Gave evidence to his being a pope from that verse? Really? All Peter gave was evidence that was he was writing from Rome. Paul did the same and used the same sort of lauguage.

so how is this proof of his headship? Just because he wrote from Rome? No denying that. He died in Rome. Would you like me to use that same critera but from Paul writing from his cities as well?



Nero to Constantine yes. Agree

There is no such history making Peter as first pope outside the CC saying so. There were no popes before Constantine and that was a far cry from when the Apostles walked the earth.....something like over 300 years later. Not in his writings nor any of the Apostles. In fact, Paul condemned or rebuked Peter to his face for denying 5 major doctrines. Some pope! Gal 2:11

 

I just cited 1St.Peter 5:13. Oagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians and St.Peter was writing from that city. Also St.Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans in 58AD. In it he says that he does not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known because he would not build on "another man's foundation."

Yet in Romans 1:8, he writes to a Church already founded "whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world."  later on he declares that he himself had not yet visited Rome, but he had hoped to do so when he had later set out ot visit Spain.

Therefore, Rome in short, was another man's foundation....The Romans knew well enough whom he meant...who then was the other man? The evidence from the writings of the Chruch Fathers and even some later Protestant historians tell that there had been a founder of this Chruch in Rome whom St.Paul was well acquainted and all Tradition says it's St. Peter.

If St.Peter was not in Rome isn't it strange that there is not a prominent writer of all the days before the 15th century who can be quoted to substantiate this false claim made by Wycliff, Luther and Calvin?  You got to get with the program KFC, even modern Protestant scholarship has refuted their false claims about St.Peter not being in Rome.

One was a German theologian, Adolph von Harnack, who wrote, "The martyrdom of peter in Rome was contested for controversial purposes, first by Protestant afterwards by higher critical prejudice...but that the position must be erroneous must be clear to any investigator who does not shut his eyes to the truth. The entire array of critical arguments with which Bauer combated the old tradition is today considered worthless.

No, not a play on words...

Catholics hold that rock of St.Matthew 16 to be St.Peter. Catholics don't believe one Rock excludes the other rock as you seem to. The Church holds Christ to be the Eternal Rock, the inward and invisible foundation, the Cornerstone of His Church and that this passage tells that He selected St. Peter as the secondary rock  upon which He built His visible Church. Just as Christ is the Good Shepherd, yet He selected St.Peter to be the shepherd of His flock, "Feed My Lambs, feed My sheep." St.John 21:16-17.

 

 

It is well understood that in the early Church there was controversy over whether Gentiles who accepted Christ should be required to live according to Jewish law. This was a sensitive issue. Paul, in this instance, simply "rebuked" or "checked" Peter for pulling back from the table.

Just because someone is the leader doesn't mean they are always right. And when they are wrong, it is the proper role for subordinates to "keep them honest." There are many instances of dissent and debate in the early church. To understand the early Church, we have to remember that the Apostles, though guided by the Holy Spirit, were still human and capable of mistakes. But this instance, in my opinion, is a very minor mistake, where Peter, struggling with the delicate, sensitive balance among Jewish and Gentile Christians, hesitated to share a meal with the Gentiles, which was forbidden by Jewish law. 

In fact, I'm very glad you pointed out the "Incident at Antioch" because it naturally follows to mention the "Council of Jerusalem" that likely happened soon after that event, where the issue of whether Gentiles should be circumcized was discussed among the Apostles. Here it is clearly seen that Paul sought the decision of the Church leadership on this question:

"Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question." (Acts 15:2).

In the description of the  "Council of Jerusalem" that folows, it is quite clear that Peter presided over the Council, just as the Pope has presided over Ecumenical Councils for nearly 2000 years:

" The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.' "

"The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them." (Acts 15:6-12) 

By the way, there are several hints even in Galatians to Paul seeing Peter as a leader in the Church. First, in Galatians 1:17, Paul mentions that he went to Jerusalem to "confer with" Peter. This doesn't necessarily mean that Paul saw Peter as a superior, but it hints at it. Second, in Galatians 2:8, Paul points out that Jesus entrusted the Apostleship of the circumcision (the Jews) to Peter. All of the Apostles and early Christians were Jews, including Paul! Therefore, according to Paul himself, Peter held the Apostleship over Paul.

By the way, what "5 major doctrines" do you refer to?

Timothy_Sfker posts:

To be honest, Christian existentialism is a new term to me...I always understood it as either atheistic or theistic existentialism.

I wrote that Existentialism is at variance with Christ's teachings because subjective truth is central to Existentialism while objective truth is central to Christ's teachings.

Pondering the reality of life is most useful provided that objective principles are kept in the analysis. Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, defined love as being a disposition toward goodness, thus truth and love are inseperable realities. Man can only fully realize himself by seeking to conform to God's absolute principles. In this way a person becomes truly free to love his fellow man.

 KFC, sadly, I'm beginning to think that even if we quoted 100 instances in Scripture of Christ establishing his Church upon Peter and giving the key to Peter, you would still respond "No, there is no evidence in scripture of this at all." But for the sake the Truth, I will try once again...

This is one of many of the Scriptural bases, in addition to Church tradition and a plethora of early Christian writers, from the time of Christ's cruicifixion to the First Concil of Nicaea in 325 A.D., for the primacy of Peter and his successors in Rome as leaders of the universal Church. Personally, it is the most clear of all the Scriptural bases, as it comes directly from the mouth of Christ. The words are worth repeating again:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

If Peter was not the rock that Christ was referring to here, then why did Jesus not just call him Simon. Could Jesus not be any more clear than actually calling Simon "ROCK"? Do you really think He just went around changing people's names at random? If so, consult the Old Testament when God changed several prophets names for very explicit reasons (Abram-->Abraham; SaraiàSarah Jacob-->Israel . Names of people and places have very important meanings throughout the Bible.

I’m not saying that you, KFC, subscribe to these particular arguments, but I must point out that I have seen the arguments made by Protestants about Matthew using "Petros" instead of "petra." I can only laugh at these ridiculous, futile challenges to Christ's words, whose Truth strikes right down to the bedrock. Can't we give St. Matthew an inch of poetic license here in translating the words of Jesus from Aramaic to Greek? Jesus didn't say "Petros" after all. We all agree he would have said these words in Aramaic, so he would have used the word "Kepha," which Paul also uses for Simon (Peter).

I really find these arguments about “petros” vs. “petra” extremely ridiculous. We’re talking about symbolism here! Just as well as we know that Peter is not literally “a rock,” Jesus is not saying that the Church literally IS Peter. He’s saying that Peter symbolizes and represents the Church. Christ is indeed the rock, the foundation of all of our faith, and Jesus left us with Peter to represent and protect that faith after Jesus rose from this world. Of course the Church starts with Jesus, as the head, but Jesus very clearly gave Peter a very special role to play in the body of the Church, or else he never would have said to Peter things like “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus was not there to try and catch us up on the difference between “petros” on “petra”…if your argument against the role of Peter in the Church is based on that, then I really question your judgment to interpret any part of the Bible!

I even found one of these so-called “petros/petra” refutations of the Church’s teaching on Matthew 16:18 that cited St. Augustine in support of their argument. I looked up the full text of the work from St. Augustine that was cited. It was immediately clear to anyone with two or three brain cells that St. Augustine was clearly of the opinion that Peter held the chief Apostleship in the Church. I think one of my favorite quotes from St. Augustine is now “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1)

There is, by the way, a second reference to Christ making this explicit name change for Simon again in John 1:42.

There is no doubt that Paul was a prolific scriptural author and a great and saintly Apostle. But do you really think the fact that Peter wrote two books and Paul wrote 13 is a valid argument against Peter being the leader of the Church? Let’s see, how many books did Jesus write?

Again, quantity proves nothing. But didn’t you, KFC, say previously that you not interested in anything that happened after the death of Christ? Why would you bring up how many times Paul is mentioned compared to Peter after the resurrection?

The first statement is simply not true. Although he was undoubtedly one of the “pillars” of the early Church, James the Just (not James the Greater) certainly not the leader of it. He was the bishop of Jerusalem after Peter had left there. Eusebius wrote that Clement of Alexandria stated in the late second century: “For they say that Peter and James (the Greater) and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

St. John Chrysostom wrote as early as the fourth century: “If anyone should say, 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that he [Christ] made Peter the teacher not of that See, but of the world.”

Regarding the Council of Jerusalem, I don’t think you can say definitively based on Acts 15 alone whether Peter was definitely the leader or James. Both Peter and James stated their opinions. Peter was the first to speak, and James agreed with Peter’s opinion. This issue of “papal primacy” simply didn’t arise because all of the Apostles present were in agreement. The meeting concerned a disagreement between some Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the delegation of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus over whether Gentiles should be circumcised. James would be expected to lean towards the opinion of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, since he was a very strict observer of Jewish law. But after Peter stated his opinion against requiring circumcision, James stated the same opinion.

Based on the entirety of the Scriptures and on well-documented early Church history, it is reasonable to surmise that had James disagreed with Peter’s opinion, Peter’s opinion would have stuck. In my opinion, it’s still clear that Peter “presided” over the Council of Jerusalem based on the fact that he spoke first and after he spoke, everyone else agreed with him…but I wouldn’t count it among the most definitive instances of papal primacy because that issue simply didn’t arise. The earliest, clear example I know of where the issue of papal primacy arose was at the Council of Nicaea in 325.

Politics USES religion for its own end.  That's why so many people wind up dead.  Religion provides the moral imperative, and politics provides the mechanism (at the low low cost of votes)

 

On the contrary, Religion USES politics for its own end.  We give you votes, and you make laws that agree with our moral imperative.

 

Two very well acquainted bedfellows.  The porn industry has NOTHING on the relationship between politics and religion.  Those two are doing vile acts with each other never before seen on film.

Oh, and by the way...you're all pawns.  You know...just in case anyone was entertaining the idea that religion or politics as an institution actually cared about them...uh no...you're just pawns.  Put in a dollar to the collection plate, pawn.   Put in a dollar for the Presidential Reelection fund, pawn.  Put in a dollar, pawn.  Go ahead, pawn, what are you waiting for?  Salvation is a dollar away!

Be careful, Ock, your well thought-out comment will be deleted, just as mine was.

I mean, I spent hours carefully crafting a response, and it was deleted without regard.

Schmucks.

So you cited Peter. So what? That has nothing to do with him being or saying he's a pope. In fact if you read Peter directly he addresses his readership as a "servant" not a bishop nor a pope.

As for Paul it says right in Chap 15 of Romans that he was coming to them in Rome. So so much for that. Both Peter and Paul died in Rome.



whose foundation? Can you show me with the written word whose foundation you're speaking of here?

Have you once looked at the dates of these writings? Paul wrote to Romans in about 57 AD and he not once addressed his letter or made mention of Peter. Peter writes from Rome much later. His two books are dated around 63-66 AD.



Scripture tells us otherwise. Go to Acts and you'll see the founders of the church of Rome. Peter was in Jerusalem at the time. Also go to Romans 16 and you'll see the list of names. Peter is NOT mentioned.

So your church fathers are in direct contradiction to the scriptures if they are saying Peter founded the church at Rome.



now this is funny. There were no protestants until 1517 when Luther protested against the CC. So who are these Protestants in 67 AD? Hmmmmm?

Besides that...what about the martydom of Paul? He was the most well known of the bunch by making his three well known missionary journeys all over Asia minor.

I understand that and absolutely believe you have been duped. You are hanging onto the wrong ROCK! The rock is Jesus, not Peter.



then why was James the leader of the Jerusalem, the first council after Christ died? All the Christians got together and somehow elected James as the head? Why would they if they thought Peter should be it?

Why would Paul condemn Peter to his face for denying major doctrines of the church? It doesn't mesh with scripture Lula. Of course it makes perfect sense if you are only going to follow the CC's teachings. They are telling you something that is false because they want you to believe the CC is the right church and Peter is their founder. It's bogus.





NO, NO, NO. quite clear? Ya, if you want to omit scripture. Keep reading. You stopped kind of short. Only going to v12? After Peter, Paul and Barnabas gave their testimony what does scripture say?

Here it is.

"And AFTER they held their peace JAMES answered saying........(then goes on to give a few words)....... (he continues)wherefore MY (JAMES) sentence is that we trouble not them which from amonth the Gentiles are turned to God." V13-19.

It's James who hands down the sentence NOT Peter.



One is unity and you see that in Gal 2:14. Christ demanded unity of his followers. This was to be an essential. While Christ did come to cause division between believers and unbelievers unity was and is most important for believers.

The next one would be justification by faith and not by works...sometimes called Justification by Faith Alone and you see this in 2:15-16.

The third one is freedom from the law and you'd see this in 2:17. Peter was still clinging to the OT ways especially when he was around the Judiazers and not quickly disengaging from the Old Covenant.

The fourth would be the sufficiency of Christ. By going to the Old Covenant the Judiazers were saying Christ dying was not enough. This kind of goes with the third one and you can see this in 2:20.

And the last would be not to frustrate the grace of God. 2:21 The Galatians were nullifying the grace of God by wanting to retain the law. i the law could have provided the righteousness necessary for justification why did Christ have to die?

Why didn't he just say "upon YOU Peter?" He didn't did he? Now let me ask you this....could it possibly be....

"And I say to you, you are Peter, (after Peter said You are the Christ the Son of the Living God) and upon this rock (pointing to himself) I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Christ had just asked the question. "who do you say that I am?" Peter stood and gave the answer. He was quite often the spokesman for the group.

It was a play on words because Peter is "Petros" and means rock or rock-man. In the next phrase when Christ used "rock" it was "Petra" which is actually a feminine form for rock and actually means boulder or cliff rock. The church is always considered a "she" or bride of Christ so this makes sense.

Christ was NOT going to build his church on Peter who was like a stone, but he planned on building his church on himself, the huge bolder.

Go over to Daniel 2:44-45 and you'll see the prophecy of this rock which will destroy all the kingdoms of this world when he returns the second time.

Peter even said himself...."Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture Behold I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect precious and he that believes on Him shall not be confounded."

Before that he called other believers "lively stones." That was what Peter was a lively stone. He was NOT the rock that the CC is telling you he is. It's a lie and I believed it once as well.

Lula posts:



   KFC, you're correct....it would indeed be funny and also erroneous if by this statement Harnack was referring to Protestants physically being there and contesting it in 67AD.

As I read it, what Harnack meant is that no one contested the martyrdom of St.Peter in Rome until the first Protestants did which would have been sometime after the Protestant revolt from Catholicism in 1517.

no not really but you were making a point that Peter was the head of the Church and if anyone should have been given that position it should have been Paul...at least that's what it looks like by looking at scripture, not only the amount but also the events that transpired and the fact that he was the preacher to the Gentiles, not Peter.



actually.....all of it. Remember John 1:1. Jesus is the word of God. These words we read are coming from his heart to ours.

Men were used as instruments much like we would use a pen today. Diff colors, diff textures and styles but an instrument nonetheless.

no, I don't remember saying that. If I did, certainly not in this context. The history of the early church (called out ones) for one has always been an interest to me.

Your title is a tad misleading.

The thing is that I never gave this much thought until just now. See, I thought Obama already left.

Either way, politics is faith, regardless of whether people like it or not, and you can see it in a person's actions.

For instance, the religious tend to be against gay marriage, abortion, all that stuff, and are called "Conservatives".

The lay members tend to not really give a crap about it, and, hey, they'd wanna do it too if they wanted to. We call them "Liberals".

ok. The only thing is, I've never contested (see by what I've written above even) that Peter died in Rome. All of my reading leads me to that conclusion as well as the fact that his books were written from Rome right before his death. So not sure who it was who contested this but not this Protestant...that's for sure.

Actually here's a tidbit for you that I just found out. Did you know that the book of 2 Peter was actually almost not included in the Canon? It's very similar to Jude and many thought Peter didn't write this second book.

Yes, I will delete comments, such as the two disruptive and offensive posts you made, that do nothing but clutter up a post. Several people have taken quite a bit of time to discuss honestly an important issue concerning faith, and your snide remarks are unappreciated. I will NOT delete comments that I simply disagree with, as long as it is clear that the writer is being respectful and has put honest thought into his or her post.

LULA POSTS:

Good, SanChonino, I'm glad you know about the Ten Commandments!

Not exactly "whatever", though as you levelled a charge against Catholicism that needs to be defended against.

I know that Catholics have a different set of numbering of the Ten Commandments. As a Catholic I follow the Catholic numberation and this shouldn't surprise you one iota.

On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me that you would bring up the absolutely groundless charge that Catholics are image worshippers and that's the reason for the difference in the numbering system.

The Divine Commands given to Moses are recorded twice in the OT, once in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The two lists are almost identical and Scripture makes no explicit division or enumeration of these commandments. The Catholic system was laid out by St.Augustine in the 5th century.

The First COmmandment is broadly with false worship. The "other gods" of Deut. v. 7  of the pagan peoples which God forbade the ancient Israelites to worship were typically represented as a "graven image" v. 8. So, it's logical not to divide these two statements into separate commandments, but rather see them as a single prohibition of idolatry.

So, from this we can reject the silly notion that it's some kind of Catholic invention to defend the use of religious images against Protestant objections.

The Protestant numbering system as you related stems from the traditions of the Church of England and the Reform leaders in Switzerland, Calvin and Zwingli.

As a side note, and if you are still unconvinced, I'd advise you to read the rest of God's instructions. He actually commanded the Israelites to store these Commandments, carved in stone, within a sacred container called the ark, to be decorated with golden images of angelic beings called cherubim.

He also commanded the people to decorate the places where they worshipped with gold, bronze, and wooden images of animals and plants. So. clearly, the commandment against graven images was not a ban on the use of religious images we see in Catholic churches and those we have in our homes, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

KFC POSTS #22

Can't be...for Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

2St.Peter 3:16 states that in St.Paul's epistles there are 'certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest (distort) as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

And then there is Acts. 8:26-40 and the account of the deacon, Philip and the Ethopian eunuch. Philip learns that the eunuch is reading from Isaias and asks him if he knows what he's reading. He replies , How can I unless someone shows me. This statement verifies that the Bible is not sufficient in itself to interpret itself. Just as the eunuch needed an authority, ( Philip) to insruct him properly to understand what the Bible says, so do we.

If the Bible were to interpret itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.   

 

 

kfc posts #22

C'mon, KFC, the Protestant definition of "church" doesn't make sense...that the Church is all believers.

Seriously, if you look at this objectively, you'll see this definition doesn't work; it simply doesn't fit with Christ's statement, "And if he will not hear them, tell the church, and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Nope, your idea that the church is all believers just doesn't make sense with what Christ is saying here.

The Church is more than just believers. Christ established an organic spiritual society to further His mission, the salvation of souls. That society was commissioned by Christ to preach, teach, and judge matters of faith and morals and to administer the Christ instituted Sacraments and offer sacrifice. Christ called it, "My church", not my churches. It was one Church not hundreds of different of doctrinally conflicting churches. That Church came into existence 2000 years ago, and not 4 centuries ago. That Chruch must exist today becasue Christ promised to be with her until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell would never succeed in prevailing against it.

Take history and trace the origin of the principle existing churches that are called Christian back to their beginnings. The Church that dates back to the first Pentecost day is the one, and the only one, properly to designate itself as Christ established.

Is the first Protestant church, the Lutheran Church the one that Christ established? Did Christ say to Luther, John Knox, John SMyth, John Wesly, Joseph SMith, or Mrs. Eddy, "thou art the rock upon which I will build My Church? Did Christ promise to remain with any of the thousands of Protestant churches until the end of the world?

Where is the Chruch today that was born on the first Pentecost Day? Is it the CC? If you answer no, then you are saying that Christ didn't keep His promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Even during the time that her bishops were writing what we now call the New Testament, the Chruch was a functioning organism. Historians testify to the one Church with Christ's set of unchanging doctrines identical to those which have continued to today in the CC, despite that fact that that truth is constantly under attack.

KFC POSTS:


Man always had a religion established and taught by God. It began with Hebraic Judaism and the worship was practiced by God's faithful in the synagogue. Moses was the lawgiver and after him a series of prophets to explain the law and to predict the coming of the Messias. Christ fulfilled these prophecies and taught the perfect law of God. So, the religion known by the Jews before Christ was therefore imperfect and prepatory. The religion of Christ (Christianity) was its perfect fulfillment. Christ established
Christianity, KFC.

CHrist said, I will build My Chruch. The synagogue was already established but would be replaced by His Chruch which would get into full swing once the Temple was destroyed in 70AD. Christ prescribed new doctrines, new modes of worship, and a new form of authority. Christ did retain all the basic laws of religion and morality contained in the Jewish law, abolishing only the particular rites and ceremonies which were purely figurative, and also the imperfections of the original religion.



Christ only "bypassed" ,as you say, the irreligious, hypocritical Pharisitical sect of His day. Christ, a true Israelite, dutifully obeyed the Mosaic law, went to and taught at the synagogue and kept all the feast days and festivals.

KFC POSTS # 24




Where do you come up with this nonsense? I'm starting to think that it is nothing but desire to somehow depreciate and smash belief in the primacy of St.Peter.


St.James was the local Bishop of Jerusalem and as the local bishop would naturally have a prominent position at the meeting since it took place in Jerusalem. But there is no doubt about his deference to the ecumenical position of St.Peter as chief of the Apostles.

St.James didn't preside over the Council of Jerusalem which btw was the first General Council of the Church and has beenthe pattern of all succeeding Councils.

St.Peter presided over the Council and conducted its discussions. St. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, but St.Peter was their head and the supreme arbiter of the controversy.

St.Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly, saying that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles. After much disputing, St.Peter rose up and said..." v. 7. He then decided the issue v. 8. and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view v. 10. After he had spoken "all the multitude held their peace." v. 12.

FKC POSTS: #36

Here's the passage from the Douay Rheims version v. 19,

"For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted."

Yes, your version is from the Protestant King James translation of krino, "My sentence is.." It should be translated as "I think", or "I am of the opinion" as we learn from other passages of Acts 13:46; 16:15; 26:8.

Those who spoke after St.Peter merely confirmed his decision mentioning like St.Paul and Barnabas the miracles wrought by God on their missionary journeys, or suggesting like S.tJames that the Gentiles respect the scruples of the Jewish converts by abstaining from the things they detested. v. 20-21.

St.James gave no special decision on the question, but merely expressed the views that had been adopted at the meeting spoken in Gal. 2:6. And most important, the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and presbyters assisted by the Holy Ghost v. 28; 16:4, and not to St.James personally.

St.James expressed his assent to St.Peter's decision.

This matter in dispute was a vital question for the welfare of the Infant Church. It's importance cannot be understated. If the opinion held by the Jewish Christians had been generally accepted, the admission of the Gentiles into her fold would have been greatly complicated and her growth would have been fettered and the OT itself would have lost its real character as a preparation and introduction to Christianity.

The Gentile Christians were "filled with consolation" when they learned the decision of the Council. All their doubts and fears were at rest and they knew exactly what God requried of them. So also is it a great consolation for us today living as we do in the midst of errors and false doctrines to know that we have a guiding star by which to steer our course, namely the infallible CC, which is the "pillar and ground of Truth, being unerringly guided by the Holy Ghost.

We, Catholics, live at rest, protected from all doubts for by believing in the Chruch, we believe in the Spirit of Truth and we know that our faith doesn't rest on human but Divine Authority. In short, we yield our faith to God who is Eternal Truth. It's a great joy being a Catholic.

I arrived home last night from a business trip (all my previous posts were written during this trip), and almost immediately I began consulting my small library of books on Church teaching and history. In my opinion, no source, beyond the Bible, is better than the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. It is amazing how logical and well-referenced the Catechism is.

As I read through the sections on Peter, I was amazed how much the Church affirms pieces of both sides of the argument that has been discussed here. Certainly, the Catechism affirms that Peter was first among the Apostles, and it gives ample Scriptural evidence of this. It points out, as was said previous, that Christ is the "living stone." It is because of Peter's faith that Christ comissioned him as the rock of His Church.

After reading though the Cathesism's teaching on Peter, I turned to the sections of the Church. I was struck particularly by the section on "wounds to unity." It pointed out that from the very beginning, "there arose certain rifts." It goes on to say that "in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body--here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism--do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virture, however, there also are hamony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers."

What struck me is--yes, there are divisions among us and differences among our interpretations of the Bible--but let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Brothers in Christ. I thought about our discussions and what they are accomplishing and what we might accomplish together. I prayed on it.

After praying and coming to peace of mind, I decided to make a proposal to you all: Let's commit to each other to continue our discussions openly and respectfully, but also to pray together for unity in the Church. If you all are interested, we could propose a time of the day that we join together in prayer, it could be as little as five minutes. What do you think?

Sounds like a wonderful idea to me. Please set it up.