Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[Abu]

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant scholar Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

It is precisely because Adolph von Harnack is such a radical that his admittance – using facts and reason as an “outsider” – is so valuable. With the evidence from the Sacred Scriptures that Peter was chosen by Christ, on whom He built His Church, von Harnack’s reference to “the special guardian of the common unity” is very apt – Peter holds the primacy, and his successors likewise as Christ had instituted His Church until the end of time, so the primacy on earth must exist until the end of time in Peter’s legitimate successors – in the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter – claimed and exercised.

 

[Madaglan]

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant scholar Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

It is precisely because Adolph von Harnack is such a radical that his admittance – using facts and reason as an “outsider” – is so valuable. With the evidence from the Sacred Scriptures that Peter was chosen by Christ, on whom He built His Church, von Harnack’s reference to “the special guardian of the common unity” is very apt – Peter holds the primacy, and his successors likewise as Christ had instituted His Church until the end of time, so the primacy on earth must exist until the end of time in Peter’s legitimate successors – in the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter – claimed and exercised.

Regarding Pope Victor: he was, in the words of Eusebius, “sharply rebuked” by fellow bishops for rashly excommunicating entire churches of Asia.

According to Eusebius, the bishops saw Victor’s decision as adverse to peace, unity and love amongst the churches, and had to prevail upon him to change his view in order to prevent disunity.

 

[Abu]

It was St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who persuaded Pope Victor to withdraw the excommunication as he thought that it would do more harm than good – a matter of governance not primacy.

Victor exercised the right to punish by excommunication, and that right was never questioned either by the victims of its use, the Catholics of Asia Minor, or by St Irenaeus, who disagreed with the advisability of its use on this occasion. This is the Faith, Canon Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1975, p 133].

The original And On This Rock, Fr Stanley Jaki, is very sound also on primacy and infallibility.

 

[shawnbm]

Regarding Pope Victor: he was, in the words of Eusebius, “sharply rebuked” by fellow bishops for rashly excommunicating entire churches of Asia.

According to Eusebius, the bishops saw Victor’s decision as adverse to peace, unity and love amongst the churches, and had to prevail upon him to change his view in order to prevent disunity.

I think these posts may be in response to mine. My question has to do with juridical authority exercised by the Roman pontiff over the particular churches in terms of appointing or merely approving of bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, etc. as a matter of recognized right BEFORE the tenth century–meaning the other four Patriarchates of the undivided church acknowledged this power as residing with Rome. It seems to me that what Madaglan wrote is more of what I understand to be the case and would think any formal reunion between the four with Rome would be more in that line. I can’t imagine His Holiness Bartholomew, for example, seeking permission from the Holy Father to appoint a priest a bishop in the Eastern tradition or acquiescing to the pontiff in terms of whether the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil or Saint John Chrysostom ought to be used during a particular feast or solemnity. In the West, though, the Pope can and does exercise a lot of that kind of authority. Am I making clear about which I am inquiring?

 

[Madaglan]

At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).

I have heard this before, possibly from Scott Hahn himself. It never sounded right to me, even before becoming Orthodox.

True, all the multitude falls silent after Peter speaks. Yet, the multitude also falls silent after Barnabas and Paul speak. It is James who says (commands) “hear me” and settles the matter with judgment.

I believe St. John Chrysostom, in his homily on this passage, emphasizes the orderliness of the meeting and how it is James who is invested with the chief rule in this event.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

But all i can say that the splittery of the Church is due to the HISTORY that passed in the East.
So every Part claimed to be the most important and then they split.
Then don’t be confused.

And by the way, No church is the real one of the Christ, all the churches are REAL.

Thank you, Gabi.

I think you raise an important point that’s too often overlooked. The East / West split is far more historical than doctrinal.

Catholics and Orthodox, especially on this forum, can fight like brother and sister, but it’s because they are like brother and sister that they do so. That is to say, they fight because they love each other and are hurt.

That’s why I never take any of the inter-sectarian sniping that goes on here too personally.

 

[Madaglan]

I think these posts may be in response to mine. My question has to do with juridical authority exercised by the Roman pontiff over the particular churches in terms of appointing or merely approving of bishops, archbishops, metropolitans, etc. as a matter of recognized right BEFORE the tenth century–meaning the other four Patriarchates of the undivided church acknowledged this power as residing with Rome. It seems to me that what Madaglan wrote is more of what I understand to be the case and would think any formal reunion between the four with Rome would be more in that line. I can’t imagine His Holiness Bartholomew, for example, seeking permission from the Holy Father to appoint a priest a bishop in the Eastern tradition or acquiescing to the pontiff in terms of whether the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil or Saint John Chrysostom ought to be used during a particular feast or solemnity. In the West, though, the Pope can and does exercise a lot of that kind of authority. Am I making clear about which I am inquiring?

The post on Pope Victor was in response to Abu’s post.

I am not aware of the other four Patriarchs recognizing this kind of right with Rome.

 

[MIKE46]

In response to the original question I will ask why Orthodox and not Catholic?

 

[Ignatius]

This question is probably better answered by Catholics because I’m looking for the Catholic point of view. Why do we Catholics consider the Roman church to be the true church of Jesus Christ when Christianity first spread to predominately Greek-speaking parts of the East before it ever reached Rome? .

Peter!

 

[Abu]

Silyosha
Why do we Catholics consider the Roman church to be the true church of Jesus Christ when Christianity first spread to predominately Greek-speaking parts of the East before it ever reached Rome? .

It is seems strange to me that many seem to want answers from DB’s. While it is true that sound answers may be copied and filed on a PC, I suggest that getting a few of the books by faithful Catholic apologists and accessing articles by PC by the same authors, and similar, is more rewarding and trustworthy.

Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church because He personally founded Her on Peter (see post 74), is preeminent in multitudinous parts of the Acts of the Apostles, was Bishop of Rome as were his successors, and recognised as such by the whole Church.

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Abu]

Magdaglan
It never sounded right to me, even before becoming Orthodox. It is James who says (commands) “hear me” and settles the matter with judgment.

.
Really? Not really!
See Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, General editor Dom Bernard Orchard, Nelson, 1953:
Acts 15
7. Peter "speaks with an authority that all accept, and by re-stating his decision in the case of Cornelius, implies that the question should not have been re-opened.
12."Silence shows approval. The objectors hold their peace.
19. “From St James’ ‘I judge’ it has been argued that that he and not St Peter had the first position, but a word cannot prevail against the context, so favourable, here, as in the rest of Acts, to the Petrine Primacy…‘judge’, am of the opinion, a usual sense of the Greek, and one often found in the Acts, ‘that the Gentile converts are not to be disquieted’. St James shows why he adheres to the decision which has already been given by Peter on the point at issue. He then puts forward a practical suggestion, which so far from being a decree of his own, is expressly attributed to the Apostles and presbyters who adopted it, 15:28; 16:4”

 

[Madaglan]

.
Really? Not really!
See Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, General editor Dom Bernard Orchard, Nelson, 1953:
Acts 15
7. Peter "speaks with an authority that all accept, and by re-stating his decision in the case of Cornelius, implies that the question should not have been re-opened.
12."Silence shows approval. The objectors hold their peace.
19. “From St James’ ‘I judge’ it has been argued that that he and not St Peter had the first position, but a word cannot prevail against the context, so favourable, here, as in the rest of Acts, to the Petrine Primacy…‘judge’, am of the opinion, a usual sense of the Greek, and one often found in the Acts, ‘that the Gentile converts are not to be disquieted’. St James shows why he adheres to the decision which has already been given by Peter on the point at issue. He then puts forward a practical suggestion, which so far from being a decree of his own, is expressly attributed to the Apostles and presbyters who adopted it, 15:28; 16:4”

I think St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation is great

• Then all the multitude kept silence, etc. Acts 15:12 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). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). 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. And after that they had held their peace, James answered, etc. Acts 15:13 (b)** 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.*

**Source: Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B. Stevens. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm.

It’s interesting how St. John Chrysostom speaks of James as having the “chief role” and being the one in “high authority.”

 

[tdgesq]

I think St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation is great

• Then all the multitude kept silence, etc. Acts 15:12 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). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). 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. And after that they had held their peace, James answered, etc. Acts 15:13 (b)*** 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.***

Source: Translated by J. Walker, J. Sheppard and H. Browne, and revised by George B. Stevens. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210133.htm.

It’s interesting how St. John Chrysostom speaks of James as having the “chief role” and being the one in “high authority.”

It is interesting, but it doesn’t really make much sense to interpret it as St. James having “higher authority” in relation to St. Peter. Unless of course you are claiming that the Bishop of Jerusalem has primacy of honor. Chrysostom does compare the authority of St. James and St. Peter here though:

“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

How have you been Madaglan?

 

[Abu]

tdgesq
It is interesting, but it doesn’t really make much sense to interpret it as St. James having “higher authority” in relation to St. Peter. Unless of course you are claiming that the Bishop of Jerusalem has primacy of honor. Chrysostom does compare the authority of St. James and St. Peter here though:

“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.
newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

Obviously. Spot on.

To what lengths some go to try to discredit the primacy of Peter and the sole Church of Christ --the Catholic Church.

 

[Madaglan]

It is interesting, but it doesn’t really make much sense to interpret it as St. James having “higher authority” in relation to St. Peter. Unless of course you are claiming that the Bishop of Jerusalem has primacy of honor. Chrysostom does compare the authority of St. James and St. Peter here though:“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

How have you been Madaglan?

I don’t see St. John Chrysostom saying that St. James has a “higher” (superlative) authority than St. Peter, but rather that, in the Council of Jerusalem, St. James is the one in “high” authority; he is the one with the chief rule.

Thanks for inquiring about me. I’ve actually been quite sick since before Christmas (New Calendar ). After two weeks, I went to the doctor and got antibiotics. I took those for a week, but then a day or two after I finished, I came down with something again. I’m hoping to be better by next Tuesday.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t see St. John Chrysostom saying that St. James has a “higher” (superlative) authority than St. Peter, but rather that, in the Council of Jerusalem, St. James is the one in “high” authority; he is the one with the chief rule.

Yes, but high authority and chief rule over whom? I suppose you could say over the converted Pharisaical Jews who were the audience at the Jerusalem Council. That is probably true from their perspective, and I have no quarrel with that. But remember, Acts 15 describes a council where a decision was made about whether the Gentiles required circumcision. Was this a local council, or an ecumenical council?

If it was a local council then there isn’t a problem because we would expect the local bishop to preside over a local council. However, it is fairly clear that this wasn’t just a local council since the Apostles sent their written decree to “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” Acts 15:23.

The question is: who had the highest authority and the chief rule over the council? Not St. James. The See of Jerusalem has never held primacy of honor at any ecumenical council. Chrysostom cannot be speaking in the passage you quote about the authority of St. James in relation to the council. He must be speaking about how those present (the converted Pharisees) viewed James. St. John Chrysostom makes it quite clear in his writings who he views as having primacy of honor amongst the Apostles:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

Thanks for inquiring about me. I’ve actually been quite sick since before Christmas (New Calendar ). After two weeks, I went to the doctor and got antibiotics. I took those for a week, but then a day or two after I finished, I came down with something again. I’m hoping to be better by next Tuesday.

I will pray for your swift recovery. We have three here who are currently suffering from the flu. Luckily I’m not one of them - yet.

 

[DavidKays]

Even though the Roman pontiff is clearly given primacy of honor by the Orthodox, were the two to be “formally” reunited I do not think Rome would relate to the other four Patriarchates the way if relates to the rest of the Catholic Church throughout the world. I could be wrong, but the Pope’s supremacy–down to approving and making bishops, archbishops, etc.–would seem to be universal and enforceable everywhere else as he is the historic Patriarch of the West. I do not know of the pontiff exercising such juridical authority in the East before 1054. I should think Rome might revert back to taking action against a perceived heretical group or bishop(s) when asked to intervene by one of the other ancient Sees–assuming the person(s) in question fell under one of the other four Patriarchates in the first place. Can anyone shed light on this? Thank you.

Hi! Your question is an excellent one for many people have misconceptions and misunderstandings about the early church. To put it simply the Pope has no juridiction over the churches of the east. His relationship is more of an elder brother. First among equals. The Pope never and I mean never appointed bishops in the East. The Eastern Church did that. The Pope is to the Eastern Church as St .Peter is to the other 11 Apostles. Since the Eastern Church had many apostolic origins her relationship to Rome is the same as the other 11 had with St.Peter. The so called shcism in my opinion was not a shcism but a terrible fight a shouting match. When I read the excommunioncations I could not believe the language used. No wonder the Orthodox reponded the way they did. If anyone used language like that today it will be considered hate language. Heck I would not blame the Eastern Church to move even to the planet Venus. But we didn’t and look at what happened. You don’t go to someones home and declare to them their mistakes and them tell them you are taking over. Now the Popes have apologized to the East and yes they have admitted the mistakes Rome had begun. The affair in reality should not have happened. The Church of Rome under misguided counsel went too far. The Orthodox did not do anything wrong. The responsibility was largely Rome and Rome has now apologized. It is now up to the East to receive this apology and now work with their brothers and sisters for reconciliation. I don’t know why Catholics insist on supreme Papal Authority over the whole Church. You got to be kidding!! This kind of thinking is what started the mess in the first place, so stop justifying it. Listen to your Popes and to the past. The Popes have insisted the errors back then so why do you bring them up! The Popes do not want jurisdiction over the East. They want the same relationship today as the Church of Rome had with the East before the Great Heated Arguement. So stop this Supreme Authority and listen to your Popes and read what they have written especially His Holiness John Paul II. This man was a great saint and opened the door for reconciliation. Please correct yourselves because all you do is to continue this stupid heated arguement. Read your Popes and you will better understand what is necessary to restore this relationship. The Orthodox Church needs to have her rightful claim alongside the Church of Rome as she had with the Catholic Church from the beginning. That is all it takes. So don’t try to include anything else. The Orthodox Church is as part of the Roman Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church is of the Orthodox. Heated arguements from the past cannot alter this. We are united in Christ. All it takes is for us to end this useless and misguided affair is to declare the truth about each other. We are brothers, Period! Nothing and I mean nothing should take that away from us. So let us bury it and bury it good and receive each other as brothers and sisters. My God we both have Apostolic Foundation . This guarantees our coexistence and calling. The Pope is in my opinion a sign for unity. Peter has this primacy given to him by our Lord to guarantee this unity. The Papacy is a great gift as well as the Holy Father. We all should uphold in prayer the Holy Father. And as much as the Holy Father needs us we should be thankful for we need him as well. God Bless!

 

[Madaglan]

Yes, but high authority and chief rule over whom? I suppose you could say over the converted Pharisaical Jews who were the audience at the Jerusalem Council. That is probably true from their perspective, and I have no quarrel with that. But remember, Acts 15 describes a council where a decision was made about whether the Gentiles required circumcision. Was this a local council, or an ecumenical council?

If it was a local council then there isn’t a problem because we would expect the local bishop to preside over a local council. However, it is fairly clear that this wasn’t just a local council since the Apostles sent their written decree to “Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” Acts 15:23.

The question is: who had the highest authority and the chief rule over the council? Not St. James. The See of Jerusalem has never held primacy of honor at any ecumenical council. Chrysostom cannot be speaking in the passage you quote about the authority of St. James in relation to the council. He must be speaking about how those present (the converted Pharisees) viewed James. St. John Chrysostom makes it quite clear in his writings who he views as having primacy of honor amongst the Apostles:“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

I will pray for your swift recovery. We have three here who are currently suffering from the flu. Luckily I’m not one of them - yet.

I don’t think we’re going to convince each other anytime soon

Thanks for your concern. Three with flu doesn’t sound good. I’ve noticed a great many people sick, even working at the doctor’s office.

 

[Abu]

Primacy of jurisdiction was present

As Fr Brian W Harrison explains:

Pope Adrian ordained him (Methodius) first as a priest [869] (along with some young Slavic men of his entourage), and then, just before he left Rome, as episcopal Ordinary of the ancient but long-since inactive Archdiocese of Syrmium (located on the Danube at the border of Croatia and Serbia).
rtforum.org/lt/lt138.html​

“There never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor. And it is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.”
[Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium: 22]​

That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time [5th century] is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius.
[LT29 - Papal Authority in the First Ecumenical Councils / A Dubious Translation of Ecclesia Dei]](LT29 - Papal Authority in the First Ecumenical Councils / A Dubious Translation of Ecclesia Dei])

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t think we’re going to convince each other anytime soon

Lol! I’m pretty sure you’re right. I’ve never thought the Council of Jerusalem in Acts speaks to Petrine primacy one way or the other. It looks to me more like James had a bad political situation on his hands with the converted Jerusalem Pharisees demanding that the Gentiles receive circumcision. All of the apostles kind of showed up and said, “yes, James is right.” Then to prevent scandal among the crowd they instituted a set of disciplinary rules (no eating strangled meats or blood, etc.) and sent it by letter to every Christian province. That’s my take anyway.

Thanks for your concern. Three with flu doesn’t sound good. I’ve noticed a great many people sick, even working at the doctor’s office.

It has been bad here. The two local universities actually shut down for a while because so many students had the flu; many with swine flu.