is taking responsibility **for the false teachings coming out of his diocese - his Bshopric.

Well Martin Luther where do you see the phrase* alone* in this passage?

He does not break new ground from Acts 10 but certainly if you doubt that read Paul’s sermon in Acts 13 particularly around verses 37-38.

 

[elvisman]

Well Martin Luther where do you see the phrase* alone* in this passage?

He does not break new ground from Acts 10 but certainly if you doubt that read Paul’s sermon in Acts 13 particularly around verses 37-38.

I used the word “alone”, where I should have said "apart from the Law".

In Paul’s sermon (Acts 13), he speaks of justification.
In Acts 15, Peter declares that the Jews are saved by God’s grace - just as the Gentiles.

You must remember that justification and ultimate salvation are not the same thing, neither are redemption and salvation.

 

[BrianH]

I used the word "alone", where I should have said "apart from the Law".

In Paul’s sermon (Acts 13), he speaks of justification.
In Acts 15, Peter declares that the Jews are saved by God’s grace - just as the Gentiles.

You must remember that justification and ultimate salvation are not the same thing, neither are redemption and salvation.

lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/OEA/Methodist-Statement-2006-EN.pdf

 

[elvisman]

lutheranworld.org/What_We_Do/OEA/Methodist-Statement-2006-EN.pdf

??
And, your point is . . .?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Great so you believe St. John Chrysostom’s teaching then. Wonderful! You agree that St. James was the one in “high authority” at the Council.

The known lies that have been perpetuated here are those not lies of St. John Chrysostom, but quotes that created in the 8th & 9th centuries that have been falsely attributed to him. Those forgeries did Not contain the teaching of St. John Chrysostom - which is why they are lies.

As far as the Catholics Historians (not heretics) who were burned alive in Strasburg for doubting the authenticity of these forgeries in 1229-1230, you can learn more about them in “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” Second Series, Vol. I.

To read about the Catholic Italian Scholar Lorenzo Valla from 1407 to 1457 and his revealing through critical analaysis of content and style the writings were forgeries you can read Christopher B. Coleman’s translation of the “The Treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of Constantine” by University of Toronto Press in 1993.

You may also want to read:
Catholic Historian Lord Acton “Lectures on Modern History” by MacMillan & Co. Ltd. 1960
Michael Whelton’s “Popes and Patriarchs” by Conciliar Press 2006
Philip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church” p. 3 (www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_chI5.htm)
“Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. 5 & Vol. 11,
“New Cambridge Medieval History” Vol. VIII
I.S. Robinson’s “The Papacy, 1073-1198”
Peter De Rosa’s “The Vicar of Christ” by Poolbeg Press in 1988, 2000.

I got and read the book by I.S. Robinson’s “The Papacy, 1073-1198” and there was nothing in there about St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 88 and the work “Thesaurus of Greek Fathers.”

 

[Palaeologos]

I wish we could get beyond “this verse says this so I’m right” then someone says “this says that so I’m right”. I am very happy being Catholic because of Catholic theology. I love having a Pope because we can speak with one voice. Most Popes, especially my favorite B16, make lesser claims for themselves than uber Catholics. The expression
“more Catholic than the Pope” applies to EWTN and Catholic radio.

My Patristics professor (a wonderful old EO curmudgeon) called this “the prooftexting game”. It’s easy to cook up answers for just about anything from Scripture, provided you’re prepared to ignore the context of the quotation!

I think most fair-minded Catholics will admit that Papal supremacy took a while to develop. Certainly there are plenty of examples in the first five centuries of the Church of Popes being contradicted, successfully resisted, and overruled by the other bishops. Doctrine can develop, and come to a fullness, of course, and that’s the Catholic position on the Papal office as I understand it : the doctrine of supremacy (and later infallibility) developed just as the doctrines of the Trinity and Chalcedonian christology did, in response to challenges.