I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I didn’t say you did.
The foring was for the chance that High Petrine folks would come at me for what I said.
- Status
The foring was for the chance that High Petrine folks would come at me for what I said.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The ‘protest’ against the authority which Peter drew upon in the Council at Jerusalem claims evryone just believed Peter’s words with nothing to do with his authority among them. But why then does Peter have to remind them at all???
And we are to just assume it had nothing to do with everyone falling silent and not able to refute?James also, as an Apostle, was then able to continue with what was to be collectively declared and express the revelation with terms (abstaining from certain things of idolatry). I personally love James and his wisdom. A Catholic Council is not about coming together to merely hear from the Pope what evryone is gonna believe. The Pope, like the rest of his bretheren, hears what everyone believes to be the truth of the matter at hand. Just as Peter did when Jesus asked them all, " Who do the people say that I am? Who do you say that I am?"
You see, when the Church comes together in sincerety to resolve a dividing issue, Catholics have always left the Keys of ultamate authority for declaring her answer to the whole Church in the hands of the office of Peter. What do the Protestants do? Do they all come together? Do they take a vote? Do they all just eventually agree on matters, like they claim was the simple and sole means which the Jerusalem Council was resolved? No, because they form their own Communions separate from one another.
So why should Protestants have any criticism on what is grounds for Christian unity, when they do not possess unity themselves? The Catholic Faith is the most unified faith in all Christianity. Wouldn’t that be a holy virtue which speaks for itself? Orthodoxy has the next most humble unity, which is expressed in the Catechism as lacking almost nothing. The more distance from the Eucharist we become, the more division there is. The more division there is, the more complicated the Faithfull becomes to outsiders. The more complicated the Faithfull becomes to outsiders, the less productive we will be in compelling outsiders to convert to Jesus.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I think we confuse leadership with authority at times. They are not necessarily the same depending on the context.
It is also erroneous to use this passage as means to show immediate authority and supremacy for the Pope. And to use terms that were developed much later into this ancient context.
If you read closely, James says “It is my judgement” and he closes the argument at that point. Yes people were silent after Peter spoke, of couse - He is Cephas and what God revealed to Him with the Gentiles was an incredible witness - so it’s not because Peter spoke only - but because of the amazing witness of God’s work with the gentiles. I mean, let’s look at whole picture or once and take our Peter glasses off for a second…
Second, the closing letter says:
Nowhere does it says, Peter has spoken and we do as he says. Or this is done according to Peter.
The Papacy as we know it, did not become what it is until after the Great Schism. Did you know that it wasn’t until In Nomine Domini in 1059 AD that the Papal election was set to be done [only] by the school of cardinal/bishops? After the Schism.
It is a developed doctrine to which the Western Bishops agreed to bind with the Chair of Peter.
Christ told Peter to *strengthen *your brethren, not be their monarch.
Christ told Peter to *tend *and *feed *His sheep, not be their monarch. And the sheep are Christ, not Peter. Peter is to tend and feed us.
Yes I am Catholic and I know the “De Fide” requirements I have. But they don’t require me to be intellectually dishonest to myself. Or to hypocritically agree with the Church.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Jon, I personally believe you seek the greatest truths which Luthernism offers. The Ausburg (sp?) Confessions seem to hold to much Catholic Truth. My sentements do not imply I dont enjoy your believe shared. I speak, alot, about Church positions and not always about personal adherence to what each of us believe. St Paul was very focussed on each of us living out the Catholic faith, not because or for anyone else than Jesus Our Lord. In this conviction he was able to rebuke the person who held the highest authoratative position in the Church, because a position in the Church does not earn favor in God’s eyes.
B
benhur
Guest
OK. Thought you were being facetious. Thought you were coming at “my” history that “suggests” development.I didn’t say you did.
The foring was for the chance that High Petrine folks would come at me for what I said.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
You know me better than that! I’m never facetious, my humor is impeccable
I *know *it is a development. And I don’t have a problem with [some] developments
R
rcwitness
Guest
A council is the leaders coming together. I dont think of the Pope being a leader of the Bishops. They are all shepherds and pastors, with the Pope having jurisdiction in the whole Church (Such as Peter “went in and out among them all”
Why? That’s what Peter did by reminding them the Lord made a choice among them.
I don’t think I’ve conveyed, nor do I believe that the beliefs and opinions of all were in vain. What was most relavent to be written down by Luke was the fact that Peter held a special place among the Leaders, which was from the Lord Himself. The focus shouldn’t be to blindly follow the Pope. It took the initiative of Paul, Barnabas, and then the local Church whom sent them along with others to defend the truth of the Gospel. Yet, our belief, as Catholics, is that the holder of the Keys is able to resolve the division by himself. He is able to silence the objectors, so that progress can then be made, and unity restored.
Nope. What it says, is that the Lord has spoken through His Prime Minister. We can leave the one opinion behind and embrace the other.
Development in doctrine is only a documentation of what has always existed. Its usually always done out of the demands of the situations. What we believe the pope to possess, we believe Peter was given and thus was handed down to his successors.
Yes, and thats why Communion with the Bishop of Rome is important.
B
benhur
Guest
My apologies on the previous"fore". Well spoken.
B
benhur
Guest
Really ? The only time Peter references himself it is that of presbyter or bishop like all the rest, nothing of being “over” but quite equal to any other. Tell me, when was Peter a hypocrite with the Gentiles (where he "left’ them as soon as Jews approached, that Paul chided him for ) ? Was it before the council ? If it was before maybe that is why he spoke later than earlier, I mean did it affect his demeanor ? He did testify finally, and then only posed any deduction as a question.
Well for sure the Lord gave Peter the vision and the opportunity to obey and go to Cornelius. The debate is still there if it was because he was prime , above others or as first amongst equals. The Lord also revealed to Paul pretty much the same thing regarding gentiles.
Yes it is by faith you rest without documentation that papacy “always existed”.
Well not much changes under the sun and the situation has been there from the beginning so documentation should also. Detractors also point out and say like you the Papacy documentation developed situationally even politically and not from the beginning.
Yes, that is the teaching that must be believed, irregardless.
As forefathers have said , we are in communion with him as we say, as Peter did via revelation and faith, Christ is the Messiah, Son of the Living God.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
James pronounced his judgment, obviously consistent with Peter but not because of Peter. But because of God’s revelation to the Gentiles. If there is any one person who can come out in the context of this passage, it’s James. Context is everything. That’s why I don’t like to use this passage to support the Papacy.
The main reason I left Protestantism and came back to Catholicism was to stop the use of mental gymnastics. This passage with the Papacy is nothing short of a Gold medal for floor gymnastics.
That doesn’t mean monarchy. You are adding to much to the letter.
Neither did I say you did. [If] it really is such a big sign of unity, then how come all of our children (Protestantism) are all over the place? It works for us, not them.
The Lord has spoken through all of His ministers.
I don’t agree. Development has nothing to do with documenting what has always existed. It has to do with developing the Faith delivered once and for all. The doctrine of the Papacy as it stands today is nowhere to be found until after the Schism. Primacy, Leadership, Authority manifested in many ways and nobody is denying that.
But to pretend that the Papacy is what has always been since Christ, it’s mental gymnastics.
And who is saying it is not important?
Communion with the Bishop of Rome should not be equated with a monarquical system. But in an Ecclesiastical system, just like it is present in the New Testament and in the first 1,000 years of Church history.
And like Contarini said in another thread, those days are long gone. We deal with what we have in the 21st century and remain orthodox in our Faith.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
:tiphat:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Acts 15:7-11New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers,[a] you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. 8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
I contend that Peter speaks in Ex Catherdra, wheather or not the term existed. He draws on the authority which Christ gave to him. I don’t differentiate wheather its the keys of the kingdom or the sheet with unclean animals. They are both messages to him as a prime Apostle.
I honestly don’t know. But not sure it matters.
And Paul was sent by the local Church to receive confirmation in order to end the obstruction which the circumcission party was laying before the salvation of the gentiles. Paul could not do this on his own because he was not the chief Apostle, nor was he the entire group of Apostles. But he was given the truth by God and sent with the blessing of the Holy Spirit through the Church.
And yet there is an assault by the faithfull on the Eucharist
R
rcwitness
Guest
Im not restricting this passage to the support of the papacy, yet it has strong elements in it which do. To me, the ‘obstructors’ or circumcission party and those who sided with them were not silenced by James. James did not end the division. James, as one who either accepted what Peter said because of his authority, or believed it from the beginning, or was convinced by Paul conveyed the results because he also wanted to add the necessity to abstain from things from idols. I personally believe James to have supported the truth in the debate, and he did not need to hear it from Peter to believe it, yet others there did
So you think that Peter was what the Catholic faith said he was. The Chief Apostle with the ability to speak with absolute authority on matters of faith but in this very important Council which settled a matter regarding salvation and of which Peter himself was given a vision regarding the very issue, did not express that authority, despite referencing his selection from among the bretheren to preach salvation to the gentiles? That is mental gymnastics my friend.
I dont believe the papacy is a monarchy, but a Prime Minister.
Yes. But not all of His ministers have binding authority on the whole Church.
But we believe the essence was always there and believed and practiced in an obedient way. The Apostles did not suffer the kinds of divisions which would later obstruct the Church. And we do have earlier records from Clement, Ignatius and Justin which testify to the primacy of the See of Rome.
You make it sound like it was fabricated at the schism.
This really is quite against Catholic Teaching
Maybe you mean the focus and reliance on the papacy?Right, I did not mean that you were saying that. I didnt think you were, just making the point.
The Catholic ecclesiatical history has supported the papal office. You seem to believe in Orthodoxy more than Catholicism. But thats fine. I dont have a problem with your faith. Thanks for giving my posts the thoughfullness you have.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi rewitness: Your post of 181, I would like to reply to.
It seems to me that the whole assembly; converted Pharisees and Apostles and presbyters, had no reply to what Peter said to them nor an answer to the question Peter put to them. Peter in support of Paul and Barnabas recounts the fundamental meaning of the Gospel; that all mankind is invited to be saved through faith in the salvific power of Christ; personal observance of the divine law is man’s necessary response to God’s saving action, through not the cause of it. This in effect, put an end to the debate and controversy as to whether or not gentile had to be circumcised and had to follow Mosaic laws in order to be saved.
In the end it seems or at least appears that the agreement came after Peter spoke as what he had to say reflected the Gospel that had been taught to them by Jesus Himself. The whole of the assembly saw this and so had no rebuke nor could they continue to disagree with what Peter said to them and the question he asked of them. Contrary to what so many seem to think, James while he may have been the leader of the Jerusalem Church or community, only spoke of dietary laws etc. and not about the question of whether or not gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. There were really two different matters, one in which James himself requested an apostolic decree.
Code:
I would like to explain how I understand Acts Chapter 15, The Council of Jerusalem. Luke sets up the Chapter by saying that some men( converted Pharisees) come to Antioch from Judea ( most likely Jerusalem ) and began preaching that in order to be saved gentiles had to be circumcised as per Mosaic Law. This caused so much problems, dissension and controversy between the converted Pharisees and Paul and Barnabas that it was decided to go to Jerusalem and see the Apostles and presbyters and get some answers to the question of whether or not gentiles had to follow Mosaic law and be circumcised in order to be saved.
When Paul and Barnabas got to Jerusalem they were welcomed by the Church, the Apostles, and presbyters and they recounted all that God had accomplished through them among the Gentiles as well as whether or not Gentile had to be circumcised and follow Mosaic laws in order to be saved. The converted Pharisees demanded that Gentiles be circumcised and follow Mosaic laws. it must be assumed that Paul and Barnabas argued that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised and follow Mosaic laws in order to be saved. So, then the Apostles and presbyters called a council in order to settle the question.
It is apparent that there was a lot of debating going on and a lot of discussion concerting the matter of whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised and had to follow Mosaic laws in order to be saved. Peter, then got up and took the floor and spoke and in the end asked them;( the whole assembly) :why then, di you put God to the test by trying to place on the shoulders of these converts a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? Our belief is rather that we are saved by the favor of the Lord Jesus Christ and so are they." " At that he whole assembly fell silent. They listened to Barnabas and Paul as the two described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them. When they had conclude their presentation, James spoke up.
Code:
In Acts Chapter 12 1-2, It says that King Herod had James the bother of John beheaded. This seems to have happen sometime around 41-44 AD, which was several years before the Council of Jerusalem in about 49 AD. So which James were you speaking of? James of Alphocus also called the greater or James of Clopas also called the less? I am not sure if anyone knows which James was speaking at the Council of Jerusalem. Which ever James it was, spoke concerning dietary laws and it appears that the apostolic decree requested by James derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. And this seems to be the case as was related in Galatians 2, 1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed on the Gentile Christians in respect to Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forbidden degrees of kindred Lv18 all of which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
However, you are using this passage to support it not as mere elements. But thanks for the clarification.
We are going in circles. I already touched on this. James says “my judgement” and the letter says “we, Apotles, Elders”. Nowhere does this passage even hints at Peter’s judgment or as “I, Peter, say”.
It is a perfect example of the Church acting together as a whole. Just like it isn’t by Paul alone, it isn’t by Peter alone.
That is a broad and general brush attached to my thinking. Which has nothing to do with the interpretation of the passage in question and the historical facts.
I am not reading past the text or making it say more than what it does. No gymnastics at all.
No. It is a monarchy.
Canon 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
Further,
Canon 332 §3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Even Further,
There is no recourse for the removal of a Pope if he is to become non sui compos.
I am familiar with them. Primacy - yes. Monarchy and Supremacy - no.
That’s what it sounds like to you, my friend. The fact is that the Western Church was not able to do this because they could not get consent from the Eastern Churches. For obvious historical reasons.You make it sound like it was fabricated at the schism.
What exactly is against Catholic Teaching? I need you to be specific please.This really is quite against Catholic Teaching
We must be reading different historical books
.I agree with a lot of Orthodoxy as Catholicism also does. However, I am not going to ignore history and the practice of the Church through said history.
DittoThanks for giving my posts the thoughfullness you have.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Spina,
That Peter was speaking the truth and that he witnessed to God’s revelation given to him has nothing to do with the supremacy of the Pope. It just reinforces Peter’s position as the rock. The leader of the Apostles. Not the monarch of the Apostles.
The he was not rebuked or that they stop disagreeing with, also has nothing to do with supremacy. It has to do with the respect and position (Not supreme) he was given and the fact of what Peter just said as well. Think about it… This are Jews with thousands of years of a historical relationship with God and not only did things were radically changed with Christ but now the Gentiles were considered to be in a relationship with God just like they are?
It is much better to use the New Testament as whole in support of Peter than this passage by itself.
James declared his judgement. Not Peter.
S
spina1953
Guest
Yes, James declared his judgment but it had to do with dietary laws and not circumcision. Peter was supporting what Paul and Barnabas were preaching as per the Gospel and Luke was showing that the Christian Church was moving away from the Jewish Mosaic laws which would have prevented Gentiles from becoming Jewish unless they first conform to all of Mosaic laws. Also, Peter was saying that it is faith in Christ Jesus , the gift of salvation was through this Jesus and not Mosaic laws as the converted Pharisees demanded.
Consider this how long would the assembly have debated argued and discussed the issue had not Peter stood up and spoke? We do not know how many disagreed and how many agreed. We do not know how many agreed with Peter and Paul and Barnabas and we do not know how many disagreed with them. What we do know is that the whole of the assembly which to my mind means everyone fell silent not just a few or some but all, or the whole of them. In Luke’s Acts, it seems to me that peter is the focal point of how the early Church was forming and who was seeming in charge. it is only the latter half of Acts do we see Paul emerge as establishing Churches among Gentiles showing that the early Christian Church was moving away from its Jewish roots. Additionally, the first half of Acts shows peter to be in charge of all that Luke was attesting to concerning the early Church and if that was not so then why write Acts in the way and manor that he did? Part of it, it seems to me is to show that Peter was the acknowledged leader of the early Christian Church with the rest of the Apostles in union with him and Peter in union with them.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I try my best not to engage in [what if’s].
The text is clear. I don’t read past it.
This is almost like arguing against “Sola Scriptura”… sounds like “Solo Petrus”.
B
benhur
Guest
Ok I see what you mean that Peter refers to him being chosen to go to the gentiles . I thought you meant he was going around reminding folks of his keys , of his being over the others . As I stated Peter indeed was used first and specially in regard to gentiles. Here is my verse where Peter refers to himself not as being over any one, "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds/U] of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
Don’t agree Paul did it because of “papacy” but was expedient thing to do. Paul was politically astute and understood the Spirit. No one denies Peter had clout and Peter should have been the first to come to Paul’s aid, for he had exclusively and personally received the same message of the gentiles.
Actually forefathers also speak of eucharist as symbol of unity also .Christians of every denomination participate in this remembrance. As CS Lewis noted it is a testimony, even if under different "ations’’ or means of RP. This unity can also be assaulted by unvalidating others participation because of their convictions from the Lord on how just to “Remember”.
B
benhur
Guest
Perfect way to end the way with humor. ThanksThis is almost like arguing against “Sola Scriptura”… sounds like “Solo Petrus”.
- Status