The Apostolic meaning of the phrase "Ecumenical Council".

[OrthodoxyUSA]

1st century please.

Christianity was still illegal.

I agree that "Ecumenical" is not a word that the Apostles would have used to describe the method of council.

That is why I wrote the O.P. the way I did.

The point of this thread is...

The Apostolic meaning of the phrase "Ecumenical Council".


In other words what does Church history teach us about how and why 1st century councils were held and how the Apostles would define the rules of those meetings.

I think we all agree that ACTS 15 is the first recorded evidence of a council meeting after Christ's Ascention.

Can we list all who were asked approval before declarations were made by council?

How did this system of counciliar decision making grow? Has it changed?

How does The Holy Spirit show approval?

Forgive me..

Forgive me...

 

[Warrior Poet]

1st century please.

Christianity was still illegal.

I agree that "Ecumenical" is not a word that the Apostles would have used to describe the method of council.

That is why I wrote the O.P. the way I did.

The point of this thread is...

Quote:
The Apostolic meaning of the phrase "Ecumenical Council".


In other words what does Church history teach us about how and why 1st century councils were held and how the Apostles would define the rules of those meetings.

I think we all agree that ACTS 15 is the first recorded evidence of a council meeting after Christ's Ascention.

Can we list all who were asked approval before declarations were made by council?

How did this system of counciliar decision making grow? Has it changed?

How does The Holy Spirit show approval?

Forgive me...

I dont see why the Apostles needed the/a pope or an emperor to hold or call councils that were viewed as having just as much theological outlining and apostolic authority.

I would say the Apostles did NOT NEED the/a pope or emperor to hold or call an "Ecumenical Council", these are not a neccessity to have such councils.

Warrior Poet

 

[albertmc]

I dont see why the Apostles needed the/a pope or an emperor to hold or call councils that were viewed as having just as much theological outlining and apostolic authority.

I would say the Apostles did NOT NEED the/a pope or emperor to hold or call an "Ecumenical Council", these are not a neccessity to have such councils.

Warrior Poet

The poinst made was not that God "needed" an emperor to call a council but that in the case of the seven councils, this is in effect what happened. I believe the poster was making a distinction between the Council of Jerusalem and the Ecumenical Councils later. The former was a council called by the leaders of the Apostolic Church and the latter was called to settle disputes in a Church that had been intergrated into the state apparatus of the Roman Empire.

 

[albertmc]

1st century please.

Christianity was still illegal.

I agree that "Ecumenical" is not a word that the Apostles would have used to describe the method of council.

That is why I wrote the O.P. the way I did.

The point of this thread is...




Forgive me...

Were there any councils between Jerusalem and the fourth century?? Without a record of such councils in the intervening three centuries, I don't see how you can make a case for some evolutionary trajectory in concilliar thinking. Because of persecution, the method of concensus was through written communications wherein those things universally recognized as heresies would be condemned at the local level.

The use of councils beginning in the fourth century was an entirely new devlopment apart from that seen in Jerusalem and there is no clear connection between them.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

OH, I have so many passionate thoughts on this.
IF I may digress just a bit from this important discussion of councils past.



The whole idea of a future ecumenical council is a HUGE part of where I stand.


SADLY, we have a LOT of work to do before such can even begin to be discussed. We have 1500 years of the institutionalization and politicalization of Christianity to undo, at least 1000 years of a tennis match of "I'm right so when I say I'm right I therefore must be right!" What people think has become equal in authority and normative function to what God's Holy Word states. Christ directed us to God's Holy Scriptures - but we're busy trying to direct everyone to our own thinking. Christ commanded us to not lord it over each other like the Genitles so, but we are Gentiles and that's what we've been doing. Busy building walls instead of bridges. We have CENTURIES of this. Dismantling that won't happen in my lifetime. And it needs to be done carefully so as not to implode in relativism which would be even worse. I frankly see the current decline of denominationalism and the rise of nondenominational churches, the decline of dogma and rise of spirituality as a POSSIBLE good step - but I must say I fear it, too.


At this point, no one would even agree who would attend that meeting, what could be discussed, or what Rule would serve. IMHO, if the Ecumenical Council I daily pray for happened today, it would be a complete waste of everyone's time. How can ANYTHING be attained when we have major players insisting, "I am the sole authority here. I am the sole interpreter of Scripture and anything else I want to consider authoritative here. I am the sole arbiter for all matters. I am infallible. I am unaccountable. Any questions?" Kinda absurd to even meet. IMHO. Pride and institutionalize has fractered Christianity in ways that CANNOT be repaired until such is changed. And I'm not holding my breath.



My vaguely related thoughts to the issue...


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[Warrior Poet]

The poinst made was not that God "needed" an emperor to call a council but that in the case of the seven councils, this is in effect what happened. I believe the poster was making a distinction between the Council of Jerusalem and the Ecumenical Councils later. The former was a council called by the leaders of the Apostolic Church and the latter was called to settle disputes in a Church that had been intergrated into the state apparatus of the Roman Empire.

I know his point... but the argument to it (his point) was the presence of the/a pope at all "Ecumenical Councils".... the/a pope seems to be accompanied by the emperor.. seems a trend at that point that Rome had some, lets see...political muscle behind them.

The OP seems to be looking for a defintion between the two "councils".. part of the definition or a section that needs to be integrated is exactly what I said... THEY DO NOT NEED... while others argue.. THEY MUST HAVE.

Thanks,

Warrior Poet

 

[albertmc]

I know his point... but the argument to it (his point) was the presence of the/a pope at all "Ecumenical Councils".... the/a pope seems to be accompanied by the emperor.. seems a trend at that point that Rome had some, lets see...political muscle behind them.

The OP seems to be looking for a defintion between the two "councils".. part of the definition or a section that needs to be integrated is exactly what I said... THEY DO NOT NEED... while others argue.. THEY MUST HAVE.

Thanks,

Warrior Poet

My belief is that the two types of councils are not really related in a clearly definable descent. The connection is one added later by those justifying the calling of councils. But I don't see a clear connection. The first was a fledgling Church trying to figure out what to do in its first big crisis. The latter is a council called by a Church that was restoring order within a newly approved religion that would become the Imperial Church. The former was held by the Apostles to be binding on all Christians. The latter was defining the rules for the Church of the Roman Empire.

That said, I believe the Church was led by the Holy Spirit through faithful Christian witnesses in their deliberations in these councils and their condemnation of heresy has been vindicated. But history is never as clean and well defined as we wish it to be.

 

[a_ntv]

I agree with everything you wrote about the Seven Ecumenical Councils - they were coucils of the Imperial Church. However, I disagree with you that the Council of Jerusalem was a local affair. Peter was there and by then he was headquartered in Antioch.

No, the 'council' of Jerusalem was not a local affair: the separaton from the Jews custom was a decision valid for the whole Church and the changed the history of the whole world.

I said that it was not universal, not all the christian communities were invited to partecipate.

This simply show a high level of istitutionation of the Early Church, ruled ONLY by a few apostles (Peter, John) and bishops (James).

It was exactly the contrary of what CJ lament in this his post:

We have 1500 years of the institutionalization and politicalization of Christianity to undo, at least 1000 years of a tennis match of "I'm right so when I say I'm right I therefore must be right!"
..
At this point, no one would even agree who would attend that meeting, what could be discussed, or what Rule would serve.

The Early Church was EXTREMLY istitutionalized. And the decision of Peter (and the apostles?) *Act 15:11*, taken BEFORE to lissen Paul and Barnabas *Act 15:12*, was published by the Bishop of the town.


Please note that Peter (and the apostles?) decided BEFORE to to lissen Paul and Barnabas.

Why? because the Church was very united and followed what the Apostoles said, that was right simply beacuse said by them.

 

[orthodoxy]

In other words what does Church history teach us about how and why 1st century councils were held and how the Apostles would define the rules of those meetings.

I think we all agree that ACTS 15 is the first recorded evidence of a council meeting after Christ's Ascention.

Can we list all who were asked approval before declarations were made by council?

How did this system of counciliar decision making grow? Has it changed?

How does The Holy Spirit show approval?

Forgive me..

I think ecumenicalism is based on the Holy Trinity and the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who work together having "all things in common" in a unity or "community"...this is the model the Church functions and without it the "movement" of the church ceases to be lead by and through the Holy Spirit....

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

It appears to me the first "council" that made a spirit lead disicision was in Acts 1

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,


22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.


23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

the 11 first chose 2 men who witnessed first hand the accounts of Jesus and verified His resurrection...

then the 11....

24 they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen....

they prayed....


Thus continuing the ordinations taught by Jesus Christ in His ordination of the original 12 in John 15:16 and John 20:21-23, knowing these appoimtments are "eternal" in the nature of the ordination they were required to replace Judas...


Now, did one man choose the replacement? No.. Did peter stand up and say "I am the leader, I choose." ?? No, they "gave forth" their lots...much like "putting the names in a hat" and casting a vote agreed upon by all in the choosing of the two, either would have been the "choice of God" due to their eye witness experiance and the fact these men saw the Church as Jesus Christ in saying ...... "thou hast chosen"... clearly the 11 as a common unity chose the "two" but saw the "two" being chosen by "thou" "the Lord"...


So plainly we see no move is made in the Church or by the Christian community by one man or "where two or more gather" outside the body of the Church community....


has this basic structure changed? I do not think it has....example....


We as an orthodox parish chose to open a coffee house in the desire to spread the gospel as understood under the historical faith of the Holy Orthodox Church... we prayed, consulted other priests, talked with the bishops and metropolitian who presides over the American Church, His Grace Hermon...we recieved an "OK" from the leaders then we "each gave forth our lots" and the lots fell on "yes" it "seems good to US and the Holy Spirit" that this action is "good for the community"...

thus "Agia Sophia" was born....


This coffee shop opening would not and could not have occured unless the Church agreed... could someone start a coffee house apart from the parish? Yes, but it would not have had the blessing or "ordination" or "stamp of approval" by the "seems good to US and the Holy Spirit".... this is the "ground" of all movement in the Church...

Evidance of the Holy Spirit's "approval" is found in the fruit...does it visit the sick and imprisoned? yes spiritually sick people enter all the time to have a cup of coffee and "read about orthodoxy", those imprisoned by their passions enter there in and are freed by "holy wisdom"...does it feed the hungry? Yes, give drink to those that thirst after righteousness? Yes, does it reach out to the widow (husbandless christian with no head covering") or take in the orphan (those with no fathers to teach them the faith or lead them in the path of righteousness) Yes.... the fruit is there for all to see....


kyril

 

[WarriorAngel]

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese

Just thought you might find it an interesting letter regarding Nicaea. He mentions the Emporer. So it seems the Emporer, who helped to liberate the Christians was a Pious man.
I think it was more of an interest on his part than a mandate.

Letter on the Councils

I found this letter fascinating.

BTW there were Synods before and after the Ecumenical Councils. [local]

And going back to the OP, it seems that James is backing up Peter. Now Peter says that it is ‘by my mouth’ the Gentiles shall hear the Word, and believe.

Peter is the choice among them.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Then it was time for the input of Paul and Barnabas.
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.

Then James took a turn.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Then they sent men out to teach that which was agreed upon.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

This was the shadow of the councils to come. A foreshadowing.
Peter converted the Gentiles, the Jews were laying the Old laws on them, to which it was decided that the burden of the old laws were not necessary. And they gave their accord to what would be necessary for the Gentiles to be faithful.
Hence; don’t eat meant offered to idols, or strangled…etc.

NOW, if we pay close attention to the next verses, we see Tradition [orally taught] exceed the written.
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Is there anything else we need to discuss? I wish to discuss the next verse.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
What did Simeon [Peter] actually say?? That he being choice among them…was sent by ‘his mouth’ or rather..”My mouth”
So what exactly did Peter say?
To me this shows that Peter is the mouth of Christ. The vicar who sits in the place of the Lord.

James testifies that GOD went to the Gentiles…while Peter says ‘he’ went to them.

This is alluded to the chair of Peter being in Christ’s place.

And let me touch on the next verse, which can be interpreted a few ways, but since it seems to be clear on ONE vs the other…lets discuss this.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,

This verse states the ‘whole’ Church, but clearly that was impossible, since if it is being regarded in this debate that the laity as the whole Church, who were not present… then it seems clearly to indicate the magistrate who are the ‘whole’ Church.
If the whole Church was literally there, there would have been no letter written and NO men sent.

This chapter tells us who was present.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question

What proof would we have of the laity being present?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I think ecumenicalism is based on the Holy Trinity and the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who work together having "all things in common" in a unity or "community"...this is the model the Church functions and without it the "movement" of the church ceases to be lead by and through the Holy Spirit....

kyril

Agreed.

Forgive me...

 

[orthodoxy]

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese

Just thought you might find it an interesting letter regarding Nicaea. He mentions the Emporer. So it seems the Emporer, who helped to liberate the Christians was a Pious man.
I think it was more of an interest on his part than a mandate.

Letter on the Councils

I found this letter fascinating.

BTW there were Synods before and after the Ecumenical Councils. [local]

And going back to the OP, it seems that James is backing up Peter. Now Peter says that it is ‘by my mouth’ the Gentiles shall hear the Word, and believe.

Peter is the choice among them.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Then it was time for the input of Paul and Barnabas.
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.

Then James took a turn.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Then they sent men out to teach that which was agreed upon.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

This was the shadow of the councils to come. A foreshadowing.
Peter converted the Gentiles, the Jews were laying the Old laws on them, to which it was decided that the burden of the old laws were not necessary. And they gave their accord to what would be necessary for the Gentiles to be faithful.
Hence; don’t eat meant offered to idols, or strangled…etc.

NOW, if we pay close attention to the next verses, we see Tradition [orally taught] exceed the written.
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Is there anything else we need to discuss? I wish to discuss the next verse.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
What did Simeon [Peter] actually say?? That he being choice among them…was sent by ‘his mouth’ or rather..”My mouth”
So what exactly did Peter say?
To me this shows that Peter is the mouth of Christ. The vicar who sits in the place of the Lord.

James testifies that GOD went to the Gentiles…while Peter says ‘he’ went to them.

This is alluded to the chair of Peter being in Christ’s place.

And let me touch on the next verse, which can be interpreted a few ways, but since it seems to be clear on ONE vs the other…lets discuss this.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,

This verse states the ‘whole’ Church, but clearly that was impossible, since if it is being regarded in this debate that the laity as the whole Church, who were not present… then it seems clearly to indicate the magistrate who are the ‘whole’ Church.
If the whole Church was literally there, there would have been no letter written and NO men sent.

This chapter tells us who was present.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question

What proof would we have of the laity being present?

If what you claim about Peter is true then he, Peter, is bound by the event of the washing of the feet where Jesus Christ said basically the leader is servant of all...

Peter is also bound by this verse and others...

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10.


Thus it behooves Peter to look into himself and ask "is this what the Church has always believed and understood" by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church for if Peter cannot say "it seems good to US and the Holy Spirit" then the burden lies with Peter to correct his course to that of "having all things in common" with the Church not all having things in common with him...


kyril

 

[WarriorAngel]

If what you claim about Peter is true then he, Peter, is bound by the event of the washing of the feet where Jesus Christ said basically the leader is servant of all...

Peter is also bound by this verse and others...

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10.


Thus it behooves Peter to look into himself and ask "is this what the Church has always believed and understood" by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church for if Peter cannot say "it seems good to US and the Holy Spirit" then the burden lies with Peter to correct his course to that of "having all things in common" with the Church not all having things in common with him...


kyril

The Popes are very pious, and do observe that they have the most risk in their judgements...and men do not desire that position.

If they are choosen, they know they must. But most must become a servant and they know that.

The life of a Pope is not enviable. Most dread the position.
From what I have read....

They must serve their flock as a shepherd. As Peter was told three times to feed His sheep...

Their very lives are changed.

Ppl look at them and think what an enviable position it 'must' be, but that is a sadly misunderstood opinion.

 

[Warrior Poet]

No, the 'council' of Jerusalem was not a local affair: the separaton from the Jews custom was a decision valid for the whole Church and the changed the history of the whole world.

I said that it was not universal, not all the christian communities were invited to partecipate.

This simply show a high level of istitutionation of the Early Church, ruled ONLY by a few apostles (Peter, John) and bishops (James).

It was exactly the contrary of what CJ lament in this his post:



The Early Church was EXTREMLY istitutionalized. And the decision of Peter (and the apostles?) *Act 15:11*, taken BEFORE to lissen Paul and Barnabas *Act 15:12*, was published by the Bishop of the town.


Please note that Peter (and the apostles?) decided BEFORE to to lissen Paul and Barnabas.

Why? because the Church was very united and followed what the Apostoles said, that was right simply beacuse said by them.

The Early Church was EXTREMLY istitutionalized. And the decision of Peter (and the apostles?) *Act 15:11*, taken BEFORE to lissen Paul and Barnabas *Act 15:12*, was published by the Bishop of the town.


Please note that Peter (and the apostles?) decided BEFORE to to lissen Paul and Barnabas.

Why? because the Church was very united and followed what the Apostoles said, that was right simply beacuse said by them.

In comparison to what, makes the Church well orginzed at that point in time?

Your opinion seems to contradict the popular and well educated opinion about the Church at that time.

Warrior Poet

 

[orthodoxy]

WarriorAngel,

The Popes are very pious, and do observe that they have the most risk in their judgements...and men do not desire that position.

If they are choosen, they know they must. But most must become a servant and they know that.

The life of a Pope is not enviable. Most dread the position.
From what I have read....

They must serve their flock as a shepherd. As Peter was told three times to feed His sheep...

Their very lives are changed.

Ppl look at them and think what an enviable position it 'must' be, but that is a sadly misunderstood opinion.

From my position the Pope does not appear to serve anyone but those in his flock not the entire Church for if this was true the Roman Church would not have fallen away from that which has always been understood and taught.


Plainly for the Church to function each member should be able to say within themselves "is this what I have always been taught to understand by the Church" when a "new and improved" teaching such as the "filioque" enters the "mind of Christ" found in the Church.


Again the words are clear:


Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10.

If by the mouth of Peter something different appears then it behooves the Church to correct him to "speak the same thing" so that "there be no divisions among" US to remain joined together in the "same mind and same judgement" there by not grieving the Holy Spirit in whom it "seems good with US"....

The Church remains regardless of Peter's mouth or the mouth of Judas......or any other that would seek rebellion and protest....

kyril

 

[albertmc]

Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese

Just thought you might find it an interesting letter regarding Nicaea. He mentions the Emporer. So it seems the Emporer, who helped to liberate the Christians was a Pious man.
I think it was more of an interest on his part than a mandate.

Letter on the Councils

I found this letter fascinating.

BTW there were Synods before and after the Ecumenical Councils. [local]

And going back to the OP, it seems that James is backing up Peter. Now Peter says that it is ‘by my mouth’ the Gentiles shall hear the Word, and believe.

Peter is the choice among them.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Then it was time for the input of Paul and Barnabas.
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.

Then James took a turn.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Then they sent men out to teach that which was agreed upon.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

This was the shadow of the councils to come. A foreshadowing.
Peter converted the Gentiles, the Jews were laying the Old laws on them, to which it was decided that the burden of the old laws were not necessary. And they gave their accord to what would be necessary for the Gentiles to be faithful.
Hence; don’t eat meant offered to idols, or strangled…etc.

NOW, if we pay close attention to the next verses, we see Tradition [orally taught] exceed the written.
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

Is there anything else we need to discuss? I wish to discuss the next verse.

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
What did Simeon [Peter] actually say?? That he being choice among them…was sent by ‘his mouth’ or rather..”My mouth”
So what exactly did Peter say?
To me this shows that Peter is the mouth of Christ. The vicar who sits in the place of the Lord.

James testifies that GOD went to the Gentiles…while Peter says ‘he’ went to them.

This is alluded to the chair of Peter being in Christ’s place.

And let me touch on the next verse, which can be interpreted a few ways, but since it seems to be clear on ONE vs the other…lets discuss this.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church,

This verse states the ‘whole’ Church, but clearly that was impossible, since if it is being regarded in this debate that the laity as the whole Church, who were not present… then it seems clearly to indicate the magistrate who are the ‘whole’ Church.
If the whole Church was literally there, there would have been no letter written and NO men sent.

This chapter tells us who was present.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question

What proof would we have of the laity being present?

I think you are doing a bit of eisegesis here. The actual text does not really support what you are contending in context. Peter was listening to the church dispute the matter and rose and spoke that there was no need to dispute since God had already settled it. The choosing was not of Peter but of the gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit without a Jewish conversion. Peter's place as a leader was not what they were speaking about at all and to read it into the text is anachronistic.

You also skewed the order of the council speaking to avoid the obvious place of James as the leader. Peter and Paul as well spoke their minds - as did presumably their opponents earlier - but it was James and not Peter who rendered the decision. James did not merely act as a seconding of Peter's opinion but as head of the Church in Jerusalem rendered a decision to the Church and asked for their agreement. His words were:

13: After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
14: Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15: And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
16: `After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,
17: that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
18: says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
19: Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
20: but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
21: For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."
22: Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23: with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting.
24: Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
25: it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26: men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27: We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
28: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

It was James who apparently presided over the Council and after hearing both sides came down on the side of Peter and Paul and then had it ratified by the whole Church. Attempts to read later ecclesiology into these decisions is at the very least a highly dubious practice.

 

[a_ntv]

Your opinion seems to contradict the popular and well educated opinion about the Church at that time.

Well, the problem is that anyone sees in the early church what is his idea of church

 

[Warrior Poet]

Well, the problem is that anyone sees in the early church what is his idea of church

So compared to what, classified the Church as well orginized brother?

Thanks,

Warrior Poet

 

[WarriorAngel]

WarriorAngel,




From my position the Pope does not appear to serve anyone but those in his flock not the entire Church for if this was true the Roman Church would not have fallen away from that which has always been understood and taught.


Plainly for the Church to function each member should be able to say within themselves "is this what I have always been taught to understand by the Church" when a "new and improved" teaching such as the "filioque" enters the "mind of Christ" found in the Church.


Again the words are clear:


Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10.

If by the mouth of Peter something different appears then it behooves the Church to correct him to "speak the same thing" so that "there be no divisions among" US to remain joined together in the "same mind and same judgement" there by not grieving the Holy Spirit in whom it "seems good with US"....

The Church remains regardless of Peter's mouth or the mouth of Judas......or any other that would seek rebellion and protest....

kyril

kyril, accordingly then all councils were moot point.
Councils were also used to 'argue' heresies.

Insomuch as there are ill feelings towards the Pope because he made a decision to argue a heresy that 'stemmed' from the creed....in that Christ was not part of the Trinity.

The sementics were important and to remove heresies as they cropped up.

Just as ALL the Apostles did, just as all the ECF's did...just as all through history has done.

It was added BECAUSE of a heresy. Not because it was something to do that day.

[.....and the Son] is a prooving point of the Trinity, and nothing more.
As the decree said...you cannot seperate the Son from the Father. And what makes anyone think perhaps this was not guided by the Spirit, Who does not have to adhere to the mandates of past agreements...in light of a doctrinal oversight that could have misled many.

The Trinity was not a new document. And as time moves forward, things of the past have constantly been updated for ppl to actually understand it.

DID you read my first link to the council??

It was decided INITIALLY that Jesus was 'of the same essense' ...until some 'after thought' that NO, this would lead to a heresy...so it became 'ONE of the same Essense' so ppl understood Jesus was NOT a seperate Being who had a like essense to the Father, but was ONE in the Father.

This is also true of the filioque.

Sometimes, humanity in the Bishops do take some time to see...that heresies can and most often do crop up when folks find a 'hole' to interpret for themselves.

I think you are doing a bit of eisegesis here. The actual text does not really support what you are contending in context. Peter was listening to the church dispute the matter and rose and spoke that there was no need to dispute since God had already settled it. The choosing was not of Peter but of the gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit without a Jewish conversion. Peter's place as a leader was not what they were speaking about at all and to read it into the text is anachronistic.

You also skewed the order of the council speaking to avoid the obvious place of James as the leader. Peter and Paul as well spoke their minds - as did presumably their opponents earlier - but it was James and not Peter who rendered the decision. James did not merely act as a seconding of Peter's opinion but as head of the Church in Jerusalem rendered a decision to the Church and asked for their agreement. His words were:

13: After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me.
14: Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15: And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written,
16: `After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up,
17: that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
18: says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.'
19: Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
20: but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
21: For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues."
22: Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren,
23: with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting.
24: Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
25: it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26: men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27: We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
28: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
29: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

It was James who apparently presided over the Council and after hearing both sides came down on the side of Peter and Paul and then had it ratified by the whole Church. Attempts to read later ecclesiology into these decisions is at the very least a highly dubious practice.

I put it in order...First came Peter, then Paul and Barnabas, then James.

But James pointed out something that when Peter said 'my mouth' ....Janes said 'God'
Regardless if James gave a fine point of judgement...James pointed to Peter as the vicar of Christ.

Again, as I highlighted...the meeting [council] included the elders [priests] and the Apostles. It says NO where the laity. In fact, if anyone else was there besides the 'appointed men' from Paul [who in all likelihood were being taught to be elders] there is NO mention of the whole Church.
Conclusively, this means that the Magestrate is the Church.
WHO speaks for the whole Church.

Show me anywhere in history where the laity made decrees and laws and doctrines.