Many modern Roman Catholic apologists (e.g., Robert Sungenis; Dave Armstrong) appeal to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 as evidence for the modern understanding of Catholic ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican I. However, even the papalists of the pre-Reformation era did not view Peter’s role in Acts 15 as they do. Note the following from Cardinal Cajetan (1468-1534) where he discusses, not just Acts 15, but Acts 8:14, a text many modern Catholic apologists rarely discuss:
. . . in Acts 8[:14],
although Peter and John were sent, nonetheless, [they were] not [sent] as subjects.
The Holy Spirit was sent by the Son, according to I will send Him to you [John
15:20]; nevertheless, [the Spirit] is not a subject. He is a poor theologian
who deduces being subject from being sent. In Acts 11[2:] the controversy of
those who were of the [party of] circumcision with Peter displayed not
superiority but an ambiguous imitation of the law of Moses. That text, joined
with Acts 15[:5], where those adhering to the heresy of the Pharisees said that
the obligations of the Law were to be imposed even on the gentiles, suggests
that the controversy was stirred up not by the apostles but by Jewish converts,
especially from among the Pharisees. On the other hand, sometimes it is
permissible for subjects to rebuke prelates not with deeds but with words, as
appears in the case of Peter and Paul in Galatians 2[:11] . . . Likewise,
Gregory, as is found in c. Petrus [C. 2 q. 7 c. 40], interpreters this
as meaning that Peter did not wish to use his authority.
In Acts 15[:13] it
was not a universal council, nor did James deliver the decision; and,
therefore, it does nothing for the [opposing] argument. That it was not a
universal council is obvious from the fact that only three of the twelve
apostles, Peter, James and John, were there, as is found in Galatians 2[:9].
What is narrated in Acts 15, then, took place when Paul, as he says in
Galatians 2[:1], had gone up to Jerusalem after fourteen years. As the ordinary
gloss says at Acts 15 (see, more correctly, ordinary gloss at Acts 11:23), that
James did not give the decision but gave his judgement speaking after Peter is
obvious from what follows in the text, Then it pleased the apostles and
ancients with the whole Church, to choose men . . . , and to send etc. Writing
by their hands [Acts 15:22-3]. The conclusion, therefore, on which, without
a doubt, the definitive decision rests, was reached in common, neither by Peter
nor by James. (Cajetan, "Authority of Pope and Council Compared," Chapter XI, in J.H.
Burns and Thomas M. Izbicki, Conciliarism and Papalism [Cambridge Texts
in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997], 51-52)
Compare and contrast what Cajetan wrote
with that of Jacques Almain (c. 1480-1515), a conciliarist, in his “A Book
Concerning the Authority of the Church.” In defense of the thesis that “Christ
conferred [supreme ecclesiastical] power immediately on the Church,”
Almain wrote:
. . . it is proved by what is said in Acts
15[:22-3, 28-9]. That chapter relates how, in the council of the apostles and
the elders, the question was raised as to the ending of the commands of the
[Old] Law and whether converts from the among gentiles were to be circumcised. It
pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole Church, to choose men of
their company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas,
who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. Writing by
their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren etc. After some further
points, the council’s conclusion is added, It hath seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:
that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled, and from fornication. The text does not say that Peter
imposed this, although he was present, but that the whole council of the
apostles and the elders [did so]; therefore, the power of ordaining or
commanding, which pertain to the power of jurisdiction, belongs to the Church.
(Chapter VI, in ibid., 154)