Pope says he's saddened by 'perfect' Catholics who despise others

[James248]

Whether Jew or gentile, Paul says circumcision is useless.
Galatians 5:2

So why did he have Timothy circumcised? If he was raised Jewish as you say, then Timothy would have already been circumcised… right? So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised?

you completely miss Jerome’s point.

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

Peter a Jew, was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him.

Do you understand that point?

Now look at what Paul did
In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised.

As I said Timothy was part Jewish and part Greek. He was to preach to Jews

Then

Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed. Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more.

Regardless of what Paul did after or Peter’s intentions, Peter’s decision wasn’t good. In order for an act to be good the intent AND the circumstances must be good. The intent: unknown from Paul’s letter. The circumstances: shaming his fellow Gentile Christians.

 

[steve_b]

As I said Timothy was part Jewish and part Greek. He was to preach to Jews

In the beginning Jesus wanted to give the Jews first right of refusal.

***Matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

**Matt 15: ****22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[e]…

But that soon expanded past the Jews to everyone else… Peter actually opened it up to the Gentiles by baptizing Cornelius and his whole family. No more specialized evangelizing after that.

james:

Regardless of what Paul did after or Peter’s intentions, Peter’s decision wasn’t good.

As Jerome explained, Peter became as the group he was evangelizing as to not lose any one. And Paul learned that from Peter as an effective tool for his ministry. After all, Peter is the leader.

james:

In order for an act to be good the intent AND the circumstances must be good. The intent: unknown from Paul’s letter. The circumstances: shaming his fellow Gentile Christians.

As Jerome explains, Paul learned from Peter his superior.*

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Just for clarification, the website linked from the Diocese of Worchester:

The website linked earlier was from the NH Saint Benedict Center. The NH Bishop notes regarding the Saint Benedict Center.

To repeat what I already said above:

Just for clarification, as the threads have been over this before and it’s also on Wikipedia, “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” was the group founded by Father Feeney, who used to teach that only Catholics went to heaven and who was excommunicated from the Church during the 50s, but was received back into the Church in the early 1970s before he died. There are two groups of “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary”. The Massachusetts one that you linked has been in full communion with the Vatican for a while. There is another branch located in New Hampshire using the same name but for a long time it was a schismatic group; however, as of 2010 it was taking some steps to reconcile.

 

[James248]

In the beginning Jesus wanted to give the Jews first right of refusal.

***Matt 10:5 *These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons…

**Matt 15: ****22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[e]…

But that soon expanded past the Jews to everyone else… Peter actually opened it up to the Gentiles by baptizing Cornelius and his whole family. No more specialized evangelizing after that.

As Jerome explained, Peter became as the group he was evangelizing as to not lose any one. And Paul learned that from Peter as an effective tool for his ministry. After all, Peter is the leader.

As Jerome explains, Paul learned from Peter his superior.

So in your opinion, was Peter in the wrong?

 

[steve_b]

So in your opinion, was Peter in the wrong?

My opinion?

What part of my responses was my opinion? I was quoting Jerome, a saint and doctor of the Church,and his discussion with Augustine, another saint and doctor of the Church.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

The Mass is not the place for this.

Christ didn’t give us the Eucharist to send guilt into people’s hearts, but the joy of salvation.

Jim

To my mind reminding someone not to recieve communion without preparation is an act of charity. In my parish, our pastor reminds us before coming down from the solea with the gifts that those who are not Orthodox or have not prepared themselves with the pre-communion prayer rule, fasting of all food and water since the evening before, and recent confession should not present themselves for communion. This is pronounced each and every time. None of us are worthy, but we bring condemnation upon ourselves if we recieve without preparation.

“O Lord Jesus Christ my God, may the communion of Thy most pure and life creating mysteries not bring me into judgement, nor may I become weak in soul and body by partaking in an unworthy manner, but grant me to recieve communion of Thy holy things without condemnation even to my last breath, and by them to recieve communion of the Holy Spirit, provision for the journey of eternal life, and an acceptable answer at Thy dread judgement seat; that I, together with all Thy chosen ones, may also be a partaker of the incorruptible blessing which Thou has prepared for those who love Thee, O Lord, in whom Thou art glorified forever. Amen.” (Excerpt from the first pre-communion prayer of St. Basil The Great".

 

[steve_b]

To my mind reminding someone not to recieve communion without preparation is an act of charity. In my parish, our pastor reminds us before coming down from the solea with the gifts that those who are not Orthodox or have not prepared themselves with the pre-communion prayer rule, fasting of all food and water since the evening before, and recent confession should not present themselves for communion. This is pronounced each and every time. None of us are worthy, but we bring condemnation upon ourselves if we recieve without preparation.

“O Lord Jesus Christ my God, may the communion of Thy most pure and life creating mysteries not bring me into judgement, nor may I become weak in soul and body by partaking in an unworthy manner, but grant me to recieve communion of Thy holy things without condemnation even to my last breath, and by them to recieve communion of the Holy Spirit, provision for the journey of eternal life, and an acceptable answer at Thy dread judgement seat; that I, together with all Thy chosen ones, may also be a partaker of the incorruptible blessing which Thou has prepared for those who love Thee, O Lord, in whom Thou art glorified forever. Amen.” (Excerpt from the first pre-communion prayer of St. Basil The Great".

You’ve got an impressive pastor.

Catholics at the beginning of mass have the part in the mass where all venial sins are forgiven. Mortal sins however, are to be confessed and forgiven in confession in order to properly receive the Eucharist

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To my mind reminding someone not to recieve communion without preparation is an act of charity. In my parish, our pastor reminds us before coming down from the solea with the gifts that those who are not Orthodox or have not prepared themselves with the pre-communion prayer rule, fasting of all food and water since the evening before, and recent confession should not present themselves for communion. This is pronounced each and every time. None of us are worthy, but we bring condemnation upon ourselves if we recieve without preparation.

In Catholic churches there is often a note in the Bulletin about this. The announcement from the altar is made occasionally if there is reason to think that many non-Catholics will be attending a particular Mass.

I note that the fast time for Catholics is only one hour ahead of Mass (though some choose to fast from the midnight before, that is no longer the rule) and we are also allowed to have water and medication at any time, so it is unlikely that someone is not going to have “prepared” in that way unless they ate something immediately before going in the doors to Mass.

 

[James248]

My opinion?

What part of my responses was my opinion? I was quoting Jerome, a saint and doctor of the Church,and his discussion with Augustine, another saint and doctor of the Church.

Was he in the wrong? Simple question,

And frankly, Jerome was defending the indefensible, an action that would have resulted in two Churches instead of one.

 

[steve_b]

Was he in the wrong? Simple question,

I thought he made a cogent and insightful analysis

james:

And frankly, Jerome was defending the indefensible, an action that would have resulted in two Churches instead of one.

No he wasn’t, and how would that conclusion have happened as stated.

 

[James248]

I thought he made a cogent and insightful analysis

It’s a yes or no question.

No he wasn’t, and how would that conclusion have happened as stated.

According to Paul, Peter’s action was indefensible:

11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable.

12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?

 

[James248]

Augustine responded to Jerome is here: www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102040.htm

1. In your exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians I have found one thing which causes me much concern. For if it be the case that statements untrue in themselves, but made, as it were, out of a sense of duty in the interest of religion, have been admitted into the Holy Scriptures, what authority will be left to them? If this be conceded, what sentence can be produced from these Scriptures, by the weight of which the wicked obstinacy of error can be broken down? For as soon as you have produced it, if it be disliked by him who contends with you, he will reply that, in the passage alleged, the writer was uttering a falsehood under the pressure of some honourable sense of duty. And where will any one find this way of escape impossible, if it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not, Galatians 1:20 the apostle lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel ? Galatians 2:14 For if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true? Shall he be supposed to say what is true when his teaching corresponds with the predilection of his reader, and shall everything which runs counter to the impressions of the reader be reckoned a falsehood uttered by him under a sense of duty? It will be impossible to prevent men from finding reasons for thinking that he not only might have uttered a falsehood, but was bound to do so, if we admit this canon of interpretation. There is no need for many words in pursuing this argument, especially in writing to you, for whose wisdom and prudence enough has already been said. I would by no means be so arrogant as to attempt to enrich by my small coppers your mind, which by the divine gift is golden; and none is more able than yourself to revise and correct that work to which I have referred.

Chapter 4

1. You do not require me to teach you in what sense the apostle says, To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, 1 Corinthians 9:20 and other such things in the same passage, which are to be ascribed to the compassion of pitying love, not the artifices of intentional deceit. For he that ministers to the sick becomes as if he were sick himself; not, indeed, falsely pretending to be under the fever, but considering, with the mind of one truly sympathizing, what he would wish done for himself if he were in the sick man’s place. Paul was indeed a Jew; and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way, and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, even although he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these; but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers; provided only that they did not build on these their hope of salvation, since the salvation which was foreshadowed in these has now been brought in by the Lord Jesus. For the same reason, he judged that these ceremonies should by no means be made binding on the Gentile converts, because, by imposing a heavy and superfluous burden, they might turn aside from the faith those who were unaccustomed to them.
2. The thing, therefore, which he rebuked in Peter was not his observing the customs handed down from his fathers— which Peter, if he wished, might do without being chargeable with deceit or inconsistency, for, though now superfluous, these customs were not hurtful to one who had been accustomed to them— but his compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies, Galatians 2:14 which he could not do otherwise than by so acting in regard to them as if their observance was, even after the Lord’s coming, still necessary to salvation, against which truth protested through the apostolic office of Paul. Nor was the Apostle Peter ignorant of this, but he did it through fear of those who were of the circumcision. Manifestly, therefore, Peter was truly corrected, and Paul has given a true narrative of the event, unless, by the admission of a falsehood here, the authority of the Holy Scriptures given for the faith of all coming generations is to be made wholly uncertain and wavering. For it is neither possible nor suitable to state within the compass of a letter how great and how unutterably evil must be the consequences of such a concession. It might, however, be shown seasonably, and with less hazard, if we were conversing together.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

Please forgive an outsider butting in again. I note several instances of posters saying “the communion line is not the place for denying communion”. I would have to disagree. As a seminarian, I am blessed to serve in many parishes. I have witnessed many times in many parishes the priest or deacon turning someone away from communion. Always with utmost charity. If a priest is not familiar with the communicant he will inquire as to the parish they belong, last confession, and have you completed the fasting and prayer rule. If he is not satisfied with the answer the communicant is blessed and turned away with the request to meet after liturgy. A priest is responsible to defend the Eucharist and must answer to God for any instance it was administered improperly or irreverently. I have never seen someone react poorly. Mayb bcause this is a know thing with Russians? When traveling I am sure to call the parish I will be visiting ahead of time so that they know to expect me. Some priests even require attandence at vespers the evening before the liturgy followed by confession with the priest who will be communing you the next morning.

Perhaps this is because Orthodox parishes are typically much smaller and it is only proper for a priest or deacon to distribute the gifts that makes it a bit different for us. When I visit Catholic Churches I am astounded that just about everyone receives. It is almost as if they are more stigmatized to remain in the pew and admit that they are an unworthy/unprepared sinner (we all are) than to recieve improperly.

Thanks for listening to an outsider, please know that my statements are not meant to cause offense but only to share how a sister church deals with these issues.

Spraznikom! Joyous feast! Have a blessed Dormition/Assumption.

 

[FrDcnJohn]

You’ve got an impressive pastor.

Catholics at the beginning of mass have the part in the mass where all venial sins are forgiven. Mortal sins however, are to be confessed and forgiven in confession in order to properly receive the Eucharist

I do have an impressive pastor, we are truly blessed. However, this is typical with just about every parish I visit in most jurisdictions. Except the Greeks, you never know what the Greeks are up to!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Please forgive an outsider butting in again. I note several instances of posters saying “the communion line is not the place for denying communion”. I would have to disagree… It is almost as if they are more stigmatized to remain in the pew and admit that they are an unworthy/unprepared sinner (we all are) than to recieve improperly.

Customs and Canon Law in Catholic Church’s is very different from yours.
The presumption in our Churches is always that an approaching communicant is to receive unless they are public grave sinners and have been advised beforehand Communion is not possible until they cease the public cause of concern.

To examine a stranger in the Communion line would be considered a serious breach of charity (if not Canon Law) by the minister.

And yes, you are right about the stigmatisation side-effect of those who do not come forward. Often it is due to illness or having broken the fast but we always feel a bit uncomfortable because it looks like we are conscious of unconfessed grave sin!

If we colonies did not have such a regimented approach to Communion (as is not the case in Europe) whereby row by row comes up for Communion this would not be a problem.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Perhaps this is because Orthodox parishes are typically much smaller and it is only proper for a priest or deacon to distribute the gifts that makes it a bit different for us. When I visit Catholic Churches I am astounded that just about everyone receives. It is almost as if they are more stigmatized to remain in the pew and admit that they are an unworthy/unprepared sinner (we all are) than to recieve improperly.

It is likely that back in the days when Catholic churches had more priests and people tended to stay in the community so the priests knew the parishioners better, they might have been able to tell better who should and who should not be going to communion and who needed to go to confession and so forth. Nowadays, the parishes often have only one or two priests and are quite large and full of transient people, many of whom may not have bothered to register as parishioners and/or are just visiting the church or temporarily in the area. The priest is not going to have a clue about most of these peoples’ lives and whether they are prepared for Communion. So as a practical matter, limiting the Communion just to people the priest personally believes are properly “prepared” would leave out huge numbers of attendees and basically discourage people from receiving, which I don’t think the Church wants to do.

Having said that, I think it may be a bit presumptuous to assume that a lot of people are coming to church in a state of mortal sin that would preclude communion. Given that mortal sin needs to be a deliberate and willful choice to do something bad that destroys your relationship with God, it seems unlikely that people who make an effort to go to Mass would have taken that kind of destructive step.

 

[steve_b]

It’s a yes or no question.

According to Paul, Peter’s action was indefensible:

11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameable.

12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?

Augustine responded to Jerome is here: www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102040.htm

1. In your exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians I have found one thing which causes me much concern. For if it be the case that statements untrue in themselves, but made, as it were, out of a sense of duty in the interest of religion, have been admitted into the Holy Scriptures, what authority will be left to them? If this be conceded, what sentence can be produced from these Scriptures, by the weight of which the wicked obstinacy of error can be broken down? For as soon as you have produced it, if it be disliked by him who contends with you, he will reply that, in the passage alleged, the writer was uttering a falsehood under the pressure of some honourable sense of duty. And where will any one find this way of escape impossible, if it be possible for men to say and believe that, after introducing his narrative with these words, The things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not, Galatians 1:20 the apostle lied when he said of Peter and Barnabas, I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel ? Galatians 2:14 For if they did walk uprightly, Paul wrote what was false; and if he wrote what was false here, when did he say what was true? Shall he be supposed to say what is true when his teaching corresponds with the predilection of his reader, and shall everything which runs counter to the impressions of the reader be reckoned a falsehood uttered by him under a sense of duty? It will be impossible to prevent men from finding reasons for thinking that he not only might have uttered a falsehood, but was bound to do so, if we admit this canon of interpretation. There is no need for many words in pursuing this argument, especially in writing to you, for whose wisdom and prudence enough has already been said. I would by no means be so arrogant as to attempt to enrich by my small coppers your mind, which by the divine gift is golden; and none is more able than yourself to revise and correct that work to which I have referred.

Chapter 4

1. You do not require me to teach you in what sense the apostle says, To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews, 1 Corinthians 9:20 and other such things in the same passage, which are to be ascribed to the compassion of pitying love, not the artifices of intentional deceit. For he that ministers to the sick becomes as if he were sick himself; not, indeed, falsely pretending to be under the fever, but considering, with the mind of one truly sympathizing, what he would wish done for himself if he were in the sick man’s place. Paul was indeed a Jew; and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way, and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, even although he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these; but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers; provided only that they did not build on these their hope of salvation, since the salvation which was foreshadowed in these has now been brought in by the Lord Jesus. For the same reason, he judged that these ceremonies should by no means be made binding on the Gentile converts, because, by imposing a heavy and superfluous burden, they might turn aside from the faith those who were unaccustomed to them.
2. The thing, therefore, which he rebuked in Peter was not his observing the customs handed down from his fathers— which Peter, if he wished, might do without being chargeable with deceit or inconsistency,

[snip for space]

I know of that response.

Here is Jerome’s response to Letters 28, 40 and 71.
newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

Note: Re: letter 40 which you refer to, because of space and length of response, start reading from

Ch 3

beginning with

"Chapter with which you find fault: If any one be dissatisfied with the interpretation here given, by which it is shown that neither did Peter sin, nor did Paul rebuke presumptuously a greater than himself, …

 

[steve_b]

I do have an impressive pastor, we are truly blessed. However, this is typical with just about every parish I visit in most jurisdictions. Except the Greeks, you never know what the Greeks are up to!

I’m sure you guys have great fun giving it to each other … in good humor of course.

Are you Russian Orthodox?

 

[James248]

Augustine responded back to Jerome:
www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm

1. But you will say it is better to believe that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right. On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; Matthew 26:75 and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another, and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband. 2 Samuel 11:4, 17 Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole oracles of God.
2. For my part, I believe that Peter so acted on this occasion as to compel the Gentiles to live as Jews: because I read that Paul wrote this, and I do not believe that he lied. And therefore Peter was not acting uprightly. For it was contrary to the truth of the gospel, that those who believed in Christ should think that without those ancient ceremonies they could not be saved. This was the position maintained at Antioch by those of the circumcision who had believed; against whom Paul protested constantly and vehemently. As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16:3 performing a vow at Cenchrea, Acts 18:18 and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, Acts 21:26 it is manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation, but to prevent men from believing that he condemned as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites which God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it, and as shadows of things to come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught men to forsake Moses. Acts 21:21 This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.
3. For mark, I beseech you, the words of James: You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that you have come. Do therefore this that we say to you: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify yourself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning you, are nothing; but that you yourself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which have believed, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Acts 21:20-25 It is, in my opinion, very clear that the reason why James gave this advice was, that the falsity of what they had heard concerning him might be known to those Jews, who, though they had believed in Christ, were jealous for the honour of the law, and would not have it thought that the institutions which had been given by Moses to their fathers were condemned by the doctrine of Christ as if they were profane, and had not been originally given by divine authority. For the men who had brought this reproach against Paul were not those who understood the right spirit in which observance of these ceremonies should be practised under the Christian dispensation by believing Jews—namely, as a way of declaring the divine authority of these rites, and their holy use in the prophetic dispensation, and not as a means of obtaining salvation, which was to them already revealed in Christ and ministered by baptism. On the contrary, the men who had spread abroad this report against the apostle were those who would have these rites observed, as if without their observance there could be no salvation to those who believed the gospel. For these false teachers had found him to be a most zealous preacher of free grace, and a most decided opponent of their views, teaching as he did that men are not justified by these things, but by the grace of Jesus Christ, which these ceremonies of the law were appointed to foreshadow. This party, therefore, endeavouring to raise odium and persecution against him, charged him with being an enemy of the law and of the divine institutions; and there was no more fitting way in which he could turn aside the odium caused by this false accusation, than by himself celebrating those rites which he was supposed to condemn as profane, and thus showing that, on the one hand, the Jews were not to be debarred from them as if they were unlawful, and on the other hand, that the Gentiles were not to be compelled to observe them as if they were necessary.

 

[steve_b]

Augustine responded back to Jerome:
www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm

1. But you will say it is better to believe that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right. On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; Matthew 26:75 and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another, and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband. 2 Samuel 11:4, 17 Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole oracles of God.
2. For my part, I believe that Peter so acted on this occasion as to compel the Gentiles to live as Jews: because I read that Paul wrote this, and I do not believe that he lied. And therefore Peter was not acting uprightly. For it was contrary to the truth of the gospel, that those who believed in Christ should think that without those ancient ceremonies they could not be saved. This was the position maintained at Antioch by those of the circumcision who had believed; against whom Paul protested constantly and vehemently. As to Paul’s circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16:3 performing a vow at Cenchrea, Acts 18:18 and undertaking on the suggestion of James at Jerusalem to share the performance of the appointed rites with some who had made a vow, Acts 21:26 it is manifest that Paul’s design in these things was not to give to others the impression that he thought that by these observances salvation is given under the Christian dispensation, but to prevent men from believing that he condemned as no better than heathen idolatrous worship, those rites which God had appointed in the former dispensation as suitable to it, and as shadows of things to come. For this is what James said to him, that the report had gone abroad concerning him that he taught men to forsake Moses. Acts 21:21 This would be by all means wrong for those who believe in Christ, to forsake him who prophesied of Christ, as if they detested and condemned the teaching of him of whom Christ said, Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me; for he wrote of Me.
3. For mark, I beseech you, the words of James: You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of you, that you teach all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that you have come. Do therefore this that we say to you: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify yourself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning you, are nothing; but that you yourself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which have believed, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Acts 21:20-25 It is, in my opinion, very clear that the reason why James gave this advice was, that the falsity of what they had heard concerning him might be known to those Jews, who, though they had believed in Christ, were jealous for the honour of the law, and would not have it thought that the institutions which had been given by Moses to their fathers were condemned by the doctrine of Christ as if they were profane, and had not been originally given by divine authority. For the men who had brought this reproach against Paul were not those who understood the right spirit in which observance of these ceremonies should be practised under the Christian dispensation by believing Jews—namely, as a way of declaring the divine authority of these rites, and their holy use in the prophetic dispensation, and not as a means of obtaining salvation, which was to them already revealed in Christ and ministered by baptism. On the contrary, the men who had spread abroad this report against the apostle were those who would have these rites observed, as if without their observance there could be no salvation to those who believed the gospel. For these false teachers had found him to be a most zealous preacher of free grace, and a most decided opponent of their views, teaching as he did that men are not justified by these things, but by the grace of Jesus Christ, which these ceremonies of the law were appointed to foreshadow. This party, therefore, endeavouring to raise odium and persecution against him, charged him with being an enemy of the law and of the divine institutions; and there was no more fitting way in which he could turn aside the odium caused by this false accusation, [snip for space],

This letter was a year later in 405. It’s more about James and his party. Peter never circumcised anyone, Paul did. And Jerome didn’t answer this letter. So we don’t know how he would have responded other than his previous letter…