P
Peter_J
Guest
Lyons II is one of 8 councils that we traditionally called “General Councils”. They are rarely called that nowadays, although Pope Paul VI did so on that occasion.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
But would an Orthodox council even have the authority or capability to change a centuries old liturgy if it needed changing? And who would it impact? Could it have anything like the universal impact on the church that the first 7 councils had, for example? Where could that authority lie now? What would it look like?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Correction. The Evangelical Catholic faith.Correction: the Catholic faith.
Sorry, Peter. Couldn’t resist.
C
commenter
Guest
Sometimes an element that unifies in one small culture, for a short time, might not be applicable to a situation with a few different cultures, over a “long” time.
In social science, it’s hard to find a sample size that’s bigger and more diverse than the Catholic Church, or a variable that’s been tested longer than the papacy!
Is this the only ground of unity? of course not.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The Faith built on the Apostles.
Hebews11:
39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect
So then, why would even the apostles need to Confirm their Gospel through Peter?
Paul and the Other Apostles
2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage— 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.
Here, we see that Peter is mentioned with John as having authority even though James was the Overseer of the Church in Jerusalem.
But what is evident, is that there was unity among these three, so Paul does not distinguish Peter as excercising his prime authority. But in Acts, there seems to be a more distiguished authority expressed through Peter. He stands up and ends the debate.
I think Paul paints the picture a little different than Luke, because he was compelled to express the equally important aspect of behaving in accordance with the Gospel which we preach. But it is obvious that Paul sought Jesus’ Confirmation by going to the “pillars”. He happened to be quite confident in his preaching, and for good reason because he was right. But He was also humble, because he knew that Jesus established an order of leadership for the sake of peace and unity.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
In order to demonstrate to the Galatians that the faith proclaimed by Paul was the same faith proclaimed by the apostles in Jerusalem. Ultimately, because he is showing that the apostle to the circumcised has the same gospel as the apostle to the uncircumcised. Important point of unity to a church that is falsely teaching that one needs to be a circumised Jew in addition to being a Christian.
Paul goes to lengths in the early chapters of Galatians to show that he did not need the approval of any men, not even the Apostles, because he received his gospel directly from the Lord Jesus.
There is nothing in those passages which say that Peter had any authority over and above James (beyond that of an apostle in general).
He is the last to speak at the debate. James ends it (though, obviously, he thinks Peter is correct).
If anything, it shows that there is no pecking order, just as Jesus said.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Sorry? No need to be sorry, friend, all four evangelists were Catholics!
P
Peter_J
Guest
.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Ask the Russian Old Believers, Patriarch Nikon destroyed the ‘heretical’ Russian Liturgy and exiled their practice for the Greek usage with his rubber stamp Synod in less than a year.
And what of the Patrimony of Antioch and Alexandria - why did the Greek appointees feel the need to remove the Traditional Worship (still employed by those of the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Churches), and replace them wholesale with Greek/Constantinopolitan practices?
R
rcwitness
Guest
And he was Confirmed by the Church to do so. If he had been in any error regarding his gospel, the Apostles would not enjoin him to themselves. And if the disciples were divided about Paul’s gospel, Peter would have to settle the matter.
He was not going to Peter, James and John for their opinion. He was seeking Confirmation, like we all are obligated to do. Consider what he says as to why he went to them.
I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
If he was confident without a doubt he was preaching the same thing the 12 were preaching, why would he worry about preaching in vain? Preaching the truth would never be in vain, especially if revealed personally to do so.
Peter’s authority was shared by those who were fellow apostles. It was Peter who was first given the revelation by way of the vision with the sheet.
This I just don’t understand. Peter stood up and ended the debate and used the fact that the Lord made His choice from among them, that he should declare, by his mouth, salvation even to the gentiles. James just made a request to put it into writting and add the admonishments to refrain from certain things.
There is no partiality shown by God to whom He accepts and who obeys the Lord in all things. But obviously, there is division within the faithfull. This is why there are levels of authority within the Church, so that the body is not perpetually at odds regarding faith, morals and doctrine.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Being he received the gospel from Christ, he did not need the confirmation, though he did so for good order and peace in the churches. There was no chance of him being in error since he received it from Christ. Had Peter, hypothetically, said that Paul was in error, it would have settled nothing because Peter would have been in error.
So your argument is that Paul was unsure whether his gospel was true, and so he needed confirmation from the apostles that it was?
His preaching in vain would have been if the apostles were preaching that Gentiles would have to be circumcised, then his preaching that they would not have to be circumcised would have been in vain. Hence why Paul goes to Jerusalem to begin with and brings “Exhibit A” of Titus.
That is true.
The point being that, as bishop of Jerusalem, he formally ended the debate through his ecclesiastical authority. That Peter said what he said is of import, to be sure, and would have influenced James’ viewpoint. But to say that making a statement in a debate indicates anything at all related to a papacy is isogesis.
R
rcwitness
Guest
He personally did not need the Confirmation, because he was not in error. He knew he was not in error regarding the gospel. I believe you are correct. But you are not necessarilly correct that just because he was an Apostle meant he was infallible. There was “much debate among the apostles and elders” regarding this issue, right? This was the whole point. Paul was given the gospel personally and from Jesus. But there was an aspect of that gospel which was the issue of circumcision which his revelation compelled him to seek Confirmation through the pillars, and not because these pillars were anything in themselves or because he sought their opinion on the matter. But Paul was, as you say, trying to work together with the Church in order to lay the foundation.
I think Paul was unsure if this was the approach the pillars of the Church were taking. If it was not, then he expected to be shown how that was not in contrast to the revelation he had so far received. I think the record in Acts helps understand the way things went down. First, in chapter 13 the Holy Spirit told the Church leaders to set apart Paul and Barnabas for the work which He had for them. Then after fasting and praying, they laid hands on them and sent them on their way. The immediate verse says, “So being sent by the Holy Spirit,…” Eventually, they came across the party which said,“unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved.” This was not specifically addressed and resolved by the Church as a whole. Paul, though he was aware that circumcision no longer held us from salvation, did not have the authority to Confirm the whole Church. He then was"appointed" again, with Barnabas and others, to go to Jerusalem to resolve the division. There at the council, it was Peter who, after much debate rose up and declared the infallible statement which all present fell silent after. No one challenged his authority, because he used the commission of the Lord to him specifically in order to say what he was saying. Then James, after the debate was ended, asked to write the letter concerning these things, and refraining from certain things of idols. And again, Paul and Barnabas were sent on their mission, to preach among the gentiles what was delivered to the Jews first and then the whole world.
It was not a mere statement with some import, it was the statement which everyone “fell silent” afterwards.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Are you claiming infallibility on Paul?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Still a step closerOnly ex cathedra.
Jon
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Galatians 1:15-18
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to[a] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
Doesn’t read like someone who thought to even try to do things his own way, independently.
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to[a] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
Doesn’t read like someone who thought to even try to do things his own way, independently.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
- the primary SOURCE of unity is the Eucharist.
Thank you, thank you.- The Pope of Rome upholds the Unity of the Church in his role as Head of the Universal (Catholic) Church and Supreme Head of the College of Bishops (Pontiff).
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
The most charitable way I can think of to describe that argument is “circular”. The pope restored unity because he ratified the council that gave him the authority to ratify the council… ad infinitum.Yeah Constance was called to ens the schism **but even this council had to be ratified by the very same pope chosen by it in order for it to even be valid. ** So ultimately again the pope is the source of sacerdotal unity.
Come on. As the Roman Catholic historian I quoted in my first post said, the council was necessary to restore unity.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Yes and no, again, Ecumenical Councils have resulted in division which Popes have been able to unite… at least partially as well
P
Peter_J
Guest
Are you claiming infallibility on Paul?
Because we do – that is, believe that Paul was infallible when he wrote Romans, Galatians, etc.Only ex cathedra.
Jon
- Status