What is the first council we know about that did not include only apostles in the decision making process?

[jinc1019]

The question is pretty straight forward. I just want to know when the first non apostolic bishop was involved in making decisions in a council. Please note, I would like to know when the first council was that included a bishop not occupying a seat of an apostle in a decision making role was… so basically, the council must have at least 13 bishops involved, includingPeter’s seat. I know it may sound like an odd question but it could have important implications.

 

[Usagi]

Well, the First Ecumenical Council was at Nicaea in 325, by which time all the Apostles were long dead. Somewhere around 300 bishops are supposed to have attended. The Bishop of Rome at the time did not attend, but he sent a couple of representatives.

It’s possible that smaller, regional synods of bishops met for various reasons in the centuries between the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (as described in Acts) and Nicaea. However, I know of no such gatherings, and even if they did occur they would not have had the same authority to hand down rulings binding upon the entire Church that the Apostles at Jerusalem and the bishops at Nicaea had.

Usagi

 

[mardukm]

IIRC, the earliest record of council(s) are the local councils that were held to discuss the matter of Easter. These councils were convened upon the direction of Pope St. Victor, who instructed all the Churches to hold local Councils on the matter (around A.D. 190), and report the findings back to him. We have a record of this instruction from the letter of the primate of the Asian Churches St. Polycrates to Rome as recorded in Eusebius:
“I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Usagi]

Come to think of it, James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem and apparent host of the apostolic gathering there, is commonly understood to be a different man from either of the Apostles James, and he spoke so prominently at the Council that some non-Catholics argue that he and not Peter was the recognized human head of the Church at that time. While I don’t agree with that last bit, James would still be an example of a non-Apostle participating in decision-making alongside Peter and Paul, right in the New Testament.

Usagi

 

[ConstantineTG]

Come to think of it, James the Just, the first bishop of Jerusalem and apparent host of the apostolic gathering there, is commonly understood to be a different man from either of the Apostles James, and he spoke so prominently at the Council that some non-Catholics argue that he and not Peter was the recognized human head of the Church at that time. While I don’t agree with that last bit, James would still be an example of a non-Apostle participating in decision-making alongside Peter and Paul, right in the New Testament.

Usagi

Let me correct you on a number of things here

1. James who is the bishop of Jerusalem is different from the James who is the Apostle. A reading of Acts will show that James the brother of John was martyred much earlier in Acts, which in real time is years before the First Council of Jerusalem. So it is not a mere “commonly understood,” it is a widely accepted fact.
2. Everyone agrees that James is the leader of the Church of Jerusalem. Even the Roman Catholic Church does not deny that.
3. Another reading of Acts 15 shows that it was James alone who made the decision and pronouncement of the council’s findings. His declaration was emphatic in the original Greek, clearly stating that he and he alone is the authority.

 

[Usagi]

Constantine,

As to your first point, at times in the western Church James the Just and James the Less have been conflated into one figure. (Everyone agrees, as you say, that James the Greater was martyred early on.) While that is no longer a common belief, I used “commonly understood to be a different man” as a way of acknowledging the other notion without spending a lot of space explaining it.

As to your second point, I stated that James was first bishop of Jerusalem. I possibly erred in calling him the “apparent” host of the Jerusalem council, though. I wasn’t sure if Acts had identified him as leader of the Jerusalem church at that point, so I hedged my bets since I was drawing a conclusion from my own knowledge (“James was bishop of Jerusalem, the council was held in Jerusalem, therefore James was the hosting party”) rather than directly from Acts.

As to your third point, I’m sure you know (however wrong-headed you might consider it) that there is considerable Catholic apologetic opposition to the notion that James took the sole leadership role over Peter at the Jerusalem council. I did not want the thread to turn into a debate over that, and for the OP’s purposes it seemed sufficient that James was at least equally prominent to the Apostles present.

That does kind of bear on the OP’s question, though. Leaving aside for the moment any questions of Peter’s primacy, it still seems odd that a “mere” bishop would have the last word at a council attended by multiple Apostles. Would you say that it was because they were meeting in James’s city, or would there be another reason?

Usagi

 

[mardukm]

clearly stating that he and he alone is the authority.

Do you have a source for this statement? I’d never encountered such an opinion in all my years as an Orthodox. If it is your own opinion, just say so. That’s ok too.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jinc1019]

So far, all excellent information. I apologize for not getting back to everyone earlier but I completely forgot about the post and have been running around with family all weekend. Several very important points were brought up thus far and I greatly appreciate everyone’s time.

I guess the two major points I would like to make are:

1.) Are there any sources on this stuff? If not, that is ok, but I would like to know because of how important the implications of this could be, as the last poster pointed out.

2.) And my second question is, do people believe James was taking a prominent role because the council was in Jerusalem or because he was actually the perceived head of the whole church? It’s all very confusing and obviously doesn’t really mesh well with the Catholic version of events. Any additional help on this matter would be greatly appreciated!