59. Saint Luke concludes chapter XIV of the Acts of the Apostles by referring to the return journey from the port of Attalia to Antioch of Syria of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, accompanied as we know by Titus: «And thence they sailed to Antioch, from where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had accomplished» (Acts XIV, 25). We teach that on the 2Oth of May of the year 44, Paul, Barnabas and Titus left Attalia for the Cypriot port of Paphos, where they stayed some 20 days, strengthening the faith of the Christian communities there, reorganizing them and transmitting to them fresh apostolic vigour; wherefore they placed a bishop and several presbyters in charge of that diocese. They later did likewise in Salamina, the port from which Paul and his two companions left Cyprus by ship for Seleucia, to reach Antioch of Syria on the l5th of August that year 44. Saint Luke says: «And when they were come and had congregated the church, they related all that God had done with them and how He had opened the door of the Faith to the Gentiles» (Acts XIV, 26). That is to say that, assembling the clergy and faithful of the community, Paul informed them of all they had done on the journey. He stayed there for somewhat more than three months, which is why the sacred text says that «they abode no small time with the disciples» (Acts XIV, 27). During the sojourn of Paul in Antioch of Syria there took place what Saint Luke recounts: «And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the rite of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had argued hotly against them without success...» (Acts XV, 1-2a). As we have already seen in the present chapter of this Treatise, during his stay in Jerusalem Pope Peter made very clear to James the Less, as well as to others of judaizing tendencies, the obligation of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles as well without demanding that they be circumcised. But after Peter’s departure there were certain new disciples converted from Judaism who maintained an attitude favourable to circumcision, to which James the Less did not attach the required importance. Although it is true that the Apostle favoured the retention by Christians of Jewish origin of the outward mark of their race, and so permitted them to practise circumcision, that attitude of the Apostle in no wise implied that he believed or taught that the rite was necesary for salvation. Nevertheless certain Christians of judaizing tendencies misinterpreted James’ imprudent condescension, so much so that they even came to believe that he maintained that the rite of circumcision was necessary for salvation. It came to pass that many days after Paul had returned to Antioch of Syria following his journey and this news had reached Jerusalem, James the Less sent some religious from the Cenacle convent to fetch the alms Paul and Barnabas had brought from other places. Since among the disciples departed from Jerusalem were some of those in favour of circumcision, these disseminated among the Christian community of Antioch the need of that rite for salvation, and even let it be understood that such also was the opinion of James the Less. Paul and Barnabas openly opposed the opinion of those disciples, disputing with them but unable to convince them. However the Most Holy Virgin Mary - Who as we know was in Ephesus with the Apostle John - aware of the doctrinal controversy between the two groups concerning the rite of circumcision, prayed intensely to Her Divine Son that He might clarify the doctrine in those minds that were confused, and that the teaching might once and for all be set down in Holy Mother Church. To gratify His Divine Mother’s wishes, Christ directed that She Herself communicate to Pope Peter and the other Apostles the need to celebrate the new Council that She had already recommended to the Pope some time before. Wherefore on the 8th of September of that year 44 She appeared first to Peter, who was in Rome, to tell him to make his way to Jerusalem and to convoke there the second Council of the Church, telling him that She would also appear to the other Apostles to let them know of the event in order that all might be present. That Jerusalem should be the place chosen for the Council was due to the city’s having the most marked judaizing tendencies among its Christians, it being the centre of the apostate Jewish Church. As soon as the twelve Apostles had been notified of Christ’s decision through His Divine Mother, they, from the nations where they were stationed, began theirjourney to Jerusalem. As for the Apostle Paul, when the Most Holy Virgin Mary notified him of the forthcoming gathering of the Council, he made it known to the Christian community of Antioch of Syria, deciding at the same time that Barnabas and Evodius, among others, should accompany him. That is why the sacred text says that «they determined that Paul and Barnabas and some of the other side should go up to the Apostles and priests in Jerusalem, about these questions» (Acts XV, 2b); that is, in order that the doctrinal differences concerning circumcision might be resolved. As we interpret from the sacred text, the twelve Apostles were present at the Council as also were other bishops from different dioceses, identified by the word `priests’ (Acts XV, 2).
60. It corresponds here chronologically to tell of the disastrous death of King Herod Agrippa I, related in chapter XII of the Acts of the Apostles. To that end we shall add a little more to the brief historical sketch we made of that king in this chapter of the Treatise. We know that the tetrarchy governed by Philip, inherited from his father Herod the Great, comprised the provinces of Batanea, Trachonites, Iturea and Gaulanitis. But after the death of the tetrarch Philip in the year 34, those territories became directly dependent on the Roman Empire, and were annexed by the Emperor Tiberius to the Roman province of Syria. After Tiberius’ death, when the Emperor Caligula handed over to Herod Agrippa I, with the title of king, the tetrarch Philip’s territories, he included under his crown the region of Phoenicia - in present-day Lebanon - which had belonged to Syria; for Caligula desired as well to honour Herod Agrippa I in that way; the rest of the province of Syria however continued under the direct dominion of the Roman Empire. We already know that Herod Agrippa I received too from Caligula the territories of Herod Antipas; and later Judea, from the Emperor Claudius. We add that the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, though pertaining to the crown of Herod Agrippa I, preserved certain exemptions or privileges granted them by Rome some time past. As we have seen in previous pages, on the occasion of the miraculous freeing of Pope Peter from prison, Herod Agrippa I had ordered the killing of the 16 guards entrusted with the prisoner’s custody. Saint Luke continues this event by saying of Herod that afterwards, «going down from Judea to Caesarea, he abode there» (Acts XII, 19b), by which it must be understood that some days after the 14th of April 41, the day on which Peter was freed from prison, Herod moved his court from Jerusalem to Caesarea Maritime. For although the impious Herod was a great defender of Jewish tradition, his relations with the Jews were increasingly strained given his extreme servility to Rome. As we interpret, Saint Luke says that the monarch, now in Caesarea Maritime, «was angry with those of Tyre and Sidon. But they with one accord came to him: and, having gained Blastus who was the king’s chamberlain, they desired peace, because their lands were provisioned by him» (Acts XII, 20). We teach that the two Phoenician cities, relying on the ancient exemptions and privileges they had received from the Roman Empire, used to create serious problems for king Herod Agrippa I. He, therefore, angered with them, not only refused to send them provisions, but in addition decided to subdue them by force, without listening further to the proposals of peace made by the inhabitants of both cities. They, in view of the disaster that was sure to befall them, bribed the king’s chamberlain so that, sueing for peace in their name, he contrive to soothe the king’s anger in order that he might not use force; and that he might, besides, provide them with victuals and other means of sustenance given the scarce production in those territories of Phoenicia. Saint Luke now relates the death of Herod Agrippa I: «And upon a marked day, Herod being arrayed in kingly apparel sat in the tribune and addressed them all. And the people acclaimed him saying: It is the voice of a god and not a man. And forthwith an Angel of the Lord wounded him, because he had not given the honour to God: and, being eaten up by worms, he gave up the ghost» (Acts XII, 21-23). We teach that on the 19th of September 44, a date marking the celebration of the public feasts that year in Caesarea Maritime in honour of Jupiter, it happened that whilst they were being celebrated, King Herod Agrippa I, from a dais delivered an extravagant speech to the people in which, with blasphemous eloquence, he exalted the pagan gods, and glorified the Roman Empire and the achievements of his own reign. Wherefore the people, adulatory and vain, carried away by the king’s words told him he was a god and not a man: praise that the impious monarch received with great satisfaction, he parading, moreover, his presumed and false deity. This iniquitous injury to the Majesty of God so displeased Mary Most Holy that She commanded the Archangel Saint Michael to go as minister of divine justice to Caesarea and slay Herod for having with vain pride usurped the honour due to God. That same day, the 19th of September of the year 44, Saint Michael wounded Herod with an internal pestilential lesion, from which at once sprang a multitude of voracious worms that in the space of three hours ended the life of the wicked king in the presence of the multitude, causing great panic among all. Herod not only forfeited thus temporal honours but was eternally condemned. However it is well to make quite clear that the Most Holy Virgin Mary, before dealing so justly with Herod, had given him several opportunities for conversion, which he had rejected with the greatest scorn. Though She suffered and wept on account of Herod’s damnation, Mary Most Holy praised the Most High’s judgements and gave Him thanks for the benefit that by way of the chastisement He had conferred upon the Church, which had suffered much under the reign of the impious monarch.
61. Returning to our narration of the preparations for the celebration of the Second Council of Jerusalem, we now consider the Divine Mary’s return there from Ephesus with Her two sisters and the Apostle Saint John. The Divine Mary’s labours during Her four years and nine months in Ephesus were most fruitful in conversions and religious vocations; for, in addition to the Christian community’s becoming ever more numerous, the Carmelite convents of religious of both sexes already had many members. Before leaving Ephesus the Most Holy Virgin Mary addressed most sweet words to the members of both communities, to console them for Her obligatory return to Jerusalem, and to exhort them, in Her absence, to keep ever present the teachings they had received from Her and from the Apostle John, and thus acknowledge Christ as the Lord, Master and Spouse of their souls, loving and serving Him with all their hearts. Besides, as the Apostle had consecrated three bishops and ordained presbyters, the Divine Mary dwelt on the respect and veneration that the other religious and the faithful ought to have for those ministers of the Lord who were to stay there to care for their souls. Following these considerations and other counsels given to the faithful of Ephesus, the Most Holy Virgin Mary, accompanied by Her sisters and John, left the city on the 28th of October 44, embarking for Joppe - now Jaffa by present-day Tel-Aviv - which they reached on the 12th of November, as the crossing took 15 days. From there they went to Jerusalem, where first they visited the holy places of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ before arriving at the Cenacle on the 15th of November that year. Mary Most Holy’s return produced indescribable emotion and joy in the heart of the Apostle James the Less, as likewise amongst the disciples and other faithful of the community of Jerusalem; all of whom ceased not to glorify God for having again sent them the Queen of Heaven and Earth to serve as their Guide, fill them with light and console them in their manifold labours and afflictions. At the Cenacle, Mary exhorted all to pray intensely for the happy outcome of the forthcoming Council. And in that manner did they await the other Apostles and Council Fathers, who arrived at the Cenacle of Jerusalem between the 20th and the 27th of November that year.
62. In order to preside over the Second Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem, Pope Peter, accompanied by two bishops and some disciples, left Rome on the 15th of September 44, and embarked at the nearby port of Ostia for Sicily, from where he headed for the island of Crete. There he stayed several days and preached intensely, reaping a great harvest of conversions. From this island they navigated to Cyprus, where they briefly visited some of the Christian communities, and then made for the port of Seleucia, arriving at Antioch of Syria on the 5th of November, when Paul had already departed. There he stopped for 1O days to visit the Christian community, and reached Jerusalem on the 20th of November that year. The other absent Apostles, as well as the other bishops who were to participate in the Council, then also began to arrive. Regarding Paul however, we should bear in mind Saint Luke’s narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, where speaking of Paul and Barnabas’ departure from Antioch of Syria for Jerusalem, he says that they «passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the Church and by the Apostles, and by the priests, declaring to them everything God had done with them» (Acts XV, 3b-4). We teach that Paul, with Barnabas, Titus and other disciples, left Antioch of Syria on the 1st of November of the same year 44, and en route to Jerusalem visited some of the Christian communities, which Paul further strengthened in the Faith by telling them of the many conversions obtained on their journey through Cyprus and the cities of Asia Minor. After this apostolate Paul and his companions reached Jerusalem on the 27th of November 44 when, as well as the Divine Mary and Peter, all the other Apostles and other Council Fathers were then at the Cenacle. In chapter II of the Epistle to the Galatians, Saint Paul, as we interpret, speaks of his arrival at Jerusalem from Antioch of Syria. Though verse 1 of the sacred text reads «after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me» (Gal. II, 1), this must be understood as 4 years and not 14. Therefore, the fact that 14 years appears in the Epistle is due to a copyist’s error. For we teach that Paul is saying here that since his first official visit to Peter in Jerusalem in January of the year 40 and his hasty flight from the city on the 9th of February that year due to the persecution of the Sanhedrin, he had not returned to Jerusalem for an official function until the 27th of November of the year 44; though as we know, on another occasion Paul had visited Jerusalem to bring donations for the community. In verse 2 of chapter II of the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul, as we interpret, furnishes some more details concerning his return to Jerusalem for the Second Council: «And I went up according to revelation and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles; and, apart, to them who were of more authority: lest perhaps I should run or had run in vain» (Gal. II, 2). Hence we see how the Apostle says revelation prompted his coming to Jerusalem, thus confirming that it was by command of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Who appeared to him as we know; and how he informed Peter and the other Apostles, besides, of the work of evangelization he had carried out among the Gentiles, in order that the Pope and the others, more experienced in the spirit of the Gospel, should clearly tell him if he had done according to Christ’s wishes, and if he had anything to rectify in his future apostolate. We conclude by saying that on the 30th of November of that year 44, Pope Peter, in the presence of the Divine Mary and of all the Council Fathers, in the Cenacle of Jerusalem declared the opening of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Church, composed of 36 Council Fathers, to wit: Pope Peter, the other eleven Apostles, and 24 bishops more. After nine days of intense prayer and preparation, the Council began on the 8th of December 44, the anniversary of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and was closed on the 25th of December of the same year, the anniversary of the Nativity of Christ.
63. The reasons for the urgent convocation and assembly of the Second Council of Jerusalem were several. Verse 5 of chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles offers us the following one: «But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must needs be circumcised and commanded as well to observe the Law of Moses» (Acts XV, 5), requirements they demanded of Christians of Gentile origin, who were uncircumcised. We teach that even though Peter, the other Apostles and the bishops preached that the rite of circumcision was now inefficacious, having been abolished by the Sacrament of Baptism, and that other precepts of the Law of Moses, principally those of worship, had also been abolished by the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and in general by the Evangelical Law itself, notwithstanding, not a few of the Jews converted to Christianity remained convinced of the need for circumcision and for those ceremonies of Mosaic Law. In verse 3 of chapter II of his Epistle to the Galatians, Saint Paul confirms that circumcision was not required by the Church, for he says that when he returned to Jerusalem - which we teach was for this Council - «not even Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was pressed to be circumcised» (Gal. II, 3). According to our interpretation Paul then teaches that certain judaizing Christians - priests of Christ and lay people - who afterwards apostatized, did indeed demand circumcision. That is why he says: «But indeed by false brethren who came in amongst us to spy our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, to bring us into servitude. To whom we yielded not for a moment by becoming subject, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you» (Gal. II, 4-5). In other words, despite the insistence of those `false brethren’ that Titus should be circumcised, Paul ignored them. Then in the same Epistle to the Galatians (II, 6-8), Paul, as we interpret, referring more specifically to Pope Peter and to James the Less, categorically reaffirms that they were opposed to forcing the Gentiles to be circumcised. Thus he says, according to our doctrinal translation: «But those with more authority (what they were some time is nothing to me, God does not accept the person of man): for those that had more authority laid nothing upon me» (Gal. II, 6); in other words, since Peter and James the Less, some time before Paul had written the Epistle to the Galatians, used to have certain judaizing tendencies, as was public knowledge, Paul says that whatever the two might have done then did not concern him, since despite their human limitations God had chosen them to be authority in the Church, and God does not choose arbitrarily; and what mattered was that neither Peter nor James the Less had obliged Paul, when he came to Jerusalem with Titus, to have the latter circumcised. In the next three verses, about which we shall speak later, Paul confirms that Peter’s apostolic mission was more especially with the Jews and his with the Gentiles. Paul treats of the matter in his Epistle to the Galatians in order to admonish certain Christians who continued to favour circumcision, and who perhaps found support in Peter and James the Less’ carrying out their apostolate more especially among the Jews.
64. We observe, then, that as no decree from a Council of the Church concerning the matters of doctrine under dispute yet existed, there was a pressing need for some Council canons to settle the question. Thus Saint Luke goes on to say: «And the Apostles and priests assembled to consider this matter» (Acts XV, 6), there being referred to here the 36 Fathers gathered at the Council in the Cenacle of Jerusalem. As we interpret, chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles only mentions explicitly the question of the Gentiles dealt with in the Council. But, as we shall see, agreement was reached there on other doctrinal matters. As we interpret from the following text of Saint Luke, the questions dealt with in the Second Council of Jerusalem were conscientiously and laboriously debated. For, referring to the agreements and prescriptions made, it says: «And after thorough examination...» (Acts XV, 7). It then goes on to relate that first Peter addressed the other Council Fathers, and that afterwards Paul and Barnabas spoke as well, and afterwards James the Less, for thus must verses 7-21 of chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles be interpreted. But it is well to make clear that those discourses, delivered on the 25th of December 44, brought the Council to a close, following which the drafting of the Acts was then undertaken, as we shall see. According to our interpretation, in his Council speech (Acts XV, 7-11) Pope Peter manifested to all the assembled Fathers that the doctrine emanating from the Council was the doctrine already held and infallibly taught by him, and that therefore neither Gentiles nor others could be obliged to be circumcised in order to become members of the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, we teach that Peter anathematized whosoever might believe or teach that circumcision was necessary for salvation, Peter’s words were greeted with unanimous satisfaction by all present. After this outburst of enthusiasm, as we interpret, the 36 maintained silence, for thus must be understood this expression in verse 12: «And all the multitude held their peace» (Acts XV, 12), since it refers solely to the whole group of Council Fathers there gathered, there being no one else present. As seen in the same verse, Paul and Barnabas confirmed everything just taught by Peter as they recounted the great signs and prodigies wrought by God during the apostolate of both among the Gentiles. The reason the sacred text also records the express intervention of James the Less in the closure of the Second Council of Jerusalem, is mainly because he was the bishop of the diocese, the see of the Council; and as well because, due to his well-known judaizing tendency, it was necessary that it should be clearly seen that the Apostle not only submitted humbly to the prescriptions of the Council, but in addition defended them as truths revealed by the Holy Ghost. According to our interpretation, in his speech James the Less pleaded in favour of the evangelization of the Gentiles when he said, referring to Peter: «Simon hath related how God first visited the Gentiles to take of them a people to His Name» (Acts XV, 14), meaning here that thanks to the gifts with which the Holy Ghost had favoured the Gentiles at the Pentecost upon them in Caesarea Maritime in the year 37, Pope Peter received light then to decree their evangelization; in other words, before the decree was given, God first visited the Gentiles with a prodigious Pentecost. And in order that there might be seen how that providence over the Gentiles had already been foretold by the Prophet Amos (IX, 11), James the Less demonstrated it publicly as well with a personal interpretation of the prophetic passage, in these words: «After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will raise it up: that the rest of men seek the Lord, and all nations upon whom My Name has been invoked, saith the Lord, Who doth these things» (Acts XV, 16-17). For here is foretold how, after the apostasy of the Jewish People, God would rebuild His Church upon the ruins of the old, would institute a new form of worship, namely Holy Mass, and would give entry into the fold of salvation to the Gentiles as well. All of which had always been foreseen in the divine plan, as James the Less goes on to say: «To the Lord His own work is known from ages past» (Acts XV, 18). The Apostle’s speech continues: «For which cause, I judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted: but that we write to them that they refrain from the pollutions of idolatrous sacrifices and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood» (Acts XV, 19-20). That is to say that the Gentiles were not to be required to be circumcised as a condition for entering the Church, but were indeed expected to renounce idolatrous worship, and to refrain from eating things offered to idols, as likewise from ritual prostitution, identified in the sacred text as `fornication’, since all this aberrant worship was contrary to God’s Decalogue. The Gentiles were also obliged to abstain from eating animal blood and the flesh of animals killed without having their blood shed, that is strangled flesh, since the observance of these two precepts of the Law of Moses was necessary for pacific coexistence between Christians newly come from heathendom and from Judaism, to which latter those foods appeared abominable, given their ingrained Jewish tradition, as the Council of Florence (1438-1445) teaches. James the Less concluded the speech that fell to him at the closure of the Holy Council with these words: «For Moses of old hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every Saturday» (Acts XV, 21), by which he further reaffirmed the difficulty that still existed for Christians newly come from Judaism not to observe the precept concerning blood and strangled meat, since in the synagogues the obligation to observe it continued very strictly to be taught. Although, save for very rare exceptions, Christians converted from Judaism did not go to the synagogues, they yet continued to be very much influenced by the teachings they had recently received in them, from which in time they gradually freed themselves. In verse 22 of chapter XV of the Sacred Book, Saint Luke goes on to say that «then it pleased the Apostles and priests with the whole Church, to choose men amongst them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chiefmen among the brethren» (Acts XV, 22). Verses 23-29 of chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles constitute the letter delivered to Paul and his companions to take to the Christians of Gentile origin living at Antioch and other places. Of this text we shall mention first verse 23, which heads the letter: «And they wrote to them as follows: The Apostles and priests, brethren, to the brethren that are of the Gentiles at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting» (Acts XV, 23). We also cite here verses 28 and 29, which record some of the Council rulings for the Gentiles: «For 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 sacrifices to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves you shall do well. God be with you» (Acts XV, 28-29). In the light of the sacred text we teach that God respected the disciplinary agreements of the Council Fathers which forbade the Church’s faithful to eat strangled meat or animal blood, as commanded in the Law of Moses. Nevertheless, it is well to make clear that the judaizing influence of James the Less left its mark on the Second Council of Jerusalem. This should have been avoided by Pope Peter and the other Council Fathers, since to impose on the Church’s faithful the Jewish observance of not eating blood or strangled meat could create the confusion in the minds of not a few that animal blood possessed a certain sacred and expiatory character, when it is solely the Deific Blood of Christ that redeems us and purifies us from our sins.
65. Chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles also contains, albeit implicitly, other doctrinal and disciplinary matters debated and agreed at the Second Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem. One such was the question of levitical worship; for the Council, solemnly reaffirming what Peter had already infallibly taught, declared levitical worship to be utterly worthless and inefficacious, anathematizing whosoever should believe or teach it to be necessary for salvation; for there were Christians of judaizing tendency who continued to hold this worship as valid before God. Nevertheless, the Second Council of Jerusalem did not trouble to issue a decree forbidding Christians come from Judaism to practise circumcision or to be present at levitical worship, so long as they never did so for religious purposes nor believed them to be necessary for salvation, as is gathered from the teachings of the Council of Florence, without this latter’s naming the Second Council of Jerusalem. Besides, as we know, Christian faithful, save for very rare exceptions, went neither to the Temple nor to the synagogues. The decisions of the Second Council of Jerusalem set down more solemnly the following teachings already infallibly taught by Peter that: the Sacrament of Baptism is the only means to enter the Church of Christ; that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the only Sacrifice that pleases God and saves and sanctifies man; and that the Deific Flesh and Blood of Christ are the true foods of eternal life. Given that some Christians of Jewish origin continued to be influenced by the Law of Moses insofar as the observance of the Sabbath, the Second Council of Jerusalem also solemnly decreed the infallible doctrine, already taught by Peter, that Sunday is the Lord’s Day and not Saturday, which was already abolished as such; and moreover anathematized whosoever should believe or teach that the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was necessary for salvation. The agreements reached at the Second Council of Jerusalem with regard to dogmatic doctrinal matters as well as to disciplinary matters, were forthwith recorded in Acts drawn up on the very day of its closure, namely on the 25ht of December 44. Copies of these were then made for the different dioceses. Interpreting the revelations of Saint Mary of Jesus of Agreda, we teach that when Pope Peter and the other Fathers gathered at the Second Council of Jerusalem had finished drafting the Council Acts, these were publicly read to the religious and faithful assembled for that purpose in the hall of the Cenacle. At the conclusion of the reading of the rulings, the Holy Ghost, visibly and in the form of tongues of fire, descended upon Peter and the rest of the Council Fathers, thus confirming the work of the Council, and pouring special grace and consolation upon all present. The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Who during the sessions of the Second Council of Jerusalem had been praying ceaselessly in the chapel of the Cenacle for the happy outcome of the same, was also present at the time the Acts were publicly read that day, Monday the 25th of December 44, and as the Doctor of Agreda relates, She proffered thanks to the Lord for the benefit Holy Church had received from the Council. The Council of Florence teaches that Jewish rites and worship ceased at the institution of the Mass and the Sacraments of the New Testament. Nevertheless, it does not deny that from the Passion of Christ until the promulgation of the Gospel, Christians come from Judaism could continue to observe the said levitical rites and worship provided they did not believe them in any way necessary for salvation. Consequently the Florentine Council deems as opposed to the Faith of Christ all those who, from the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, observed circumcision, the Jewish Sabbath and the other Jewish legal prescriptions abolished by the Evangelical Law; and at the same time most absolutely condemns and forbids all those levitical rites and ceremonies. His Holiness Pope Gregory XVII, interpreting the Council of Florence, teaches: «It is infallible doctrine that the mind of the venerable Fathers of the Council of Florence, when saying `until the promulgation of the Gospel’, was that this was the promulgation decreed at the Third Holy Council of Jerusalem», of which we shall speak later. Moreover, the Supreme Palmarian Pontiff also infallibly teaches «that, in the promulgation of the Gospel, three stages must be distinguished with all clarity: (1) that realized by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest, shortly before His admirable Ascension to Heaven, on sending the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations (Matt. XXVIII, 19-20; Mark XVI, 15-16); (2) that realized by the Apostle Saint Peter on the glorious Sunday of Pentecost; (3) that courageously decreed in the Third Holy Council of Jerusalem».
66. The Second Council of Jerusalem having concluded, Peter and the other council Fathers returned to their different missions. The first to do so was the Apostle Paul, who, accompanied by Barnabas, Judas Barsabas and Silas, headed for Antioch of Syria. Before speaking of theirjoumey, however, it is fitting to cite here once more the abovementioned verses of the Epistle to the Galatians, because of the relation they also bear with the recently closed Council. Saint Paul says: «When they had seen that to me was committed the Gospel to the uncircumcised, as to Peter that to the circumcised (for He Who wrought in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also for that of the Gentiles)...» (Gal. II, 7-8). Whereby he makes it very plain that God prompted Peter to devote himself especially to evangelizing the Jews in order that these should have the opportunity to be saved; while Paul was impelled by the Most High to devote himself principally to the Gentiles, who too were called to the Kingdom of God. Paul then adds: «And as Peter and James and John, revered as pillars, knew the grace given to me, they gave to Barnabas and to me the right hand as sign of agreement: that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised» (Gal. II, 9). That is, when the Second Council of Jerusalem had ended, Peter, James the Less and John all cordially sent the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to continue the evangelization of the Gentiles, a mission entrusted to them some time before by the Pope himself. Thus the sacred text of Saint Luke says: «They therefore, thus sent on their way, went down to Antioch» (Acts XV, 30a), leaving the Cenacle of Jerusalem on the lst of January of the year 45 and arriving at Antioch on the 15th of the same month and year. Also, during the days that followed, the Apostles Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Judas Thaddaeus, Simon Cananaeus and Matthias, as likewise the other Council Fathers, all left for their different missions. Pope Peter was the last to set out on his journey, leaving Jerusalem on the 15th of January for Antioch of Syria, in order from there, after a long apostolic tour, to return to the Apostolic See at Rome. All returned to their missions greatly comforted by the success of the Council and by the motherly advice received from the Divine Mary, Who, always in the company of Her two holy sisters and the Apostle John, remained from then on in Jerusalem where, years later, Her Gentle Dormition and Transit would take place.
67. Chapter XV of the Acts of the Apostles furnishes some details about Paul’s sojourn and mission in Antioch of Syria: «And gathering together the faithful they delivered the epistle. Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets, with many words also comforted the brethren and confirmed them in the faith. And after they had spent some time there, the brethren let them go in peace to those that had sent them. But it seemed good to Silas to remain there: and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem. And Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others» (Acts XV, 30-35). As is interpreted from the sacred text, when the different Christian communities of the region learned of Paul’s arrival, each sent a delegate to Antioch of Syria to learn about the Council Letter and to bring each a copy of it back to his respective community. But before the Letter was handed over, Paul read it publicly to those assembled there and informed them of the other rulings of the Council. The sublime Doctor of Agreda says that after the reading, the Holy Ghost in the form of tongues of Fire visibly descended upon those gathered there. And since Judas Barsabas and Silas were prophets, with their revelations they also helped to console many and strengthened them further in the Faith. While Judas Barsabas returned to Jerusalem, Paul, Barnabas and Silas remained at Antioch of Syria to preach the word of God. In his Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle of the Gentiles relates how in Antioch of Syria he had to reprove Peter for a certain dissimulation by the latter that contradicted the papal decree on the evangelization of the Gentiles, and even the very spirit of the Council concerning this matter as reflected in the Letter conveyed by Paul. The sacred text says: «But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was at fault. For before some came from James, he ate with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to this dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented: so that even Barnabas was led by them into that dissimulation» (Gal. II, 11-13). According to our interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians we teach that on the 30th of January 45, Pope Peter and his entourage arrived at Antioch of Syria, where Paul, Barnabas and Silas were, as we know. The Christians of the city and of the neighbouring communities were filled with great joy and consolation at the Pope’s new visit, especially the faithful of Gentile origin, because of the consoling Letter of the Council, whereby they were freed from the prejudice displayed against them by not a few Christians of Jewish origin. But soon their peace and happiness was disturbed by a certain, somewhat strange, conduct of Peter. For, if at first he lived at one with all the faithful, irrespective of race, little by little he dealt less with those of Gentile origin and became increasingly intimate with those of Jewish origin. That lamentable behaviour on the part of Peter was due to the following: some Christians come from Judaism, principally from the sect of the Pharisees and who had lived with James the Less in Jerusalem, though making an outward display of satisfaction at the Council’s rulings concerning the Gentiles, inwardly could not accept their being exempted from circumcision. Such was the blindness of those Jewish Christians that they put pressure on James the Less to act with care in his dealings with Gentile Christians, so as not to displease those of Jewish origin. And they exercised such influence over James the Less that he sent a commission of religious and lay faithful to Antioch of Syria for that purpose. Instead of reacting valiantly, Peter in turn allowed himself to be swayed by those unwholesome propositions; wherefore he became less intimate in his relations with Gentile Christians and more so with Jewish Christians. Peter’s behaviour created confusion in the minds of Gentile Christians when they saw that less consideration was shown them than to the others because they were not circumcised, thus feeling as though obliged to be circumcised. As Paul noted that Peter’s discriminatory conduct worsened, and though aware that the Pope did not act in bad faith but out of human respect, he had no alternative but to reprove him, which he did publicly on the 11th of February of that year 45. Thus Paul himself goes on to say to the Galatians: «But when I saw that they did not act rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all: If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how can you compel the Gentiles to judaize?» (Gal. II, 14), which was as if as to say to him: `If you, being of Jewish origin, do not believe yourself bound to the observance of Jewish Law, and therefore feel as do the Gentiles and not as do the Jews, why with that bad example of yours do you lead the Gentiles to believe that they ought to observe Jewish laws?’ Paul, then, reproved Peter’s dissimulation, whose conduct contradicted his inner convictions as Pope, violated the rights of a section of the Church and placed the Faith in danger. We teach that though Peter’s peculiar behaviour deserved reproof, it in nowise affected his papal infallibility, since he had no intention at all of leading anyone into error, but rather acted from an excess of condescension towards Christians of Jewish origin; and as was his fashion, on realizing the damage be had done, he corrected himself at once and publicly asked for pardon, weeping profusely. Barnabas and others who had made the same mistakes followed suit.
68. We shall now consider Pope Peter’s several journeys until his return to Jerusalem for the Most Holy Virgin Mary’s gentlest Transit. Following the episode above in which Paul reproved Peter, the latter left Antioch of Syria on the 14th of February of the year 45 for the north of Asia Minor. Reaching Cappadocia, now central Turkey, there he remained for about four months. He then headed further north, covering the maritime region of Pontus beside the Black Sea, where he laboured for three months. Peter then preached the Gospel in northern Galatia, establishing his centre of evangelization in Ancira (today Ankara); and during his two months in that region the seed of the Gospel was sown abundantly, as in the other places, with a great spread of Christianity. From there the Pope headed for the region of Bithynia, and though fixing his residence in Nicea, his longing to propagate Christianity impelled him to cover the entire province, and he also visited the cities of Nicomedia and Chalcedon. After an apostolate of five months in the region, Peter traversed that part of Asia Minor known as ‘Asia’, preaching for some six months in the cities of Ephesus, Esmirnus, Pergamus, Tiatarus, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea and others, where there were many Christian communities, plentiful fruit of the apostolate of the Most Holy Virgin Mary and the Apostle John during their sojourn at Ephesus. From this port city the Pope embarked for the Greek city of Corinth; and after a brief apostolate, he continued his journey by ship to Syracuse on the island of Sicily, and from there to the Roman port of Ostia, arriving at nearby Rome on the 18th of January 47. Throughout this long journey, Pope Peter established new Christian communities, increased numbers in those already existent, founded convents of both sexes and left behind bishops and presbyters to care for the flock. Again in Rome, the first Pope set about further consolidating the Christian communities there, in suchwise that during the six months he remained at the Apostolic See, the number of the faithful increased considerably. On the 15th of August of that year 47, Pope Peter set out for the Iberian Peninsula. Accompanied by several bishops, Gerontius among them, some presbyters and others of his entourage, he embarked at the port of Ostia, and after a stopover at the island of Sardinia lasting several days, continued his voyage along the Mediterranean. He then passed the Straits of Gibraltar and entered Spain by the River Guadalquivir; and on the 8th of September of the year 47 disembarked at the river port of Seville, which became the first Spanish city to be trodden by him. At Peter’s arrival this diocese was still ruled by Bishop Pius, who had been converted by James the Greater. Pope Peter laboured ceaselessly in Seville and other Andalusian cities, and in much of the rest of Spain and Portugal; for during his stay of a little over a year in the Iberian Peninsula he toured the cities evangelized by James the Greater which had Christian communities, and many others as well, consolidating yet further the work accomplished previously by that Apostle. In many of the cities through which he passed, Peter consecrated bishops and ordained priests, in order to leave numerous shepherds to care for the flock. During his long tour of Spain Pope Peter was often visited by the Most Holy Virgin Mary, without Her ceasing to be at Jerusalem at the same time. During his journey through the Iberian Peninsula, Peter on several occasions prayed before the image of the Virgin of the Pillar, in Zaragoza. We affirm as true the tradition that, at the Most Holy Virgin Mary’s express desire, from the Cenacle of Jerusalem Peter took to Spain the Marian image carved by Saint Luke afterwards known as Our Lady of Montserrat. The image was set up for veneration by the Pope himself in a chapel that already existed in the city of Barcelona, and at a later date continued to be venerated on Mount Montserrat. Before leaving Spain, Peter appointed Bishop Gerontius, who had gone there with him and who had accompanied him on his journey through the country, to the diocese of Italica, near Seville. On the 15th of September 48, Peter embarked for Rome at the port of Barcelona, and after a brief stopover on the island of Corsica continued his voyage to the port of Ostia, reaching Rome on the 25th of the same month and year. Once at the Apostolic See, Peter remained until the Emperor Claudius, in the year 49, expelled all Jews residing in Rome, who dispersed to different regions within and without the Empire. Since among those expelled were many Christians of Jewish origin, who in their majority fled to North Africa, Pope Peter, also forced to leave, availed himself of the opportunity to visit different cities of that continent; among others, Carthage and Hippo, in present-day Tunisia; Cyrene, in Libya; until reaching Egypt where, now in the company of Simon Cananaeus, he visited as well Alexandria and Heliopolis (now Cairo). Peter then headed towards Ethiopia, where he was with the Apostle Matthew and also John known as the Ethiopian eunuch, by that time bishop. Next he visited the Apostle Matthias who was evangelizing Saudi Arabia, and then, in Mesopotamia, stayed with the Apostle Judas Thaddaeus. During the whole itinerary the Pope further consolidated the different dioceses, causing a great proliferation of Christianity. Ardently desiring to visit the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Peter headed for Jerusalem, and arrived on the 25th of December of the year 55. There She announced to him that Her admirable Assumption to Heaven would soon take place, and so requested him not to return to Rome until after that event, which as we know was to occur in the year 57. For that reason, though Peter was able to return to the Apostolic See beforehand - for in the year 56 Nero permitted the Jews to return to Rome - he did not do so. He made use of the time to visit the Christian communities of Palestine, Antioch and other places in Syria, as was the desire of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, and returned to Jerusalem on the 30th of June of the year 57. When Peter arrived, the Most Holy Virgin Mary told him to make preparations for the third and last Council of Jerusalem, which was to be held after Her glorious Assumption to Heaven, and in which important doctrinal matters were to be defined. We shall treat of this Council in due course. It is well to make clear that on all his journeys Peter was always accompanied by his papal entourage.
69. Returning to our interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, we shall consider now the great mission accomplished by the Apostle Paul during the long journeys referred to by the sacred text. In our previous narrative we left the Apostle of the Gentiles at Antioch of Syria where, as we recounted, he had reproved Peter, who had left that city on the 14th of February 45. In the Acts we read: «And after some days, Paul said to Barnabas: Let us return and visit the brethren in all the cities in which we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they do» (Acts XV, 36). Regarding this text we teach that on the 25th of March that year Paul decided to set out on a long journey, accompanied by Barnabas, in order to visit once more the cities of Asia Minor he had recently evangelized, and others as well. Saint Luke (verses 37-39) now relates the dispute between the two of them when Barnabas sought to take with them his nephew Mark, now a bishop, which was not accepted by Paul, since the future Evangelist had, as we know, abandoned them during their previous journey. Paul’s refusal angered Barnabas and resulted in a heated discussion between the two, who even came to blows. After spirits had been soothed by mutual forgiveness, Barnabas left for Cyprus with Mark, while Paul for his journey chose Bishop Silas as principal collaborator, though he also took Bishop Luke with him as secretary. Both parties left Antioch of Syria on the 27th of March 45. It is well to bear in mind in the exposition we shall be making of the Apostle Paul’s journeys, that unless this Holy Council expressly states the contrary, it is to be understood that he was always accompanied by Luke as well, since he was his secretary; even though in his narrative of the Acts, Luke sometimes speaks of the others without including himself as a personal witness, and at other times does so. As is seen in verse 41 of the Acts of the Apostles (chapter XV), Paul «went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and the ancients» (Acts XV, 41). From this we interpret that during the whole of his long journey, to which we shall now refer, Paul commanded the observance of the rulings of the Second Council of Jerusalem. The Apostle tarried for several days in Tarsus of Cilicia, his native city. On the 25th of January of the year 46, Paul left Cilicia for the region of Lycaonia, and preached more particularly in the cities of Derbe, Lystra and Iconium. In Lystra Paul visited Timothy, converted to Christianity some time before, as has already been said. Due to the good testimony given of this young convert by the faithful (Acts XVI, 1-2), «Paul would have him in his company: and taking him, he circumcised him, because of the Jews there were in those places. For they all knew that his father was a Gentile» (Acts XVI, 3). But we teach that before leaving, Paul conferred the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate on Timothy. We may not continue without reproaching Paul’s conduct in having circumcised Timothy in order to condescend to the Jews. Paul well deserved then to be admonished by Peter, whom he had corrected for a lesser failing. As there is no record that Peter reproached him for his conduct, this Holy Council censures Paul for having circumcised Timothy, for by this mode of conduct he gave scandal and imperilled the Faith of Christ since it went contrary to the spirit of the rulings of the Second Council of Jerusalem that he so much commanded to be observed, as is seen in verse 4, translated by us hearing in mind as well the Greek text: «And as they passed through the cities, they taught them to keep the decrees that had been laid down by the Apostles and presbyters that were in Jerusalem» (Acts XVI, 4). But we make clear that despite his injudicious act of circumcising Timothy, Paul did not fall into heresy, since he acted thus only to avoid problems with unconverted Jews, and not because he believed that circumcision was still necessary for salvation or had the intention of leading anyone into error. Verse 5 of the sacred text itself gives proof of the great apostolic work Paul accomplished on his long journey: «And the churches were confirmed in faith and increased in number daily» (Acts XVI, 5). According as we continue interpreting from chapter XVI of the Acts of the Apostles, on the 16th of May of the year 46, Paul, accompanied by Silas, Luke and Timothy, left Lystra and headed towards the north of Asia Minor, crossing part of the territories of Phrygia and Galatia, in which they accomplished a great apostolate. Although Paul’s intention was to enter Asia afterwards, he had a revelation (Acts XVI, 6) forbidding him to preach the Gospel there. For we teach that it was in the divine plan that this region should be visited at that moment by Peter, during his journey which we have already mentioned. That is why the Apostle of the Gentiles, unable to enter Asia, on the 21st of October 46 changed course towards the north and with his companions headed for the territory of Bithynia. To do so he crossed the eastern part of the territory of Mysia, beside the Marmara Sea. That is why the sacred text says that «when they were come into Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia» (Acts XVI, 7a), which was not allowed him either, for as we see in the same text: «and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not» (Acts XVI, 7b). This latter prohibition was due to Pope Peter having been in Bithynia some months previously and already having that territory of Asia Minor organized. Hence Paul remained in Mysia preaching the word of God, until he arrived at Troas, near ancient Troy. In verse 9 Saint Luke recounts what happened in that city: «And a vision was shown to Paul in the night, which was a man of Macedonia standing and beseeching him and saying: Pass overinto Macedonia and help us» (Acts XVI, 9). We teach that the man was the guardian angel of the region, who appeared to Paul in dreams to tell him that he should go there and evangelize, as is seen in the following verse: «And as soon as he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, being assuredthat God had called us to preach the Gospel to them» (Acts XVI, 10). We have here one of the passages in which Saint Luke makes known that he himself was with Paul. To go to Macedonia, on the 17th of June of the year 47, Paul and his companions embarked at the port of Troas for the island of Samothracia. From there they reached Macedonia by sea, and desembarking at Neapolis, now the Greek city Kavalla, they continued the journey by land to Philippi, a Roman colony and the chief city of the district. Saint Luke continues: «And we stayed in this city some days preaching» (Acts XVI, 12). During the sojourn of Paul and the others in Philippi, there took place the conversion of a woman called Lydia (Acts XVI, 13-15) and of all her family, who were baptized by Paul. Verses 16-40 of the same chapter XVI tell of a possessed girl through whom Satan prophesied, which is why the sacred text says she had a pythonical spirit. She followed Paul and his three companions, crying out: «These men are the servants of the Most High God who preach the way of salvation to you. And this she did many days» (Acts XVI, 17-18a). The devil, as we interpret from the sacred text, astutely foreseeing that Paul would cast him out of the girl, endeavoured to praise him in order that he should not do so and that he might continue thus to do evil through her. But since she, at the Apostle’s command, was freed from the infernal spirit and afterwards baptized, Satan promoted a violent persecution against him and the others in order that they should be expelled from the place and the Gospel be not preached; wherefore Paul and Silas had to suffer imprisonment and lashes. Nevertheless great miracles and conversions were wrought because of this persecution, as is shown in the sacred text.
70. Verses 1-9 of chapter XVII of the Acts of the Apostles relate Paul’s mission in the Greek city of Thessalonica, in Macedonia. We teach that after Paul and Silas had been freed from prison in Philippi, both departed the city with Luke and Timothy on the 20th of May 48. After first passing through the cities of Amphipolis and Apollonia they reached Thessalonica, where they resided at the home of Jason, a disciple of Christ who as bishop ruled the diocese of the city. The sacred text of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts XVII, 1-9) tells us of Paul’s dispute with the Jews at the synagogue of Thessalonica, of the conversion of some of them and that a great multitude of Greek proselytes to Judaism, of Gentiles and of noble women, gathered before Paul and Silas to hear the Gospel; and also of how the Jews, moved by jealousy and envy, provoked the city’s inhabitants to oppose the two Apostles, besiege the home of Jason and lead him with false accusations before the magistrates for having received Paul; and of how Jason, by standing surety, was able to ensure that no harm was, done to Paul and Silas, both of them being able to leave the city on the 15th of October of the year 48, which they did at night headed for the city of Berea. Verses 10-13 speak, as we interpret, of the apostolate of Paul and Silas, accompanied by Luke and Timothy, in the Macedonian city of Berea, of their preaching in the synagogue of the Jews, and of how these, being well disposed, believed in large numbers, as did many honourable Gentile women and not a few men. The sacred text tells us that the apostolate in Berea was disturbed by the Jews of nearby Thessalonica when these received the news that Paul and Silas were preaching in Berea. Verse 14 says: «And then at once the brethren sent Paul away to go out to the sea: but Silas and Timothy remained there» (Acts XVII, 14). We teach that while Timothy and Silas remained in Berea, Paul accompanied by Luke and others, on the 21st of December 48 left the city for Athens, and when there sent for the other two to come as soon as they could. We see in verse 16 that «whilst Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was vexed within him, seeing the city given up to idolatry» (Acts XVII, 16). Verses 17-34 in the Acts of the Apostles describe the great apostolate carried out in the city of Athens by the Apostle of the Gentiles. For Paul, moved by holy zeal, «disputed, therefore, in the synagogue with the Jews and with the proselytes and in the marketplace every day, with those that were there» (Acts XVII, 17); and as well with some pagan philosophers, as a consequence of which he was invited to preach from the chair of the Areopagus, whence the members of the Senate and other illustrious personages used to give their addresses. Paul, erect in the midst of the Areopagus, at the same time as he proclaimed the Eternal and true God and His Messias sent, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who would come to judge the world, condemned the so deeply-rooted and widespread idolatry of Athens; exhorting all to accept the evangelical truth and repent of their errors. When Paid spoke of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed and others were interested; but «some believed and adhered to him: among whom was also Denis the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them» (Acts XVII, 34), all of whom Paul baptized. It is well to mention the holy ingenuity of the Apostle, who would profit by any wholesome circumstance to spread the truth, such as occurred with the altar `to the unknown God’, erected by the pagans in an Athens temple, and which Paul sagaciously took as though erected to the true God, He being the unknown one to that audience listening to him. After meticulous study this Holy Council teaches that Saint Denis the Areopagite is the true author of the greater part of the theological, philosophical and mystical doctrine contained in four books which at a later date appeared under the following titles: Book of Heavenly Hierarchy, Book of Church Hierarchy, Book of Divine Names and Book of Mystical Theology. For we teach that in the 5th Century the writings of Saint Denis the Areopagite, which had been lost, fell into the hands of an unknown writer, who amplified their contents, classified them by subject matter and gave them the titles they are known by. Nevertheless, that mysterious author of the 5th Century, realizing that they came from the pen of Denis the Areopagite, published them under the name of their true author. These works have been a source of inspiration to not a few theologians, philosophers and renowned Doctors of the Church, among whom are Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas Aquinas. We also confirm the tradition that Saint Denis the Areopagite accompanied the Apostle Paul on some of his journeys; and that, years later, Pope Saint Clement I sent him as first bishop to Paris, where at a great age he suffered martyrdom for Christ.
71. In chapter XVIII of the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Luke continues: «After these things, departing from Athens, he came to Corinth. And finding there a Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had lately come from Italy, with Priscilla his wife (because Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart, from Rome), he stayed with them» (Acts XVIII, 1-2). We teach that on the 23rd of March 49, Paul, accompanied by Luke and others, left Athens for Corinth, where he arrived two days later, that is on the 25th of the same month, and lodged at the home of Aquila and his wife Priscilla, both Christians of Jewish origin who had recently come from Rome following the decree of the expulsion of the Jews by the Emperor Claudius, with regard to which we have spoken in previous pages. We should remember that it was at their house in Rome that Pope Peter had more frequently lodged during his time there. Verses 3-17 of chapter XVIII furnish details of Paul’s life at Corinth: he alternated his work as tent-maker with the great apostolate he accomplished in the synagogues equally among Jews by race as with Greek proselytes to Judaism, reaping a great harvest of conversions. Verse 5 says: «And when Silas and Timothy were come from Macedonia, Paul preached without cease, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ» (Acts XVIII, 5). We teach that the Apostle’s two companions rejoined him in Corinth on the 15th of April 49, for as we know the two had remained at the Macedonian city of Berea when Paul and Luke had departed thence for Athens. Following Silas and Timothy’s arrival, the Apostle’s mission of evangelization intensified greatly, counting now on their support. Such was the opposition of not a few hardhearted and perverse Jews, `blaspheming and contradicting them’ on hearing Paul’s sermons, that «he shook out his garments and said to them: Your blood be upon your own heads» (Acts XVIII, 6a), by which he rebuked in them their inflexible persistence as deicides as long as they refused to accept Jesus Christ Whom they had slain. Since they answered the Apostle, according to our interpretation, that as the Jew he was, upon him too fell the same accusations he made against them, Paul said to them: «I am clean. From now on I shall go to the Gentiles» (Acts XVIII, 6b). In other words, if in times past he too had belonged to the deicide People, later, by his conversion to Christianity and his consequently forming part of the People of God through Baptism, he was cleansed of the vile deicide condition; wherefore his blood was now purified by the Blood of Christ, while theirs, being cursed, called down upon their heads the same deific Blood of salvation for their greater condemnation, as long as they were not converted. We teach, as follows from the sacred text, that from that moment Paul devoted himself almost exclusively to preaching to the Gentiles of Corinth, and never again set foot in any one of the city’s synagogues. The sacred text speaks of the conversion by Paul of a God-fearing Jewish proselyte named Titus Justus, and also that of Crispus, the Ruler of the synagogue, and of all his family. Many of the city’s Gentiles also embraced the faith, as we interpret from the following text: «And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized» (Acts XVIII, 8). Among them were Caius - in Greek Gaius - and the household of Stephanus, as we see in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Corinthians (I Cor. I, 14-16). As we interpret from the sacred text, Paul was now willing to leave Corinth for fear of the Jews. That is why the Lord appeared to him in a dream and told him not to fear, to speak and not to be silent, that He would protect him, since it was necessary that he should preach there, for the Gentiles of Corinth would listen to him and be converted, which is how one must interpret the expression «for I have much people in this city» (Acts XVIII, 10). We teach that because Paul’s vision occurred on the 25th of April that year, 49, from then must be counted the year and a half that according to the sacred text (Acts XVIII, 11) he remained at Corinth. Verses 12-17 treat of the plot in this city against Paul contrived by the Jews, of their bringing him to the court of the Roman proconsul of Achaia, called Gallio, and of how this last named excused himself from passing judgement because the accusations were of a religious nature, he ordering them, therefore, to depart. But so great was the Jews’ hate of the Apostle that Sosthenes, the Ruler of the synagogue, refused to leave and had to be beaten by the court guards, since he insisted that Paul be judged; but Gallio took no notice. It is well to record that this Roman proconsul, previously called Marcus Anneus Novatus, was brother to the philosopher Lucius Anneus Seneca, both sons of the rhetorician Marcus Anneus Seneca, and all three born in Cordoba, Spain. He had taken the name Gallio after his father’s death when he was adopted by Julius Gallio, a great friend of the former.
