Skip to comments.When Paul Corrected Peter
Posted on 09/29/2013 1:45:04 PM PDT by ebb tide
Laity and clergy should reject, respectfully, the liberalism of Pope Francis.
In St. Pauls Letter to the Galatians, he wrote that he rebuked the first pope, St. Peter, to his face because he clearly was wrong. The issue was St. Peters capitulation to Jewish culture in his approach to the Gentiles. St. Paul moved swiftly to correct him for the sake of the early Churchs unity and doctrinal fidelity to Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Early flame war?
I won't give him a pass to be an idiot just because he's the pope. Popes come and go, and there have been lousy popes in the last. This is just another one in the succession of lousy popes.
He's no Benedict, that's for sure.
My thoughts exactly
“Jesuit seminaries either look like ghost towns or gay bars...”
Quite a line!
Indeed, but I am not convinced there is such an agenda. The worst I can say about the Pope is that he is not terribly aware of the condition of American Jesuits. The spectator is being a bit parochial.
Coincidence or plan?
I agree...stop with the Pope bashing!
I’m laughing, I’m crying. Those of us who faced real liberalism in a mainline Protestant denomination and converted to Catholicism know liberalism — and Pope Francis is no liberal. He is different, and that difference can be explained in his efforts to address Pentecostalism, indifferent affluence, and liberation theology by stirring up Catholics to go beyond mere “ideologies” to walk with Christ directly, daily, personally, and with creative charity.
Instead of liberation theology, think liberation Catholicism.
One of them is infallible, and the other one is the pope.
The Pope is a liberal? Do you mean you are believing ABCNNBCBS LOL if you can figure that one out.
“Just look at the U.S. Congress: it is overflowing with Jesuit graduates who have abandoned the faith and support abortion and gay rights.”
Anybody have a list of these so-called “Jesuit graduates” who now serve in our Congress?
“Indeed, but I am not convinced there is such an agenda.”
What do you think about the Pope forbidding the Franciscans of the Immaculate from offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary form? Is that not agenda driven?
Indeed, the pope is no liberal. A shallow and superficial, even trivial understanding of Jesus’ teachings and life is dominant in Christianity. Francis asks us to go deeper. He judges but does not condemn. He does not exclude sinners from the Church but welcomes them to repair their broken lives and receive the blessing of God’s love.
We have become a hate filled church, making enemies of abortionists, homosexuals, environmentalists and others. We must learn to love them into grace not by accepting their sin but by seeing beyond it to their soul.
Surely none of us believe sinners are condemned by their actions. Jesus did not condemn the prostitute, did not allow her to be slain but most importantly did not accept her sin. “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin not more.” As Christians we are commanded to love the unloving. How will we convert the lost of Islam if not with love?
**who have abandoned the faith and support abortion and gay rights.**
How do you know this? Have they told you personally? I think you might be trying to make a general statement — and they are usually wrong, because generalities always have an exception.
A recent issue of “First Things” magazine had an article by a priest in a town on the Mexican border. He wrote about how his parishioners were learning at the gut level to “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” in the context of the drug industry violence there.
Christianity is hard because this goes against all our (fallen) human instincts. It’s easy to say people have “fallen and they can’t get up,” but Jesus never said that, and this is one reason He was hated.
Paul and Peter were members of the same church, weren’t they?
Chapter 15 of the book of Acts relates the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. This is considered the first ecumenical council of the Church. Our own generation has grown up in the shadow of Second Vatican Council. In fact we are about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of this council.
Scholars have found the interpretation of the council to be a very complex task. There is considerable debate about what sources and traditions flowed into the council and precisely what influences created the synthesis we see in the final documents. Extremely careful records were kept at the Council. In fact the official collections of the Councils documents (including preparatory documents) are 63 volumes long. Although historical research is important, the council is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit. Recently Pope Benedict noted that we must understand the council not through the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” but rather with the “hermeneutic of reform” (Address to the Roman Curia, 12/22/05). The final documents of the council are the result of a near unanimous vote by the Council fathers gathered in an ecumenical council. Acts chapter 15 gives us interesting parallel insights into the first primitive council held by the early Christians.
Paul’s extensive first missionary journey resulted in the conversion of large numbers of Gentiles. As a result we see two distinct cultures emerge within the early Church, one of Gentile origin and one of Jewish origin. Initially we see some conflict over exactly which norms apply to each group. Luke tells us that “some men” came down from Judea to the Church in Antioch and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” Not only were these Jewish Christians requiring the practice of circumcision, but they even considered it necessary for salvation. Jewish sources contemporary with the New Testament indicate that prominent Rabbis debated the significance of circumcision for new converts at this time. The strong position taken by these men from Jerusalem sounds very similar to the controversy Paul confronts in his letter to the Galatians. This teaching on the necessity of circumcision caused “no small dissension and debate” among the Antioch believers so they decided to send Paul and Barnabas and some of the others to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders to inquire about this question.
Luke Timothy Johnson has made some interesting observations about the procedure by which they resolve this matter at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35). Beginning with Peter’s speech, and then followed by Paul and Barnabas they begin by recounting and discerning what God had been doing in Church through the Holy Spirit. Next they sought to understand Sacred Scripture in light of their experience of the Holy Spirit. James responds to Peter and Paul saying “the words of the prophets agree with this” (Acts 15:15). Next they engage in debate, a necessary part of the process (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19). Finally, they obtain the agreement of the whole assembly. They reply, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29). The decision of the council is sent through the messengers Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas.
Some aspects of these precepts, such as abstaining from blood and meat from strangled animals are not universal but are restrictions which provide the basis for table-fellowship and communion between Jews and Gentiles. They resemble the prohibitions given to ‘proselytes and sojourners’ in Leviticus 17-18 and discussed in rabbinic circles as the “Noachian precepts.” In Jewish tradition the consequence for breaking these precepts was to be cut off from the people (Leviticus 17-18).
As Paul and Barnabas prepare to visit the Churches of Asia minor again “there arose a sharp contention” between them over the inclusion of John Mark whom Paul considered a deserter.
Paul chose Silas and departed, through Syria and Cilicia. When they reached Derbe and Lystra they meet a disciple named Timothy (Acts 16:1-5). Timothy had a Jewish mother but his father was a Greek. Paul wanted to take Timothy along as a traveling companion but “on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3). Paul travelled from city to city, implementing the “decision reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). As we experience this year celebrating the anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, may we seek to implement God’s will through the prayer of Mary.
Scott McKellar is Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute for the Diocese of Kansas City – St. Joseph.
And Peter made the speech.
“And Peter made the speech.”
And James made the decision :)
James only spoke to the people of Jerusalem. Peter was the Pope.
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 12 And all the assembly kept silence
Now my suspicions are confirmed. He's a clueless liberal sap.
"Those of us who faced real liberalism in a mainline Protestant denomination and converted to Catholicism know liberalism . . "
Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt
Love the t-shirt!
I still disagree. My priest who celebrates a very reverent Novus Ordo was Jesuit educated.
He told us at Daily Mass that Jesuits are always edge, sort of spekaing in riddles, but right on the edge, in order to make you think.
Didn’t you see the speech he gave to obstetricians and gynecologists the next day, where he soundly trounced abortion?
Please look for it.
Ah, but the Pope when speaking on matters of doctrine is supposed to be infallible.
Of course I accept no pope, and this biblical history of the rebuke of Peter illustrates why very well.
Peter was an apostle, a godly man, but not the head of the church. Jesus is head of the church, and needs no ambassador. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man; there is no Mediator between us and the Mediator.
Jesus knew he wasn’t going to be on earth in person, so he chose Peter as the head of the Apostles, yes, the first Pope.
I think you’re right.
I can’t tell from this article what this pope has done that the author finds objectionable. That is not the quality of writing one tends to find in the American Spectator.
“Jesus knew he wasnt going to be on earth in person, so he chose Peter as the head of the Apostles, yes, the first Pope.”
Jesus actually set up elders/bishops (church government), and left us the Bible, and sent the Holy Spirit.
It's perfectly made, obviously with great care, and very tough.
The other one faded quickly, was very thin fabric, tore easily, and had very weak, poorly stitched, seams.
I hold in my hand a list...
I like that! Whites don’t stay white at my house very well, though. Maybe if it came in beige with navy blue print ...
Quality can be a problem. Elen had a Pope John Paul II shirt, and I had to get her a new one this year because the print came off in the wash. The publishers really need to make some new ones: they’re still using designs from when he was still Pope!
OTOH I have mugs that have a good glaze and the image is still like new after 20 years. I think everything fading fast started with the web driven "price is everything" perspective and companies settled into the lowest common denominator without giving the buyer a choice.
CafePress has shirts similar to the one I posted in , IIRC, Athletic Gray with red or "gold" letters and light blue with navy, but I could be thinking of a T not a golf shirt
You are partyly right and partly wrong. The first bishops were the Apostles. Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and said he would build his church on him.
It’s in the Bible.....or did your Bible take that out?
“James only spoke to the people of Jerusalem. Peter was the Pope.”
James made the decision for the church, which they then followed up with and spread to the rest of the churches. Peter just gave his opinion, followed by Paul and Barnabas, but James made the final judgment.
“12 And all the assembly kept silence”
I like how you removed the rest of the sentence, as if everybody kept dumbfounded silence at Peter. Here’s the whole verse:
Act 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
I really don’t think it was Peter’s adherence to Jewish Culture that Paul took issue with, but instead, Peter’s dalliance with Jewish ceremonial law, to the neglect of the Gospel’s message of Salvation through Grace without the works of the law.
The Bible says that upon the confession that Jesus is Lord, Christ will build His church.
Not upon Peter. Peter is but a man.
Don't' know anything about it. Could be. Could be not. Tell me more.
From His Holiness' remarks about not judging gays and not obsessing with pro-life issues I see a reasonable corrective toward putting spirituality first. His manner looks liberal because he knows that the Church needs to be understood by the people that have a negative opinion about the Church. This is just wisdom, -- not "agenda".
Verse 7 above.
“Don’t’ know anything about it. Could be. Could be not. Tell me more.”
Peter was not impeccable, he made human mistakes.
But as Pope when acting on faith and morals, he was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus was in falliable, as is the Magisterium and Pope of today when ruling on major items of faith and morals. Some people don’t realize that.
Some people don’t even know how to spell it.
they're not infallible...
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.