Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[SingleMomMonica]

Lutheran and Orthodox both attack the Catholic Church what does that mean?

The Orthodox Church has never sent an Army into Rome and attacked Rome.

It was the Catholic Church that attacked the Orthodox Church in 1204 ad at Constantinople the headquarters of the Orthodox Ecumencial Patriarchate.

But this has nothing to do with the Topic at hand. Please stick to the Topic or post on another Thread.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Yesterday on Catholic Radio (may have been live or a repeat of a Catholic Answers Call In Show) I heard Tim Staples repeat something I’ve heard him say before…something along the lines of How Clear It Is in Acts 15 That St. Peter Was In Charge At The Council Record There.

That is a Pet Peeve of mine…just like seeing a random single shoe in the road. I mean really, how does that happen? Where is the other shoe? Didn’t the person feel it when it fell off? Why didn’t they go back and get it? If they were trying to throw them out, where is the other Shoe? Where is the other Shoe!!!

When I read Acts 15, I see that St. James was clearly the one in authority at that council. When I was Catholic, I tried really hard to read into it that St. Peter was the one in charge, but I had to be honest with myself that that was just Not the case. The passage is too clear that St. James heard everyone who wanted to speak on the matter and then St. James made the decisions of the council based on what he heard.

Mickey has graciously provided this quote of St. John Chrysostom regarding Acts 15. St. John Chrysostom (meaning Golden-Mouth) is a highly regarded early Church Father. St. John Chrysostom also saw that St. James was the one in charge at this council.

I’m really curious as to what Tim Staples would have to say about St. John Chrysostom’s position and how Tim feels comfortable holding a position which clearly goes against the early Church Fathers in the matter. But since I can’t ask him, I’m turning it over to the people here on Catholic Answers Forum.

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

Homily 88 is a fake but your quote of Mickey is from homily 88?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Your translation is different than mine. Mine says that it was decided that they would go to Jerusalem. The they is Paul and Barnabas.

Even then, it does not say who got everyone together to discuss it.

Hear, let me give you a link to what I’m reading: biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NKJV

It is in Verse 2 of Chapter 15: “they determined that Paul and Barnabus”

The “they” who “determined” could not have been Paul and Barnabus. But it was Paul and Barnabus and “certain others of them” who went to Jerusalem for a council to settle the dispute because that’s what “they determined”.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

MY thoughts (since I think you asked, lol)…

1. Catholics always seem to end the discussion of the chapter with verse 14. Curious. Because it gets really interesting after that.
2. I agree with you, it seems rather obvious that James is “in charge” here. Peter was ONE of several speakers - not the first, not the last. And there’s nothing in the text that suggests Peter’s words were given any special significance (more than, say, Paul or Barnabas), certaintly not infallible.
3. It’s interesting, because while we don’t know WHO arbitrated this issue (it only says “apostles and elders”), and we don’t know HOW they did that, we DO know what served as the rule/canon/norma normans. It was Scripture. James annouces, “this agrees with the words of the Scriptures,” (he goes on to quote some), then… “THEREFORE…” in other words, BECAUSE it is in accord with Scripture (Scripture being the rule), the judgement is that the position is correct. Clearly, the rule here was Scripture.

.

Really? Could you quote the passage(s) from the OT that authorize(s) the Church to dispense with circumcision? Thanks.

Perhaps you disagree with the arbitration of the First Ecumenical Council, but my post was not an evaluation of the decision. It was simply nothing the obvious.

I realize Catholics always stop with verse 14, but if we continue and read 15, we find this from James (who clearly is presiding), “With these words, the Scriptures agree…” He goes on to quote some (you may nor may not agree with him on the relevance of such, but that’s moot to the point here). In other words, the words of all who spoke (Peter simply being one among many) were NOT the rule/canon for the decision - they were held up TO a rule/canon, and we are specificly told what that was for the council. “Scripture.” Now, go to verse 19. After quoting them in his pronoucement (he doesn’t quote Peter, BTW, he quotes Scripture), and as the foundation for his (JAMES’) judgement, we find this key word, “THEREFORE…” What is the judgement founded upon, ruled by? Scripture. BTW, this is called “Sola Scriptura,” when the embraced rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture. Here’s a pretty classic, clear case of that praxis, but let’s not divert into that discussion.

Again, Peter seems to simply be ONE speaker at this meeting. Not the first, not the last, not given any special significance, and certainly there’s nothing about Peter being infallible or the vicar of Christ.

Again, I’m at a loss to see how anyone reading this chapter can come to the view that Peter was in charge or the presiding person. Clearly, that’s James.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Thank you, RandyCarson, that goes right to my point, which the OP seems to be missing-you can’t look at just ONE Father of the Church, make the claim about Acts 15 without reading the consensus of the Early Church:clapping:

I’m still waiting for anyone hear to make a post of an early Father Quote who, like St. John Chrysostom, specifically discusses who was “in charge” specifically at the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15.

If you have a quote you can provide which specifically addresses the Council or Acts 15 please do so!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

The quotes you are providing shows that you may have missed completely the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is: At the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 of the New Testament…Is Tim Staples correct that St. Peter was “in charge” of that council or is St. John Chrysostom correct that St. James was “in charge” of that council?

In none of the below quotes you have provide address the Council of Jerusalem nor Acts 15.

To the contrary. While I understand your desire to focus on Acts 15, the quotes that I have provided illustrate that the ECF’s considered Peter to be the head of the Church. Period. End of Story.

Now, if these other ECF’s were silent on the matter of the Council of Jerusalem, then there is simply nothing there to advance your argument (or mine). Consequently, one quote from one ECF is pretty thin evidence; I could quote any number of fathers who were off base on a topic or two…but the Church is not dependent on what one father thought.

Instead, we must consider the total context, and the evidence that Peter was the head of the Church is supported by scripture, by the totality of the ECF’s and history.

For example, around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

Why is it that NO ONE makes any serious attempt to support the candidacy of James as the head of the universal Church? Why is it that the Church does not bother to trace the Apostolic Succession of the line of James?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

**Still promoting the forgeries I see…Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t turn it into Truth. **

"He saith unto him, Feed My sheep.’ And why, having passed by the others, doth He
speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of
the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to
enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now
be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief
authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth
him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren,
and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show
thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for
My sheep” (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:331).

Chrysostom could not have made it any clearer. According to Chrysostom, Peter had
authority over the other apostles, or in Chrysostom’s words Peter had , ‘the chief
authority among the brethren.’ Peter not James nor any other apostle had this increase in
authority. Webster counters this unambiguous passage by citing passages describing the
other apostles with phrases such as, ‘chosen one of the Apostles,’ ‘mouth of the
disciples,’ and ‘leader of the band’ in order to obfuscate the truth. Chrysostom anticipated
Webster reply when he writes a few lines later:
” (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).

In one fell swoop, Chrysostom destroys Webster’s novel notion that James was equal in
authority to Peter.

The passage continues with these golden words:

“ ‘Then Peter turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; who also
leaned on His breast at supper; and saith, Lord, and what shall this man do?’ Wherefore
hath he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show
us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question
Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority
over the brethren, and not only doth not commit to another what relates to himself, but
himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter
speaks” (Homily 88 on John, NPNF1,XIV:332).

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Webster11Chrysostom2.pdf
Legitimate quote of St. John Chrysostom or a forgery?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

**Still promoting the forgeries I see…Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t turn it into Truth. **

I stated forgery or Legitimate? Maybe it is forgery. I am trying to find out.

 

[tomarin]

Lutheran and Orthodox both against the Catholic Church what does that mean?

Just that neither one accepts papal authority.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Thank you Josiah for responding and for remaining on topic.

I agree with you & St. John Chrysostom that the passage, read in its entirety shows that St. James was the one who had the highest authority at the council and that because of that authority, it was St. James who made the decrees of the Council.

You are correct that Orthodox only consider those Councils to be valid that have been accepted by the majority of laity. (This is why Ferra-Florence is not considered an Ecumencial Council, because the Holy Spirit did not allow the laity to accept the Council as the Council was Not inspired by the Holy Spirit.)

**This Council of Jerusalem was validated by the laity as shown in Verse 31 of Chapter 15 of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. **

MY thoughts (since I think you asked, lol)…

1. Catholics always seem to end the discussion of the chapter with verse 14. Curious. Because it gets really interesting after that.
2. I agree with you, it seems rather obvious that James is “in charge” here. Peter was ONE of several speakers - not the first, not the last. And there’s nothing in the text that suggests Peter’s words were given any special significance (more than, say, Paul or Barnabas), certaintly not infallible.
3. It’s interesting, because while we don’t know WHO arbitrated this issue (it only says “apostles and elders”), and we don’t know HOW they did that, we DO know what served as the rule/canon/norma normans. It was Scripture. James annouces, “this agrees with the words of the Scriptures,” (he goes on to quote some), then… “THEREFORE…” in other words, BECAUSE it is in accord with Scripture (Scripture being the rule), the judgement is that the position is correct. Clearly, the rule here was Scripture.
4. I had an interesting exchange with an Orthodox apologist some time ago who made a fasinating point from verses 22-35 that I had not considered, it seems perhaps that the ruling was not regarded as “final” until it was embraced/accepted by the people. I’m not SURE I agree this chapter is saying that, but it was an interesting and perhaps very important insight.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Again, I’m at a loss to see how anyone reading this chapter can come to the view that Peter was in charge or the presiding person. Clearly, that’s James.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

You and me both! I just don’t get how people can honestly read into that Chapter that St. Peter was “in charge” at that council. That’s too much preconceived notion.

Maybe, it’s like you said earlier, that most people don’t read the entire Chapter and that’s how they can feel justified coming up with something so different than what the passage says?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Because there is Only ONE Head of the Church and that is Jesus Christ.

The Church is NOT a two-headed monster!

Why is it that NO ONE makes any serious attempt to support the candidacy of James as the head of the universal Church? Why is it that the Church does not bother to trace the Apostolic Succession of the line of James?

I’m seeing from your posts that you want this thread to be about another topic. You want this thread to be about who is the Head of the Church, but it’s not. It’s about who was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem.

If you want to dispute that the Head of the Church is not Jesus Christ or not Only Jesus Christ, then start a Thread about it. That’s not what this thread is about though.

If you’re saying that no other early Church Father besides St. John Chrysostom spoke or wrote on who was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem, then all we have is him And he made it clear that it was St. James, not St. Peter.

What I find surprising though is if, St. John Chrysostom was wrong on this issue like you seem to be implying, then why do we NOT have any other early Church Father disputing his comment? It’s because early Church Fathers that were of the same era of St. John Chrysostom and those who came after his era AGREED with him on this issue.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because there is Only ONE Head of the Church and that is Jesus Christ.

The Church is NOT a two-headed monster!

I’m not trying to derail the thread, but you clearly need to look at the bigger picture. Jesus is the ONE HEAD of the Church (which includes both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, etc.), but that does not preclude Peter from being installed as the head of the Church here on earth. I would cite Mt. 16:19-19 and John 21:15-19 among many others in support of this.

I’m seeing from your posts that you want this thread to be about another topic. You want this thread to be about who is the Head of the Church, but it’s not. It’s about who was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem.

And I have already addressed this at length in my post explaining that James spoke to assuage the feelings of the Judaizers among his own local congregation. If you interacted with that, I missed it.

However, I am standing firm against any misguided conclusion you wish to draw from James’ alleged leadership at this council. You, citing Chrysostom, want to believe that James was the leader of the Council. From this, you will attempt to argue that Peter was NOT the head of the universal Church and that Rome has no primacy. Thus, from a misunderstanding of James’ subordinate role, you derive the idea that you do not have to be in formal communion with the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome.

If you want to dispute that the Head of the Church is not Jesus Christ or not Only Jesus Christ, then start a Thread about it. That’s not what this thread is about though.

Jesus is The Head of The Church; He also established Peter as His royal steward by conveying the keys (cf. Is. 22:20). Since Peter acts in the place of the King, you would do well to listen to him.

If you’re saying that no other early Church Father besides St. John Chrysostom spoke or wrote on who was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem, then all we have is him And he made it clear that it was St. James, not St. Peter.

Which still doesn’t prove that Peter wasn’t the head of the Universal Church even if James hosted this conference as leader of the diocese where the conference was held. IOW, okay…James led this council…so what? No one suggests from this that James was the head of the Catholic Church, and all of the ECF’s trace the leadership of the Church from Peter to Linus, Anacletus, Clement and so on.

Your beloved James is little more than a footnote in Church history. He had virtually no role recorded in scripture either before or after Acts 15. One wonders why he is so important to you?

What I find surprising though is if, St. John Chrysostom was wrong on this issue like you seem to be implying, then why do we NOT have any other early Church Father disputing his comment? It’s because early Church Fathers that were of the same era of St. John Chrysostom and those who came after his era AGREED with him on this issue.

An argument from silence? Not the strongest, is it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps you disagree with the arbitration of the First Ecumenical Council, but my post was not an evaluation of the decision. It was simply nothing the obvious.

I realize Catholics always stop with verse 14, but if we continue and read 15, we find this from James (who clearly is presiding), “With these words, the Scriptures agree…” He goes on to quote some (you may nor may not agree with him on the relevance of such, but that’s moot to the point here). In other words, the words of all who spoke (Peter simply being one among many) were NOT the rule/canon for the decision - they were held up TO a rule/canon, and we are specificly told what that was for the council. “Scripture.” Now, go to verse 19. After quoting them in his pronoucement (he doesn’t quote Peter, BTW, he quotes Scripture), and as the foundation for his (JAMES’) judgement, we find this key word, “THEREFORE…” What is the judgement founded upon, ruled by? Scripture. BTW, this is called “Sola Scriptura,” when the embraced rule/canon/norma normans is Scripture. Here’s a pretty classic, clear case of that praxis, but let’s not divert into that discussion.

I’ve reviewed the passage…I guess I’m not seeing it. Could you quote this for me?

Again, Peter seems to simply be ONE speaker at this meeting. Not the first, not the last, not given any special significance, and certainly there’s nothing about Peter being infallible or the vicar of Christ.

Again, I’m at a loss to see how anyone reading this chapter can come to the view that Peter was in charge or the presiding person. Clearly, that’s James.

I already explained this; see post #2 in the thread.

 

[elvisman]

No, I started this thread and that is NOT the issue.

The issue is this and only this:
Tim Staples always says that St. Peter was in charge of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
Yet the early Church Father, St. John Chrysostom says the St. James was the one in charge of that council.

Tim’s statements, conflicting with the teachings of the early Church, are a pet peeve of mine.

This is an extremely weak argument.
You want the conversation to stay within the walls of Jerusalem but if you want a REAL debate with ALL of the evidence, you have to concede to the fact that Peter was the earthly head of the worldwide Church. The Church Fathers are pretty much unanimous on that point.

There is FAR more evidence that Peter was the head of the Church, not James, and therefore was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem. At the very most - James, being the Bishop of Jerusalem, was the host - not the head.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Again with someone wanting to change the topic of this thread to “Who was the head of the Church” - Orthodox Christians, the Bible and the early Church ALL taught that Jesus is the head of the Church. But that is a completely different issue than the issue of this thread.

This thread is about who was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts 15.

Please read the entire Chapter of Acts 15, it’s not too long, and then say honestly who you think was in charge…who made the decisions of the Council?

After you read the entire Chapter, then please say us if you are in agreement with Tim Staples or if you are in agreement with St. John Chrysostom.

If you have any early Church Father quotes that specifically address the Council of Jerusalem or Acts 15, then please share those with us!

This is an extremely weak argument.

There is FAR more evidence that Peter was the head of the Church, not James, and therefore was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem. At the very most - James, being the Bishop of Jerusalem, was the host - not the head.

 

[NDfan]

I am aware of the passage you quote, but you seem to have missed my coverage of this possibility in my posting. There are two possibilities: 1) James agreed with the Judaizers, or 2) James was their pastor even though he disagreed with them.

If the former, then James was in error and he was corrected by Peter and the Council. If the latter, then James spoke after Peter NOT because he was the ultimate decision maker (as non-Catholics LOVE LOVE LOVE to claim) but because he was soothing the raw emotions of those who had just been over-ruled by Peter. His speech was pastoral but not executive.

So let’s assume that James was initially with the Judaizers. We know from the book of Acts and Galatians that this must have been a “hot” issue if you will. That doesn’t detract from the role that James served in the early Christian church. He was the leader of the Christian church which initially was viewed as being headquartered in Jerusalem. Or at least Jerusalem is where other churches looked to for direction because many Apostles were there. Peter in no way provides an over-ruling declaration at all in this matter. He merely provides his point of view.

We know that the issue was raised by a group of Pharisees in Jerusalem because Paul and Barnabus were conversing about the success they had with preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. This sparked their (the Pharisees) statement of the need to become circumcised first in order to keep Mosaic law. Acts is clear that the entire matter was discussed by Elders and Apostles and Peter makes a good point. That Gentiles should not have to keep Mosaic law given the Jews themselves could not even keep Mosaic law. Then the crowd quiets down to listen to the testimony of Paul and Barnabus who describe the wondrous things GOD did through them with the Gentiles. Upon hearing all the appropriate feedback James issues his judgement.

Point of fact the Greek word used in this part of Acts for judgement is the verb krino which means to judge, rule or govern. So when James states this is my decision (krino) you simply cannot get more executive than that. Your deduction that this is pastoral and not executive is unfounded and simply incorrect. Again if we study church history we find that many factions of non-Christian Jews invaded Christian churches to derail the spread of the Gospel and restore Judaism. Many scholars both Roman Catholic and non Roman-Catholic believe that the Christian church in Jerusalem was overturned by the Jews which may have led to the eventual death of James and quite possibly other Apostles that were still there and some or all of the Elders.

Oh? Since both the scribes and the pharisees would have been concentrated (almost exclusively?) in the city of Jerusalem to be near the Temple, they would have come under James’ pastoral care. And since Galatians tells us, “12Before certain men came from James”, I’m hard-pressed to see how they didn’t come from James in the face black-letter evidence that they did. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

The faction of Jews mentioned in Galatians cannot be tied to the same faction that went to Antioch and that they further were sent by James. It’s an assumption you are making. The letter dispatched by the council specifically clarifies that the Jewish faction which showed up at Antioch was not instructed by Jerusalem to speak to this matter. It could have easily been a goup of non-Christian Jews trying to disrupt the church.

You seem to be trying to tie the 2 factions together in an effort to change the purpose or role of James in the church which makes no sense. Whether James was in agreement with the faction or not we know the issue needed settling because other Christian Jewish leaders asserted this position. Again I’ll pose the question. If Peter’s rebuke of the position on circumcision was the final decision then why did Peter himself not step up and state here is my decision?? You’re trying to downplay it as if it was the final decision and James decision was meant to be more instructive and soothing to his faction that was on the other side. That makes no sense in light of what Acts 15 tells us. The letter and decision James issues was directed specifically to the Gentiles so they would have direction. Hence it was an executive decision.

I agree that James was the leader of a local congregation. Peter, of course, had larger responsibilities. Thank you for that.

As for the Church issuing a letter from all the Apostles, this doesn’t detract from Peter’s role as leader of the Church in the least.

There’s no doubt Peter was a leader in the church. One of many. But debating his role as leader of the entire church would derail the thread and probably should be discussed in a separate one.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I’m not trying to derail the thread, but you clearly need to look at the bigger picture. Jesus is the ONE HEAD of the Church (which includes both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, etc.), but that does not preclude Peter from being installed as the head of the Church here on earth. I would cite Mt. 16:19-19 and John 21:15-19 among many others in support of this.

Responding to this would derail the thread. This is an issue which can and should be discussed, but not on this thread.

However, I am standing firm against any misguided conclusion you wish to draw from James’ alleged leadership at this council. You, citing Chrysostom, want to believe that James was the leader of the Council. From this, you will attempt to argue that Peter was NOT the head of the universal Church and that Rome has no primacy. Thus, from a misunderstanding of James’ subordinate role, you derive the idea that you do not have to be in formal communion with the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome.

Okay, I think I’m beginning to understand what is going on here. You (and possibility the other Catholics who have responded her) are thinking that there is some kind of “conclusion I wish to draw from James’ leadership of this council” - that is wrong.

I am not trying to take this to another level at all. But I can see how if you think I am that is why you would be unwilling to admitt that St. James was in charge of the Council because then you would feel that you would be losing ground on another issue - probably the issue you and other continue to bring up…“Who is the head of the Church”.

I’m not going there though.

I fully believe that a Catholic can be honest with who was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem and still continue to believe that someone other than Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.

I truly believe that is another issue which can and should be discussed elsewhere.

On a side note: I’d have more respect for you and other Catholics if you admitted St. James was in charge. You would not “loose any ground” in your other arguments by being honest. I do kinda think it hurts the Catholic position when Catholics are not being honest with what Scripture says and are trying to read into it what is not there - by claiming that it was St. Peter in charge, rather than St. James, of the Council of Jerusalem because the Scripture and the one early Church Father we have found that discusses this passage clearly state that St. James was in charge. I say that I think it hurts the Catholic position because Non-Catholics see the Scripture and then see that the Catholic position doesn’t hold water here, then how are Non-Catholics supposed to think any Catholic position holds water. In my opinion, it is much better to be honest about what the Bible and early Church Fathers say, then try to do what your doing.

Jesus is The Head of The Church; He also established Peter as His royal steward by conveying the keys (cf. Is. 22:20). Since Peter acts in the place of the King, you would do well to listen to him.

Jesus is the Head of the Church - that is correct. The rest of the statement is not.

On another thread, I wish I recalled which one, recently it was asked if it was Scott Hahn who first made a connection between Is. 22 & Matt. 16 or if there was any early Church Father or Council that made that specific connection with those two Scriptures. Last I read about it no one was able to come up with a single Church Father (early or otherwise) who connected those two specific Scriptures. - if you know of any, please start another thread…I’d be interested to read it.

Which still doesn’t prove that Peter wasn’t the head of the Universal Church even if James hosted this conference as leader of the diocese where the conference was held. IOW, okay…James led this council…so what? No one suggests from this that James was the head of the Catholic Church, and all of the ECF’s trace the leadership of the Church from Peter to Linus, Anacletus, Clement and so on.

I’m not trying to prove that Peter wasn’t the head of the Universal Church…that is not the point of this thread at all. (I don’t believe he was, but that is a separate issue).

I agree with you, if St. James led the council, then so what?

Why is Tim Staples, why are you and other Catholics fighting so hard to say that it was St. Peter when the Chapter of Acts 15 and an early Church Father does Not support that view?

Your beloved James is little more than a footnote in Church history. He had virtually no role recorded in scripture either before or after Acts 15. One wonders why he is so important to you?

Thank you for calling Jesus’ oldest Step-Brother “mine” I’ll take him!

Why is he so important to me? He is my brother in Christ. He is a Saint.

I think the real question is why is he Not so important to you?

What do you have against St. James that you refer to such a wonderfully holy man, who was the only Step-Sibling of Jesus Christ to offer a portion of his inheritance from St. Joseph to Jesus, as just a “footnote”?

An argument from silence? Not the strongest, is it? In your opinion. Failing to defend the Truth was not something the early Church Fathers were famous for…everytime they heard someone say or teach something not inline with the Truth, they would always bring to light and defend the Truth against falsehood. In my opinion the silence is a strong arguement.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SingleMomMonica;6165533]Like in all Councils, all (or at least all who can) Bishops come and participate. St. Peter was an Apostle and was in the area and was able to come, so he came.

That is an assumption on your part, to think Peter just happened to be in the area and bought a ticket to the council that day? I don’t think turning a blind eye to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition is going to help you with your assumption.

This thread isn’t about who was shown a vision, but about who was in authority at the Council mentioned in Acts 15. Please stay on topic.

I beg to differ; Acts 15 is in direct relation of what happened earlier on from Acts 10. When Peter was given a vision to allow “gentiles” into the body of Jesus Christ. **Acts 15 (council of Jerusalem) needs to hear this “Word from God” of which Peter himself received from God, never James. **Peter equipped with this revelation and knowledge from God, goes to Jerusalem to hear the council of how to allow Gentiles into the Church. Which concludes, circumcision is not requried of Gentiles to enter the kingdom of God.

The only one who was given the revelation directly from God, regarding the council from Acts 15 about allowing Gentiles into the Church was Peter alone, James was never given instruction from heaven about Gentiles. James was bishop of Jerusalem where every Jew convert can hear from Peter himself what God instructed him about Gentiles being allowed in the Church.

The confusion here is that James was in charge of his Bishophoric Jerusalem where the council was held, making him one in authority over the preseedings, not the final decisions. After Peter spoke, who possessed the Words from God from his vision, which was already common knowledge to all present, all fell silent. As one should do, by showing reverence and awe, when God’s spokesperson speaks, but this event gets glossed over by anti Petros’..

The scriptures and Apostolic Tradition support Peter as one excercising the Keys over the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus from heaven, as Jesus said it would be done. See Matthew 16:19.

I am staying right on topic here, I just introduced to you what God spoke from heaven to Peter about the subject of Acts 15 through his Key holder Peter, before it happened.

The early Church Father St. John Chysostom says it was St. James who was in charge, not St. Peter.

Amen; James was in charge of the council, it was his city and his Bishopheric. Don’t confuse James authority excercising his authority first as host to the council, James must be heard first and last. Peter stated words from heaven, James agreed and concluded what Peter has revealed from God, must be followed.

Do you know any early Church Fathers that say it was St. Peter in charge of the council in Acts 15?

And by the way, read Acts 15, St. Peter wasn’t “hearing”, he was being heard by St. James who made the decision once St. James had heard everyone.

I thought Randy’s commentary covered this, I just added what God revealed to Peter from Acts 10 in advance before the troubles in Acts 15.

All the Early Church Fathers are in agreement that Peter was first among the apostles. Apostolic Tradition along with sacred scripture confirm that Peter is always mentioned first among the apostles. Why don’t you try reading St.John Chrysostom commentary over again armed with what I revealed to you about James being bishop in Jerusalem, and you may find it makes more sense and follows his teachings and all who follow after him recognizing Peter as first among apostles.

P.S here is John C. Again; St. John Chrysostoms’
“Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that One set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” Chrysostom, In illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4, p. 282. I read this in the book called Jesus, Peter & the Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren & Rev. Mr. David Hess

Peace be with you

 

[SingleMomMonica]

That is an assumption on your part, to think Peter just happened to be in the area and bought a ticket to the council that day? I don’t think turning a blind eye to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition is going to help you with your assumption.

Sacred Tradition tells us that St. Peter was Bishop of Antioch around that time and the vicinity is close. For each Council, the Bishops (in this council, Apostles too) traveled from all over…however, if someone was let’s say in India, like St. Thomas, he probably couldn’t make it or even hear about it in time. If someone was close, but ill or in prison, then he probably couldn’t make it.

I beg to differ; Acts 15 is in direct relation of what happened earlier on from Acts 10. When Peter was given a vision to allow “gentiles” into the body of Jesus Christ. **Acts 15 (council of Jerusalem) needs to hear this “Word from God” of which Peter himself received from God, never James. **Peter equipped with this revelation and knowledge from God, goes to Jerusalem to hear the council of how to allow Gentiles into the Church. Which concludes, circumcision is not requried of Gentiles to enter the kingdom of God.

If it was a matter that was already solved 5 Chapters earlier, then why hadn’t St. Peter spoken “Ex-Cathedra” and settled the matter in advance and saved St. Paul and St. Barnabus and the Gentiles they were preaching to alot of grief?

The only one who was given the revelation directly from God, regarding the council from Acts 15 about allowing Gentiles into the Church was Peter alone, James was never given instruction from heaven about Gentiles. James was bishop of Jerusalem where every Jew convert can hear from Peter himself what God instructed him about Gentiles being allowed in the Church.

St. Peter and St. Paul and St. John each had direct revelation from God pertaining to varying issues.

St. James was the one who at the Council of Jerusalem made the decrees of the council after he’d heard from all who wanted to speak, which included St. Peter.

The confusion here is that James was in charge of his Bishophoric Jerusalem where the council was held, making him one in authority over the preseedings, not the final decisions. After Peter spoke, who possessed the Words from God from his vision, which was already common knowledge to all present, all fell silent. As one should do, by showing reverence and awe, when God’s spokesperson speaks, but this event gets glossed over by anti Petros’..

There is no confusion here. St. James was the first Bishop in Jerusalem and since that is where the coucil was held, he was the one in charge of the proceedings and he is the one, the only one, who made the final decision.

Orthodox Christians are far from Anti-Petros. His feast day together with St. Paul is in June each year and is proceeded by a lenten period.

The scriptures and Apostolic Tradition support Peter as one excercising the Keys over the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus from heaven, as Jesus said it would be done. See Matthew 16:19.

The Keys issue is another issue altogether which can and should be discussed elsewhere.

**I am staying right on topic here, I just introduced to you God’s say from heaven about the subject of Acts 15 through his Key holder Peter.

“The Keys” is another issue and are not mentioned in Acts 15 nor was brought up in the Council of Jerusalem. The Orthodox Church has a great defense that all of the Apostles received the Keys and that St. Peter simply received them first, but that has been already (& can be again) discussed on another Thread. **

Amen; James was in charge of the council, it was his city and his Bishopheric. Don’t confuse James authority excercising his authority first as host to the council, James must be heard first and last. Peter stated words from heaven, James agreed and concluded what Peter has revealed from God, must be followed.

St. James referenced Scripture that substantiated his decision which, you are correct, was based in part on St. Peter’s testimony…but St. James listened to every one - St. Peter’s position on the matter was consistent with the position of Sts. Paul & Barnabus.