Pet Peeve...A comment of Tim Staples

[SingleMomMonica]

**That quote has already been proven to be a forgery over the centuries by various Catholic Historians - some of which were burned alive for questioning it’s authenticity…Again continuing to repeat a lie over and over again will Not make it Truth. **

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

And also with you!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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!

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that James was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem.

What does this suggest to you about the leadership of the Church here on earth?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Absolutely Nothing

For the sake of discussion, let’s say that James was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem.

What does this suggest to you about the leadership of the Church here on earth?

 

[ralphinal]

I wonder if it is possible that, since Peter founded Antioch, he told Paul and Barnabas to go WITH him to Jerusalem and meet with the others. If so, I wonder if Peter might have contacted others as well…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Absolutely Nothing

Okay. If you say so.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

It is possible St. Peter was one of the “they”, but if so, it is strange that he wasn’t named there and wasn’t named as a traveler with Sts. Paul & Barnabus.

Another thing I always found strange as a Catholic is that in Acts 15 he is referred to as Simon, not Simon Peter and not as Peter? Does anyone have a good explanation for this? Makes it seem like being called “Rock” was not important during a Council? I don’t know?

I wonder if it is possible that, since Peter founded Antioch, he told Paul and Barnabas to go WITH him to Jerusalem and meet with the others. If so, I wonder if Peter might have contacted others as well…

 

[Sword_Brethren]

T
I discovered that what I’d honestly thought was a quote of St, John Chrysostom was actually part of the work (based on the above forgeries) called: Thesaurus of Greek Fathers which had been determined to be a mix of forged quotations attributed to St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor by 19th Century Catholic Historian Lord Acton.

.

I have been searching the net for information on the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers but have not found anythings. Please tell me the sources for 19th Century Catholic Historian Lord Acton and his writing on the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers.

 

[BrianH]

I have some huge problems with what Randy quoted initially. But I also do not think that James being in charge of the Jerusalem Council has anything to do with the Papacy either way. I also have problems with this because it is an example of one side (Catholics) overstating their case. If Protestants say it disproves the Papacy, that would be overstating the case as well. I think ND fan has addressed it rather well though.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=SingleMomMonica;6169778]

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?

You missed the point; Peter recieved revelation from heaven directly to bind and loose on earth any and all subjects that come up in the body of Jesus Christ pertaining to gentiles from his revelation in Acts 10, from the first century council in Jerusalem (headed by James) and thereafter until Jesus returns. In other words God has prepared the Vicar of Christ on earth, Peter and all his successors from his revelation, to excercise by his God given authority to allow Gentiles into the body of Jesus Christ, despite James and other Bishophoric Jewish convert communities who preferred Gentiles to be circumcised before entering the Church by baptism. Peter heard it from God first hand about the Gentile community. Peter armed with Heavens message settled the matter. James who hosted the council only concurred with Peter and heavens message.

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

All the apostles got direct revelation from Jesus when he walked the earth and maybe those unrecorded after the resurrection. Jesus did many other signs and wonders that have not been recorded. St. Paul was not an original disciple, but recieved direct revelation from his conversion, not direct revelation of Gentiles, Paul and the others recieved this revelation from Peter, that is why Paul reprimands Peter of eating only with Jews and not Gentiles as he was doing a staunch coverted Jew. St.John received direct revelation in regards to the end times and Mass revelation. Again, not a direct mission about your topic of discussion allowing the Gentiles in the Church. Only Peter recieved this authoritative message from heaven to allow Gentiles into Jewish convert communities. Now if that dont shake boots between these two rivalry communities, and to place all this on James who has not heard from heaven about allowing the Gentiles in the church, makes James a very small man, trying to allow Gentiles into Jewish communities without circumcision?

Only God can accomplish this great mystery through his Vicar Peter who was built upon Stone. James would of never had a chance on his own to suffice both communities on his word alone. Peter was needed to give word from heaven so that “all” may fall silent and hear the voice of God speak to their hearts. Poor James would of gotten eaten alive should he tried to conduct this doctrine all on his own Espiscopacy authority.

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.

James who hosted the council is first to speak and last to conclude what Heaven through Peter has announced. This protocol is still practiced in civilized societies.

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.

Let me repeat what I just stated from another perspective. James never gave the final decision. The final decision was already made from God himself, through the voice and authority from Peter. James only concurred, from his Episcopacy, that his community will adhere to heavens message and teachings from Peter. James did not and could not dictate what heaven declared about Gentiles. Only Peter carrried heavens message, never James about allowing Gentiles into “The Way”.

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.

Amen, but if the shoe fits? if it does not fit? Peace be with you

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

.

I close with this view. Acts 15 is a general recording of what took place, we dont have the legal verbatim testimony here. We can only draw from what was practiced in the faith and handed down and compare to the Word of God. When one does this, the math always equates Peter excercising his God given authority when it is called for in matters of faith and morals over the entire Catholic Church. Some may disagree with this fact today from afar, but it does not change recorded history and practiced Catholic faith since the Apostolic period.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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?

Please dont be illusioned;

7
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
12
The whole assembly fell silent,

Peter is the only one who speech is recorded in Acts 15, where are the other speeches before the decsion? What follows next after God’s spokesperson has revealed from heaven about the Gentiles is followed by signs and wonders of two witnessess according to Mosaic Law and testimony, please continue.

**and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. **

Now James being the good host that John Chrysotosom speaks about confirms, Peters teaching and revelation from heaven regarding the Gentiles, because it is common knowledge, that Peter alone possesed this divine knowledge from God

13
6 After they had fallen silent,** James responded,** "My brothers, listen to me.
14
**Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written: **

Why do you doubt God’s word. God chose to speak through a Rock (Peter) not James. Another has to give witness with signs and wonders to follow in order for it to come from God. James, Paul, Barnabas and others not recorded here, did all these things, if you want to follow covenant principles. Acts 15 is littered with it, and Peter is at center of the revelation from God. Just as Moses revealed the Word of God, followed by Aaron giving witness who introduced Moses and concluded after Moses gave the Word of God.

 

[dvdjs]

**That quote has already been proven to be a forgery over the centuries by various Catholic Historians - some of which were burned alive for questioning it’s authenticity…Again continuing to repeat a lie over and over again will Not make it Truth. **

I don’t have much time this evening, but I did take some time to search the internet for support of this claim of SMM. I found many reference to this passage from Chrysostom, in illud, hoc Scitote, including discussions on serious Orthodox fora like monachos. But I didn’t yet find any discussion of this passage as being a forgery - apart from the very claim of SMM in this thread.

I also re-read this forum’s thread, "For Orthodox Christians here…re: St. John Chrysostom’s support of the Papacy " from October 22, 2009 in which SMM invited a discussion of this quote. There were some amazing things claimed there, but I didn’t see any comments on the forgery. Likewise no such claim in any of the several reviews of “Jesus, Peter & the Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy” that I perused.

Can SMM or anyone help find any primary sources for this claim - in particular the claimed sources among Catholic Historians"? Thanks for the help; they must be out there somewhere, probably hiding in plain sight.

ps
Found SMM’s reference to Lord Acton in another thread. That’s a start.

 

[BrianH]

Please dont be illusioned;

7
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
12
The whole assembly fell silent,

Peter is the only one who speech is recorded in Acts 15, where are the other speeches before the decsion? What follows next after God’s spokesperson has revealed from heaven about the Gentiles is followed by signs and wonders of two witnessess according to Mosaic Law and testimony, please continue.

**and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. **

Now James being the good host that John Chrysotosom speaks about confirms, Peters teaching and revelation from heaven regarding the Gentiles, because it is common knowledge, that Peter alone possesed this divine knowledge from God

13
6 After they had fallen silent,** James responded,** "My brothers, listen to me.
14
**Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15
The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written: **

Why do you doubt God’s word. God chose to speak through a Rock (Peter) not James. Another has to give witness with signs and wonders to follow in order for it to come from God. James, Paul, Barnabas and others not recorded here, did all these things, if you want to follow covenant principles. Acts 15 is littered with it, and Peter is at center of the revelation from God. Just as Moses revealed the Word of God, followed by Aaron giving witness who introduced Moses and concluded after Moses gave the Word of God.

Why do you only bold the first time they fell silent? What is the purpose of that?
I know it cannot be because it does not support your interpretation. Surely not…
What is the reason that you do not include the scripture; the very last thing. What Peter stated earlier is compared against scripture. Heck, Im no Sola Scriptura advocate but when you say people doubt God’s word you know very well that good people disagree on interpretation.

 

[aspirant]

You may or may not be aware that the Catholic Church (or at least some individuals within the Catholic Church) around the 8th and 9th centuries especially, during the time that Rome was attempting to advance the claims of the Papacy (from primacy to supremacy, etc.), made many forgeries.

So if the homilies on John, homilies on Matthew, and many other writings are later forgeries, which writings of St. John Chrysostom are authentic? Are there any authentic writings of St. John Chrysostom left? What documentation can you provide where we can further research this?

I did take some time to search the internet for support of this claim of SMM. I found many reference to this passage from Chrysostom… But I didn’t yet find any discussion of this passage as being a forgery - apart from the very claim of SMM in this thread…

Can SMM or anyone help find any primary sources for this claim - in particular the claimed sources among Catholic Historians"? Thanks for the help; they must be out there somewhere, probably hiding in plain sight.

I am looking for the same and finding nothing so far.

 

[Kiechlin]

It seems everyone is going in circles. The OP just won’t look at Early Fathers’ evidence that contradicts her opinion. If you’re going to look just at Act 15, then lets talk about that. It’s obvious that people have different “readings” or interpretations of that passage. This leads to the bedrock of the issue. How do we, who read the Word of God, know what is the proper interpretation? There must be Authority on the Scriptures-i.e. Tradition. Last I checked, St. John Chrysostom is not the sole keeper of Tradition-so why has all of the posts citing the other Fathers been ignored or dismissed? Why? Tradition, preserved by the Holy Spirit, must necessarily safeguard the interpretation of Scripture. Again, IT DOES all come back to the question of Authority. Hopefully this was as clear as mud Also, if you are going to make claims about heretical, false homilies of Chrysostom, and Heretics who were burned for it, where and what is your evidence? The onus is on you to provide proof for such claims.
In Christ,
Kiechlin

 

[elvisman]

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!

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence from the Early Fathers of Peter’s Primacy. There is SUBSTANTIAL Scriptural evidence of Peter’s Primacy.
For you to demand that somebody furnish evidence from that one council is preposterous. Very little is known about what happened there except for what is written about it in Acts 15 and in Galatians. Other than that - there is no written record.

You have been given ample evidence that Peter is the one who made the doctrinal declaration that James merely agreed to.

Up until the Council of Jerusalem – any Jew who wanted to convert could make the assumption that if they observed the Law, it would count toward their salvation. That they could earn it by this observance.

It was Peter who first stated at the Council that salvation was by grace alone – not James or anybody else. Peter was stating what was already a fact – Jews and Gentiles BOTH are saved by grace alone. This is the fundamental message of the Gospel.

James agrees with Peter, then tells the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (himself included) that they ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God about adherence to the Law. This is not a Catholic invention - it is clearly written in Scripture. The only problem is - you deny it.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Elvisman,

No Orthodox Christian has ever doubted that St. Peter had primacy, first among equals, of the Apostles. So you trying to argue about that which there is no dispute is a silly waste of time. Now if it’s the newer Roman Catholic Claims of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility you want to argue about, go ahead, but Not on this thread because this thread is not about those issues.

On this thread there has not been a shred of the evidence you claim. No one here has provided Any proof from the early Church Fathers that any of them disagreed with St. John Chrysostom (& Acts 15) writing that St. James was the one in charge, held the high authority, at the Council of Jerusalem. St. James is the one, who after listening to everyone who spoke, made the judgement himself - he didn’t simply agree as you claim- your claim doesn’t fit with what has been written in Acts 15. Please read the entire Chapter.

If you have any evidence that shows a single early Church Father claims that St. Peter, not St. James, was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem, please share it! I’m still waiting.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence from the Early Fathers of Peter’s Primacy. There is SUBSTANTIAL Scriptural evidence of Peter’s Primacy.
For you to demand that somebody furnish evidence from that one council is preposterous. Very little is known about what happened there except for what is written about it in Acts 15 and in Galatians. Other than that - there is no written record.

You have been given ample evidence that Peter is the one who made the doctrinal declaration that James merely agreed to.

Up until the Council of Jerusalem – any Jew who wanted to convert could make the assumption that if they observed the Law, it would count toward their salvation. That they could earn it by this observance.

It was Peter who first stated at the Council that salvation was by grace alone – not James or anybody else. Peter was stating what was already a fact – Jews and Gentiles BOTH are saved by grace alone. This is the fundamental message of the Gospel.

James agrees with Peter, then tells the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (himself included) that they ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God about adherence to the Law. This is not a Catholic invention - it is clearly written in Scripture. The only problem is - you deny it.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Kiechlin,

My opinion is based on the entire chapter 15 of the book of Acts & on the writings of St. John Chrysostom.

So far, No One here has provided Any early Father’s evidence which contradicts my opinion and St. John Chrysostom’s opinion.

The reason each of the other supposed quotes of the early Church Fathers have been dismissed as you say is that the quotes provided have nothing to do with the issue! They don’t address the Council of Jerusalem at all.

Church Tradition confirms what Acts 15 says and what St. John Chrysostom says. Why are you rebelling against Tradition, both written and oral in this matter?

If you are unfamiliar with your own Catholic History and the Catholic Historians why should I, an Orthodox Christian, have to educate you? Educate youself! Dude, read your own Church History. Aren’t you ashamed that you don’t know about your own Church?

If someone doesn’t provide any proof that the early Church taught differently than St. John Chrysostom in regards to who held the highest authority at the Council of Jerusalem, at some point in the next 24 hours I’m going to let go of this thread because so far it’s proven to be a complete waste of my time and energy since the Catholics posting here are bent on changing the topic of the thread and then arguing about issues unrelated to this thread. I hope that some evidence will be provided to substantiate the comments of my favorite Catholic Apologist, Tim Staples who only gets under my skin when he comments about this issue and when he mispronounces the name of “Theotokos”.

Blessings to all who have posted here!

It seems everyone is going in circles. The OP just won’t look at Early Fathers’ evidence that contradicts her opinion. If you’re going to look just at Act 15, then lets talk about that. It’s obvious that people have different “readings” or interpretations of that passage. This leads to the bedrock of the issue. How do we, who read the Word of God, know what is the proper interpretation? There must be Authority on the Scriptures-i.e. Tradition. Last I checked, St. John Chrysostom is not the sole keeper of Tradition-so why has all of the posts citing the other Fathers been ignored or dismissed? Why? Tradition, preserved by the Holy Spirit, must necessarily safeguard the interpretation of Scripture. Again, IT DOES all come back to the question of Authority. Hopefully this was as clear as mud Also, if you are going to make claims about heretical, false homilies of Chrysostom, and Heretics who were burned for it, where and what is your evidence? The onus is on you to provide proof for such claims.
In Christ,
Kiechlin

 

[dvdjs]

… at some point in the next 24 hours I’m going to let go of this thread … !

First, how about helping out on primary sources regarding the burned-alive Catholic Historians that you mentioned on this thread.

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman,

No Orthodox Christian has ever doubted that St. Peter had primacy, first among equals, of the Apostles. So you trying to argue about that which there is no dispute is a silly waste of time. Now if it’s the newer Roman Catholic Claims of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility you want to argue about, go ahead, but Not on this thread because this thread is not about those issues.

On this thread there has not been a shred of the evidence you claim. No one here has provided Any proof from the early Church Fathers that any of them disagreed with St. John Chrysostom (& Acts 15) writing that St. James was the one in charge, held the high authority, at the Council of Jerusalem. St. James is the one, who after listening to everyone who spoke, made the judgement himself - he didn’t simply agree as you claim- your claim doesn’t fit with what has been written in Acts 15. Please read the entire Chapter.

If you have any evidence that shows a single early Church Father claims that St. Peter, not St. James, was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem, please share it! I’m still waiting.

I’m not trying to change the course of the thread to Peter’s Papal Supremacy - but you cannot have this debate without including that fact.

You want to have a debate based on a few lines of Scripture - in the context that YOU want it without listening to ANYBODY’s explanation when it differes with your opinion. The only evidence you’ll consider to are quotes from the Fathers.
This is patently ridiculous - and a waste of time.

Several posts back - you were pretty much slapped in the face with the Mark Bonocore arguments about James speaking for himself and his followers when he said:
**It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, **but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.

---

This destroys your entire position, but you won’t consider it because you can’t argue the point intelligently.

 

[NDfan]

It seems everyone is going in circles.

Amen to that!!!

I think the primacy of Peter and his role in the church is a separate discussion from what the OP is asking.

I’d like to offer some additional dialogue to the board. Some of you may have heard of Father Pacwa who is part of EWTN and has appeared on radio and television participating in some very spirited debates. In a debate with a few Presbyterian (I believe) ministers this very conversation of the Jerusalem council surfaced and the role of James in the early church. Pacwa flat out admitted that the Roman Catholic church saw James as the initial leader of the church administratively. Peter’s role like the current Pope was and is purely spiritual i.e. shepherding the flock. For some reason Catholics and non-Catholics debate over Acts 15 and its significance for either asserting or not asserting Peter’s primacy in the early church.

If we look at the events leading up to the Jerusalem council, as mentioned by many in previous posts, the entire issue surrounded the need for Gentiles to become Jewish first before converting to Christianity. Peter, Barnabus, and Paul knew that the church of Christ was truly Catholic/Kathilocos/Universal and had no barriers with regard to age, race, sex etc. etc. So the need to become Jewish was out of the question. The Jerusalem council was presided over by James and all sides gave their (name removed by moderator)ut. The case Peter made followed by the good news Paul and Barnabus delivered was proof enough to show Gentiles did not need to convert to Judaism.

When James issues his judgement he’s not issuing a self serving judgement but one that is representative of the council as a whole. This is the key point here and Father Pacwa does an excellent job of explaining this. The main thing that James did to resolve the issue was refer back to scripture and the written words of the Prophets. Peter’s spiritual position on this matter was in conjunction with scripture as was Paul’s and Barnabus’.

Pacwa explained in great detail how many Roman Catholics and non-Roman Catholics completely misunderstand the office of the Papacy. Everything the Pope states is not infallible and the Pope’s opinion on matters is not the final opinion. The behavior of the Jerusalem council is consistent with almost all other councils including Vat 1 and 2, Chalcedon etc. etc. The decisions of the councils do not represent solely the opinions and decisions of the Pope. The Pope is subject to just as much scrutiny as anyone which is why we see Paul rebuking Peter for his misconduct when eating with the Gentiles and then backing away once the circumcision party shows up. If we look at that section of Acts we see how the example Peter set was followed by many other Jewish folk which Luke flat out calls hypocritic behavior.

I think the simple answer to the OPs question is yes James did preside over the Jerusalem council and probably the early church from purely an administrative point of view. The debate about Peter’s leadership and his role as the first Pope should probably be taken to another thread.

PEACE