Posted on 02/04/2006 4:55:13 AM PST by bornacatholic
Acts 15, The Jerusalem Council. The question of the circumcision party spoken of in Galatians 2:11-13 is the central theme. In verse 7, after much discussion by the elders and Apostles, Peter gets up to speak. In verse 12 Barnabas and Paul have the platform. In verse 13 James begins to speak and we will not hear again of Peter in the Book of Acts.
This James, now speaking, is the brother of the flesh of Jesus Christ.....his half brother (Galatians 1:19). He is not an Apostle. The Apostle James was killed earlier by Herod in Chapter 12. This man, James, is in charge....not Peter. Notice in verse 19...."It is my judgment therefore....." The Jerusalem Church was led, not by Peter, not by Paul, but by James.
"You know that Catholics claim jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome that you belief to be erroneous, correct?"
Correct.
"Presumably people who were raised Catholic, confirmed, participated in Catholic sacraments at some point "knew" (believed, truly held) the Catholic claims about the pope."
I suppose "presumably" is the operative word. I know a number of people who were formerly Latin Rite Catholics who became Orthodox, good Orthodox. I even know a couple of priests (one Latin Rite, the other Melkite, I believe)who converted and whose orders were accepted. I seem to recall one of my Jesuit cousins speaking about the "inner forum". If these people I have mentioned came to a fundamental, honest conviction that Orthodoxy had "the fullness of the Faith" rather than Roman Catholicism, and I believe they did, and quite voluntarily separated themselves from the Latin Church, are they condemned? It would seem to me that they couldn't have held the Latin Church beliefs in this regard if they went ahead and made the change, but I suppose some could be motivated by concerns other than spiritual ones. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Catholics who've done that (though I can think of some Orthodox who have), but I suspect they exist.
"...and you yourself insist that you simply do not understand the "invincible ignorance" concept."
I understand what it means now. Yesterday, quite clearly, I didn't.
"We believe the key is whether you have actually openly entertained these claims that you reject or whether you have rejected them out of unrecognized pre-judgment. If you were aware that you remain Orthodox out of deliberate prejudgment, that would be a sin against truth on your part. But I can't know exactly what combination of knowledge, will, choice, prejudice, misinformation etc. has gone into your very intentional and clear adherence to Orthodoxy."
I doubt I can know that myself. I am in what was when I was a child, a somewhat unusual position. My father of blessed memory was the sort of Roman Catholic who went to Mass nearly every day. My dear mother was the Greek Orthodox. I went to Catholic school and was an altar boy in both churches (it was a different time). I have relatives, close relatives, who are priests in both churches. When I grew up I might just as likely have become a Roman Catholic as stayed Orthodox. I even seriously entertained the idea for a few years and as a younger teenager thought about becoming either a Maryknoll or Mill Hill missionary (never occured to me that being Orthodox might have been an impediment, honestly and I never considered becoming an Orthodox priest). Bishop Walsh of Maryknoll is still a hero of mine. I still pray the rosary with some regularity, still recite "Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy...." and the Hail Mary everyday. I have most always loved the Latin Church with my whole being...but at base I guess in matters of Faith I am more my mother's son than my father's. As I have gotten older I have become increasingly Orthodox in my phronema, to the point that my theological "conservatism" and admiration for the patristics of +BXVI drive my Jesuit cousins crazy and delight my cousin the Orthodox nun and her fellows at the monastery in the old country. So where does all this come from? I don't know, honestly. Sometimes I think it may have, at least at one point in time, had to do with cultural identity but if so that was a very long time ago. I can tell you this, I never, ever, heard anything bad about Roman Catholicism from any Orthodox person, clerical or lay, until I was well into my thirties so I don't think its a prejudice I picked up somewhere.
"...I exhort myself--always to ask myself, have I honestly and humbly and with integrity been listening to the various claims for the truth about the Church and have I been truly open to following whatever path honest knowledge of that Truth requires?"
Good advice.
"Mary in fact was not the mother of God but was blessed by him to be the mother of the physical form that he assumed when he came to earth."
You know, of course, that this makes you precisely a Nestorian and that Nestorianism was condemned at the 3rd Ecumenical Council. One more example of how very ancient heresies keep popping up.
There is no contradiction.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."
*Your idea that verse 19 indicates James was in charge by his saying "I judge" is wrong as the Greek used is "am of opinion" and is used often in Acts. James shows why he adheres to Peter's decisiosn. He then makes a practical suggestion attributed to the Apostles and the presbysters who adopted it 15:28, 16:4
Your inability to grasp that point suggests to me that your opinion is ideologically based and not capable of correction by reason.
Have a Blessed Sunday, brother.
Good bye
It is still James who makes the final decision, Acts 15:19
Now....visualize this.....here is the dynamic leader of a new movement exuding confidence, poise, leadership and devotion from his many followers. Galatians 2:12 Peter is afraid of the agents from James and the Jerusalem Church. In verse 4 Paul even identifies these people as false brothers who have infiltrated the ranks....and your "Papa" is helpless in his terror. Paul even has to kick his butt in front of everyone (verse 14).
If your "Papa" was the designated leader why are the "Twelve" in Luke 22:24 arguing about who is the greatest? And this, of course, happens much after the period of Matthew 16:18.
"Just because the poster does not know or understand what the fathers meant by "theotokos" does not mean he is a Nestorian or heretic."
I don't expect many here know what the word theotokos means, so the poster's ignorance of the word means little or nothing. This is the problem and the heresy:
"...the mother of the physical form that he assumed when he came to earth."
Now, WS, what would you call that, some quaint form of Protestantism?
You win, brother. Congratulations
pssst...the word "Catholic" simply means UNIVERSAL. So, where a bishop (or presbyter or elder...the NT uses those words interchangibly) appears, says St. Ignatius, the Church UNIVERSAL is--I have no problem with that, but I'm not about to join the body under the control of a Bishop of Rome.
I find it very sad that the word "catholic," the most universal, unifying, and (rightly) ecumenical word there is, is used by those with an odd loyalty to a particular capital city (which St. John and St. Peter too referred to as "Babylon"...not a great compliment to say the least) and her bishop.
I am a happy part of the Church catholic, but not under the authority (supposed proven by revisionist history and proof-texts) of Rome's bishop; Christ needs no vicar, and is quite able to lead the Church Himself.
Anyone interested really should read the New Testament book of Acts--as I just did. Although he is certainly a highly respected leader, there is no evidence of any kind of papal authority exercised by St. Peter. If anyone is the chief elder in the Church it is St. James (see Acts 15...about the first ecumenical council of the Church). Most of the book is about St. Paul as well....who at one time even publicly rebuked Peter, as an EQUAL, not as a papal subject.(Gal. 2:11-ff) Clearly the primitive church had a counciliar form of government, looking to Christ through the Holy Spirit to lead--using bishops and elders for sure, but NOT the kind of hierarchical structure of the Roman church today.
was condemned by the catholic church?, .... I am not catholic nor do I wish to be.
Next time you read Unam Sanctam you might take note of how the second word is spelled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.