Which is More Important to You, Faith or Politics?

Published on June 1, 2008 By The Way In Politics

In the fallout of Fr. Michael Pfleger’s recent "sermon" at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama resigned his membership there. This was the culmination of several months of political trauma for the Obama campaign, beginning with revelations in the national media that Obama's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, has made many politically contentious statements. My intention here is not to judge Senator Obama, Father Pfleger, or Jeremiah Wright, but I do want to assess the choice made by Senator Obama to leave his church of 20 years at the moment when it became a political liability to his campaign.

First, let me point out that I am a Roman Catholic. Thus, I am a member of the same universal Church in which Father Pfleger is an ordained priest. I am a proud Catholic, despite the fact that the Church has had some embarrassing and disgraceful moments in recent history, namely the sexual abuse scandals in the United States. Sadly, many people left the Church in the fallout of these scandals.

The question at hand is the following: Should someone leave their church because of the statements or abuses of some of their church's ministers?

Before I state my opinion, let me first say that every human should feel free to choose their place of worship for whatever reason they desire. This freedom, however, does not mean that others cannot criticize another person's choice of place of worship, or question their motivations for choosing one place of worship over another, particularly when the person in question is running for President of the United States.

In my opinion, the most important factor in choosing a church should be the tenets of faith that the church embraces. For the Catholic Church, these tenets are summarized in the Nicene Creed (“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen…”). Certainly, the qualities of the pastor or the faith community that you worship with might be secondary factors in one’s choice, but if one believes their church is ordained and protected by God, then the church should transcend the individuals who make up its membership or even its leadership.

I am reminded here of a story about St. Francis of Assisi, who lived in the late 12^th and early 13^th centuries. In this story, it is said that one of St. Francis’s brothers asked him what he would do if he knew that a priest celebrating Mass had three concubines on the side. St. Francis’s response was, “When it came time for Holy Communion, I would go to receive the sacred Body of my Lord from the priest's anointed hands.” The point is that ministers are ordained and “endorsed” by God, not by humans.

If I were a member of Father Pfleger’s St. Sabina parish in the south side of Church, I would take example from St. Francis and faithfully receive Holy Communion from Father Pfleger’s anointed hands. I would not leave his parish. If he was preaching heretical or inappropriate teachings, I might consider reporting this to the Bishop, but I wouldn’t publicly criticize Father Pfleger because to me he is a man of God and to criticize him would be unfaithful to Church teachings.

Senator Obama has instead completely abandoned his church for seemingly political reasons. He has not even said that he will remain a member of the United Church of Christ and simply seek another UCC congregation in which to worship. He just renounced his church at the moment that his church became a liability to his presidential aims.

Let me end by saying I respect Senator Obama’s right to leave his church for whatever reason he wants. And honestly, I hope he joins the Roman Catholic Church because I think it’s the greatest church in the universe. But the fact that he was so quick to leave his church when it was under a political firestorm, to me speaks volumes about whether he exemplifies some of the qualities I would like to see in the President of the United States: Loyalty, commitment, worthy ambition, and a strong, resilient faith.

Comments (Page 4)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

kfc posts #22

when Christ talked about the church he wasn't talking denomination or institution. He was speaking of people....."ecclesia." His church is his people. ....
He never meant to set up a religion for his name but a people for his name.

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.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

KFC POSTS:

He never meant to set up a religion for his name but a people for his name. That's why he bypassed the religious institution during his day and went to the simple people instead.

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.

That's why he bypassed the religious institution during his day and went to the simple people instead.

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.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

KFC POSTS # 24

James was actually the head of the church to begin with and we see he was the leader of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) 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.

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

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.

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.

The Way

on Jun 04, 2008

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."

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?

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

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.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 04, 2008

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."

Well let's look at this Lula a bit more closely. Remember this is a letter and a letter must be read like a letter should. This is coming on the heels and in context to the false teachers who are speading lies. Here's the scripture starting in v15:

"Just as also our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him wrote to you as also in all his letters speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand which the untaught and unstable distort as they do also the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction. You therefore beloved knowing this beforehand be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness." [/B]

Sounds kind of diff than how you're "interpreting" this Lula when you sit down and read it.

You see two diff class of people. One; those who can't understand and those "beloved" who know this and should not be carried away by these false teachers.

Notice the "just as also?" Peter is telling us that Paul made similar warnings about false teachers. Peter is referencing Paul's letters suggesting that Peter's audience was familiar with Paul's correspondence. Because Paul was speaking in his letters "of these same things," (eschatology) it makes sense that Peter would cite Paul here.

In Paul's writings Peter is acknowledging there are some things hard to understand such as the rapture, the AC, the return of Christ in judgment, etc. Peter was not implying that Paul's teachings are impossible to understand. He's just recognizing that some are more complex than others especially when it comes to prophetic revelation. See 1 Peter 1:1-12.

The hard to understand things opened the door for the untaught and unstable (false teachers) to distort what Paul taught about the future.

Untaught speaks of lack of information. Unstable shows a vacillating spiritual character. Distort is a word that speaks of wrenching someone's body on a torture rack. This pictues how the false teachers manipulated certain prophetic issues twisting them to confuse and deceive the undiscerning. Such distortion is still going on today.

Not surprisingly the false teachers did not stop with just prophecy but also distorted "the rest of the Scriptures."

You can also see how Peter placed Paul's writings on par with the "rest of the scriptues."

In keeping here with Peter's warning believers must NOT allow themselves to be "carried away" by the lies of the false teachers. Rather they must be alert and discerning lest they "fall from their own steadfastness." This is the opposite of being unstable.

As far as the Eunuch is concerned....there are ALWAYS three things invoved in a conversion. The first is the Holy Spirit (Philip carried away) the second thing is the scriptures (Eunuch was reading the word) and the third thing is the soul winner (Philip). Each one of these things must be involved in the born again process.

I've heard people say...."well I didn't have anyone...I was just sitting there reading a tract containing biblical passages and accepted Christ." Well ....who put the tract there and who wrote the tract?"

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 04, 2008

I have a question for The Way and Lula.

Do you two know each other?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 04, 2008

makes perfect sense. Why doesn't it?

If a believer isn't behaving properly (sinning outright and causing God shame) then the one who sees this should take him aside. If that doesn't work, he brings another one or two for witnesses. If that doesn't work, he brings him the the church meaning the body of believers and a judgment is made.

Why doesn't this make sense?

We've already got the rule book right? We know what is considered sin and what is not according to God's word right?

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.

It's all the born again believers who are following Christ. It's not about denomination. The church is still here all over the globe. He kept his promise because the church is still alive. It's not the CC. It's the believers scattered all over the world.

If it was as you said, he would have given his time and attention to the religious leaders of his day (who sound an awful lot like the leaders of the CC btw) and not gone to the simple and regular people.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 04, 2008

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.

of course and Mary as well right? It's right there in scripture.

I've got the DR right in front of me (thanks to you) and it's clear in your DR as well that James ended the session with his judgment. It says big and plain in YOUR version in v13:

"And after they had held their peace James answered saying, Men, brethren, hear me."

and continuing in v15

"and to this agree the words of the prophets."

Nothing about "I think" or "I am of the opinion at all." You can play semantics all you want. It doesn't matter what version. They all say the same thing.

It's clear not only here in Acts 15 but also history records that James was the leader of the first Jerusalem council.

You either want the truth Lula or you don't. It couldn't be more clearer.

BTW yes my KJV says "my sentence" anther version says "my judgment."

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?

I like your way and I also pray for those here on JU. No matter how heated our discussions I always feel as tho Lula and I will always be friends. I believe it's our love for Christ that unites us.

Like I said to her, it's only the authority and traditions of the CC that we disagree on for the most part. I believe she will only agree with scripture unless the traditions are telling her otherwise and that's when we disagree like this over Peter for instance.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

Do you two know each other?

No. Not that I know of. If you don't mind, why do you ask?

lulapilgrim

on Jun 04, 2008

BTW yes my KJV says "my sentence" anther version says "my judgment."

Nothing about "I think" or "I am of the opinion at all." You can play semantics all you want. It doesn't matter what version. They all say the same thing.

Well, yes, words mean what they mean and you'd be the first one to say look at the context, and compare that with other uses of the same word. That's what I was saying by pointing out that the actual translation for the word "krino", which the KJV translates as "my sentence" when it should be "I think, or I am of the opinion". "Krino" interpretated as "I think or I am of the opinion" is consistent with those other passages 13:46, 16:15, and 26:8.

Here, by saying this, St.James was not making the final decision on the matter, but merely assenting to St.Peter's already made decision.

It's clear not only here in Acts 15 but also history records that James was the leader of the first Jerusalem council.
You either want the truth Lula or you don't. It couldn't be more clearer.

Could you cite those history records?

Of history records, I've never once seen a record of successors of St.James..rather the only record the world has of a succession of bishops from the first to the 21st centuries, is that of the See of Rome of which St.Peter is the first bishop.

Not a single early writer, some contemporaries of the Apostles, ever expressed the least doubt on the subject that St.Peter was the leader and first bishop of Rome. Eusebuis wrote, "Peter, the Apostle, the first pontiff of the Christians, when he had first founded the church at ANtioch, proceeds to Rome where preaching the Gospel he continues for 25 years bishop of that city." He was crucified up side down there on June 29, 67AD.

Eusebuis adds, that "Linus was the first after Peter that obtained the Episcopate of the Church of the Romans."

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 04, 2008

No. Not that I know of. If you don't mind, why do you ask?

No reason. Just curious. Was thinking maybe "The Way" was your priest or something...lol.

Of history records, I've never once seen a record of successors of St.James..

well I'm not talking about successors neither do I believe in such a thing per se anyhow. James is also known as James the Just or Camel Knees.

but here's just a sample since there's a ton on this out there..... from Wikipedia

The purpose of the meeting, according to Acts, was to resolve the disagreement in Antioch, which had wider implications than circumcision. Some of the Pharisees who had become believers demanded that it was "needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5).

The primary issue which was addressed related to the requirement of circumcision, as the author of Acts relates, but other matters arose as well, as the Decree by James indicates. The dispute was between those, such as the followers of the "Pillars of the Church", led by James who believed the church must observe the rules of traditional Judaism,[7] and Paul of Tarsus, who believed there was no such necessity (see also Supersessionism, New Covenant (theology)).

At the Council, following advice said to have been offered by Simon Peter (Acts 15:7–11), James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church, gave his decision (later known as the "Apostolic Decree"):

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.[8] For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day" (Acts 15:19–21).
and another

The final feature of the James material from outside the NT of concern to this study is the position he is said to have held in the leadership of the early Church. There is no question that James played a significant role in directing the affairs of the Christian community in Jerusalem during the middle third of the first century. What is not clear is the precise nature of his leadership position and how he attained it.

In Acts 12, 15 and 21 James seems to occupy some special position in the Jerusalem church. Paul in Galatians 2 restricts James' authority to the same level as that of Peter, John and possibly others. Some of the non-canonical materials appear to elevate James above other early Christian officials, including the twelve. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, for example, claims for James a place at the last supper, a personal appearance (possibly the first) of the risen Jesus, and, in contrast to the twelve, says he understood that Jesus would rise again. In such documents as the Pseudo-Clementines and some from Nag Hammadi, James, appointed by Jesus himself, is virtually the absolute leader of the Jerusalem church, which in turn is regarded as the center of authority for the whole of Christendom.

The studies of Arnold A. T. Ehrhardt(15) further underscore the significance of the James traditions in the development of the organization of early Christianity. He shows that although the various succession lists of bishops are beset with problems and the sources exhibit a competition between James and Peter for first place, in the Canon of Eusebius-Jerome this competition is decided in favor of James. Thus succession in such centers as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and originally even Rome is traced back to James.(16) Furthermore, Ehrhardt suggests, the episcopal succession based on James was modeled after that of the Jewish high-priestly succession, and to many in the early Church James as first among the bishops stood at the head of an order of Christian priests.(17) Ehrhardt's opinion is supported by statements in an early Syriac document(18) in which the parallel between Jewish and Christian organization is specifically drawn(19) and in which priestly ordination within the Church is clearly traced to James.(20)

http://www.wheaton.edu/DistanceLearning/Jas-prst.htm

from the Orthodox Church who claim to be older than the CC.

The speech of the Apostle Peter created a deep impression and was then strengthened still more after the Apostles Paul and Barnabas related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

After this, the Apostle James, the "brother of the Lord," arose to address those present at the council. The last word belonged to him as to bishop of the Jerusalem Church and to president of the council (first among equals). His opinions were furthermore important because he himself was a strict adherent of the Law and received for this not only from Christians but also from Jews themselves the epithet "righteous." Honour was accorded him by his position in the Church, first bishop of Jerusalem, placed there by the Lord Himself. St. James led a strict ascetic life, and he wore a gold name plate which was worn only by the chief priests. He spent whole hours alone in the Temple praying for his people. In Jerusalem, he was honoured and respected by the people.

St. James approved the opinion of the Apostle Peter. He showed that it was in agreement with prophecy (Amos 9:11-12) and consequently with divine providence.

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/council.shtml

The Way

on Jun 04, 2008

KFC Kickin For Christ

comment 52

I have a question for The Way and Lula.Do you two know each other?

No, I don't think we know each other. But I feel a deep connection to Lula as a sister in Christ. I feel that you, KFC, are also a brother in Christ....but I must admit...it is a much closer feeling with Lula because we are connected in the Eucharist and share the same traditions. I think that is the intention of Jesus--that we feel like we're a part of the same body of Christ--but if you make choices to not be in communion to the Church, it hurts that unity.

Whether or not Peter was the leader of the early Church to me is less important than the issue of unity in the Church. But this does not mean that we can accept apostacy, heresy, or dissention about Church doctrine for the sake of unity. It means the imperative to choose unity over individual beliefs on lesser important issues lies with those who remain in dissention on Church doctrines. They should realize the great harm they are doing to the body of Christ. My prayer for my brothers and sisters disaffected from the Church is that, even if they cannot agree on all of the Church doctrines, they recognize that the more important aim is to be a unified body of Christ.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 05, 2008

Whether or not Peter was the leader of the early Church to me is less important than the issue of unity in the Church.

Exactly, this is what the Holy Ghost wants us to learn about when reading Acts 15:1-35, namely, unity in the early Church. The question before them was of utmost importance to the Infant Church and the answer to it has to be absolutely correct, infallibly so. The meeting of the hierarchical Church in Jerusalem is seen as the first General Council of the Church, which was a proto-type of all those that would follow through the centuries right up to the most recent one, the Second Vatican Council. The Council of Jerusalem was all about unity. All they do is, with the aid of the Holy Spirit to provide a correct interpretation of God's promises and commandments regarding the salvation of men and the way in which Gentiles can enter the Church.

Let's focus where it starts under the leadership of St. Peter and his address to the others... v. 7-11, "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. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy SPirit just as He did us; 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 diciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ just as they will."

So here St.Peter is brief but decisive followed by a lenghty discussion with arguments from both sides although St.Luke doesn't tell us about the arugments of the Judaizing Christians who had the notion the Old Law was perennial.

St.Peter is the deciding factor in Church unity. He draws together all the varying views of those trying to reach the truth, and he points out where truth lies. Relying on his personal experience of what GOd directed him to do in connection with the baptism of Cornelius, St.Peter sums up the discussion and offers a solution which coincides with St.Paul's view of the matter v. 11.

Then St.James gives his views and he shows himself to be in agreement with the basic principles of St. Peter. They both taught as a basic principle the freedom of Gentiles from the law and St.James even called upon Scripture (taken from the Greek translation of the OT..the Septuagint) in support v. 15. One commentary I read on this has it as an attempt to place the message to the Gentiles against the background of the prophetic expectation which saw the Israel of the future as a mighty fellowship of all those who united in seeking GOd.

This is followed by v. 19 in which KFC hangs her hat. Here, St.James says, "Therefore my judgment, or therefore my sentence,....." is what? It's two things. First he proposes that the meeting issue a written formal statement which proclaims the secondary character of the Law and his own suggestions about the four prohibitions that make easier the communal life of Jewish and Gentile Christians.

St.James concurrence with what St.Peter says and the fact that they are both in agreemtnt with with St. Paul's preaching indicate the Holy Ghost at work giving light to all who to understand the true meaning of the promises of Christ.

V. 22-29 tell about the COuncil's decree which is often overlooked. The decree contains the decisions of the Council incorporting St. James suggestions makes it clear that the participants are conscious of being aided by the Holy Ghost v. 28 and that in the last analysis it is God who had decided the matter.

We also learn from these verses that it is the Apostles and the priests with the whole Church who designate the people who are to publish the Council's decree, but it is the hierarchy which formulates and promulgates it.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 05, 2008

Here is an item regarding Pope Benedict's teaching on St.James from Catholic News Agency June 28, 2006 that I hope you all find as interesting as I did.

RELATED NEWS:

Pope speaks on the Primacy of Peter

Journalists to be communicators inspired by the Gospel Pope says

Quebec City boy, who was born deaf, sings a song to Pope Benedict today

Pope holds audience with Laura Bush

Pope: James the Lesser demonstrates a concrete and practical Christianity

Vatican City, Jun. 28, 2006 (CNA) - In St. Peter’s Square some 40,000 people gathered to hear Pope Benedict’s continuing catechesis on the apostles. Today, the Holy Father spoke of the Apostle James the Lesser who, Benedict said, was a bridge builder and who provided a concrete and practical method of Christian faith.

Pope Benedict said that the New Testament Letter attributed to James, "places much emphasis on the need not to reduce one's own faith to a mere abstract or verbal declaration, but to express it solidly in works of charity. James, he said, reminds us that, “just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead (James 2:26).”

James also, “calls us to constancy in trials, ... and to faithful prayer to God for the gift of wisdom, thanks to which we come to understand that the true values of life are not to be found in transitory riches, but rather in knowing how to share our own wealth with the poor and needy."

“The Letter of Saint James demonstrates a Christianity very concrete and practical,” the Holy Father said.

The Pope also recalled how James the Less "played a preeminent role within the Church in Jerusalem. ... In the apostolic council held there ... he affirmed, together with others, that pagans could be welcomed into the Church without first undergoing circumcision."

"St. Paul," the Pope went on, "names him even before Peter as a 'pillar' of the Church," and "the Jewish-Christians considered him to be their principal point of reference." Together with Peter, he helped "to integrate the original Jewish dimension of Christianity with the need not to impose all the precepts of Mosaic Law upon pagan converts."

"In this way, two significant and complementary results were achieved, both of them still valid: on the one hand, the indissoluble relationship linking Christianity and Judaism was recognized, ... on the other, Christians of pagan origin were allowed to maintain their own sociological identity. ... Thus began a process of reciprocal esteem and respect which, despite unfortunate later misunderstandings, sought by its nature to safeguard the characteristic elements distinguishing each of the two sides."

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!