M
Mickey
Guest
Typo: Presided over by St James.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
No thank you. I have participated in many threads on this subject and the result is always the same. RC’s say that St Peter was acting like today’s modern day RC Pope at this council. The Orthodox say that St James presided over the first Ecumenical Council–the Council of Jerusalem. The Church was speaking. There was no supreme ruler. I will not budge and neither will you. But it is always a good discussion!
I will bow out now.
Blessings to all!
St John Chrysostom
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
J
Jason_W
Guest
well which is it?
based on that answer i quess you could say the fact that they werent silenced both times prior to Peter speaking, shows disrespect for Paul and Barnabas.
my point here is quite clear, if you honestly and with an open mind cannot discern the facts. then there is no point going any further. I truly pray one day we can be RE united in the One Faith , with the SAME mind. God Bless.
B
bnapgh
Guest
Mickey, as I read this thread your saying “my” St. James" (instead of "by St. James) was your second interesting typo (or Freudian slip?) — the first was the omission of “not” earlier. I type worse than anyone, so I am not commenting on your typing. But it did cause me to wonder if the Spirit was trying to influence your fingers if He couldn’t guide your mind! LOL!!
On topic, Mickey, do you see any significance in the fact that the verse that cites the congregation being silenced begins with the conjunction ‘‘and’’? Wouldn’t that imply that this verse was directly tied to the preceding one?
That said, I think you have opined that St. Peter was:
- the “mouth” or spokesman of the Church;
- “first” among equals; and,
- “chief” among the Apostles.
I probably should know this, but was it not a Church Council that interpreted the Pope to be infallible in matters of Faith? If so, how is this different from other Councils?
If Papal infallibility in matters of Faith were interpreted not to be a question of accuracy but of faithful safety or assurance or reliability, then would you object to the Pope as the final arbiter when the Council cannot settle a question?
Just wondering.
.
J
JRKH
Guest
WHOA WHOA My friend.
Look at my posts. Particularly #81. I’m not declaring anyone “Pope” based on what I see in Acts.
I will wholeheartedly back your concept of this being an “ecumenical” council called to resolve a specific issue related to the whole Church.
It is also clear that Both Peter and James are named as making specific and important speeches, and that James made the Pronouncement of the Decision, but nothing else is really nailed down by Luke in this.
Our concepts of how councils or meetings are conducted are likely totally different from how they organized things 2000 years ago. Trying to project the organization of a Church of millions onto a Church of a few thousands or ten thousands is simply not a good idea.
It would be like comparing the Federal government of 1800 to the Federal Government of Today, only even more confusing.
I can see James Presiding. I can also see his Judgement as being a legitimate summary and Judgement of what the council agreed upon.
I do not think that any of this takes away from Peter’s position as leader of the Apostles, or as the foundation upon which the Church has been built.
Peace
James
M
mercygate
Guest
:yawn: Will somebody wake me up when this is over?
M
Mickey
Guest
They were all respected. Sheesh! Like mercygate says: wake me when it’s over.
There is no reason to start attacking me.
God bless you and your friends and family.
M
Mickey
Guest
Wow! How clairvoyant of you!
I believe all bishops are successors of St Peter.
Holy Orthodoxy accepts the first seven.
1870 was an unfortunate year.
It was always “the council” that settled the question.
I’m outta here folks. Peace be to all!
Hi mercygate!
M
Mickey
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother James,
Blessings,
Marduk
Some (maybe most) Eastern Orthodox simply cannot get around the fact that the final outcome of the council of Jerusalem (whether one thinks its ecumenical or not) was a JUDGMENT by ONE PERSON. Also note that the judgment of that one person is thereafter presented as the judgment of the entire Church. The one speaks for all. The Bible is filled with examples of instances that demonstrate that in specific, unique circumstances, when the needs of the People of God call for it, authority revolves around one God-appointed individual. Despite all the bad things EO may say about the papacy, we as Catholics can be secure that our ecclesiological model is the most biblical model.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
Jason_W
Guest
ALWAYS? or just the first seven?
M
Mickey
Guest
St James made the judgement, but it was the entire Church that spoke with one voice. St James made no infallible statements as some sort of supreme judge. St Peter spoke, SS Paul and Barnabas spoke and finally St James spoke and judged. A true Ecumenical Council.
…most in line with the post schism Latin Church of the second millenium.
B
bnapgh
Guest
But it did cause me to wonder if the Spirit was trying to influence your fingers if He couldn’t guide your mind! LOL!!
Just a weak attempt at humor, no offense intended and certainly no claivoyance claimed. Sorry if I did offend you.Wow! How clairvoyant of you!
I am confused by this. If ‘‘all’’ bishops are successors of St Peter, then who succeeds St James and the others?
In your opinion, are all bishops now ‘‘first’’, ‘‘chief’’, and ‘‘spokesman’’ among themselves? That seems illogical to me. If this is not what you meant, then who today is ‘‘first’’, ‘‘chief’’, ‘‘spokesman’’ and ‘‘captain’’ for the bishops?
I am confused. In your opinion, why did the Church’s ability to settle questions through Councils end after seven? If you believe the Holy Spirit guides the majority of the bishops in Councils, then why was the majority wrong on the Schism?
If God saw it as wisdom to designate Peter as a necessary ‘‘first’’, ‘‘chief’’ ‘‘spokesman’’ among the Apostles, why would He not provide some way to maintain this role in His Church after Peter’s death?
I think this addresses my context but not my questoin. I asked:
RSVP!
J
Jason_W
Guest
this is an interesting read, concerning the supreme authority of the Roman Pope from the 7th century. it contains some writings of St. Maximus the Confessor.
newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm
We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated**,(Pope Severinus)** and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his slgnature to it.
but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws if I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.
it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her – nay, to our Lord – by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy…
For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world
For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm
We cannot act with authority in this matter, for we have received a commission to execute, not an order to make a profession of faith. But we assure you that we will relate all that you have put forward, and we will show the document itself to him who is to be consecrated**,(Pope Severinus)** and if he should judge it to be correct, we will ask him to append his slgnature to it.
but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws if I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.
it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her – nay, to our Lord – by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy…
For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world
For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
M
Mickey
Guest
Once, N. Pavovich asked the Elder, ‘is it possible to hope for the
unification of the churches?’
“He replied, 'No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church.”
(Source: Elder Nektary of Optina By I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182)
J
Jason_W
Guest
who was the elder? and was he the supreme authority of the Church? after all he declared there would be no more councils right? so by what authority did he do so?
J
Jason_W
Guest
What else strikes me as odd, is the fact that the elder said NO only an ecumenical council can unite the Churches. but then he states there will be no more ecumenical councils. Thus he is saying there is no hope!
M
Mickey
Guest
No. The great saint is saying that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Individuals will unite themselves to Holy Orthodoxy.
G
Gofer
Guest
Peter ended the debate in Acts 15, no matter who spoke last. Jerusalem was strictly a local council since Nicaea was the first ecumenical one.
“There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven.”
This reminds me of the four gospels being correlated to the four cardinal directions (north, south, east, west). Nice but coincidental. God could have provided more authentic gospels for the canon if he had wished, but that’s not what happened.
“There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven.”
This reminds me of the four gospels being correlated to the four cardinal directions (north, south, east, west). Nice but coincidental. God could have provided more authentic gospels for the canon if he had wished, but that’s not what happened.
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting opinion. I thought the Roman Catholic Church taught that Acts 15 was the first Church Council. Am I wrong?
- Status