RicOlie_2

Bingowings said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Sorry, my goal is not to insult people here, though it's hardly surprising when they are insulted, but please realize that the point is not to equate one with the other, as I believe pedophilia is far worse, but to show that it is headed that way, and how can you be sure adult/child sex won't be acceptable to society in the future if the child gives consent? If it is going that way with pedophilia, then perhaps we are being to accepting of homosexual sex and marriage.

Again, pedophilia is worse, so I'm not saying homosexuality is just as bad, so that is not my point.

You are putting the two on the same spectrum though.

I am saying they are both abnormal types of sexuality, however one is far worse than the other, and they are different types of abnormalities.

This is the problem with Religion as opposed to personal belief. It's fenced in by dogma (dog being god in reverse should give you some pause for thought).

That is an opinion. The problem I see with personal belief as opposed to religion is that at least their is general consensus within a religion, but if everyone decides for themselves, who's to say that Johny can't live by the rule "survival of the fittest" and eliminate members of society he deems useless while Bob thinks there is nothing wrong with running around in the nude because that's how he was born? And why should dog being god in reverse give me pause for thought? That makes no sense.

The only reason why having sex with animals, infants and people with disabilities which make them mentally vulnerable is wrong is informed consent. You have to speak giraffe to understand if if a giraffe really wants to and if they understand what's being offered and what the consequences are.

If they don't it is almost certainly rape but you would need to have someone who understood giraffe to be certain.

We assume children (especially very young children) don't understand the meaning or dangers of sexual activity. While we can't be certain that mentally capable adults of the same species are fully aware of the ramifications of rubbing their genitals, we have to draw a line somewhere.

A set age where informed consent is assumed is the logical place to draw it. That line can be moved as evidence is brought to lawmakers.

You have some good points there, but of course, being religious, I don't think those are the only reasons. I think that if there is a reason other than "God said so" or "its in the Bible", etc. then that sexual act is more wrong than it would be if it was only stated in the Bible or by the Church.

It's not set in stone based on a gut feeling that someone in the bronze age had about what an invisible being had in mind.

Again, that is assuming that God doesn't exist and I don't think he can be conclusively proven to be real or unreal, unless through a supernatural experience. Even then it is only proven to that person and not everyone, so believe what you will, but hopefully you (and I think you do) realize that their isn't enough evidence against God that you can come in with your "superior intellect" and disprove him conclusively.

Stealing cars is illegal because if everyone did it society would collapse into violent anarchy which may seem fun looking from the outside (popular computer games are built on this concept) but wouldn't be if you actually lived through it. It's not even remotely the same thing as consensual manipulation of genitals for private pleasure and to argue it is is frankly nutty.

I was not comparing stealing cars to homosexuality, but rather making a point that it is possible, as Warbler mentioned, to love the sinner and not the sin. I was defending the fact that it is possible for Catholics to not hate homosexuals, but love them, and accept only their homosexual acts as wrong.

The only reason incestuous sex is wrong between consenting adults is because of the high potential for creating genetically deformed babies that will suffer.

The only reason why it's wrong for a person in a position of authority over someone else entering into a sexual relationship with that person is because there is no way of knowing for sure if that authority deformed the informed consent between two people.

It's all practical stuff that makes logical and ethical sense.

It's made messy by the disgust response which is a variable animal biological mechanism for avoiding disease and promoting reproduction.

I see no practical problem with informed adult incest between people who can't have babies but I understand the social structures against such a move.

I don't see why people with a high probability of producing a suffering child would continue down the path of producing children but I understand the social structures supporting such a move.

Again, I think that those sexual acts that can cause objectively harmful side affects are worse than those that only cause subjectively harmful ones.

But at no point would I introduce an invisible tyrant to spy on my private life and equate it to child rape even remotely.

Again, that is an opinion. I do not condemn you for opinions of yours I find very offensive, so please don't condemn me for my beliefs even if they seem outrageous.

I do not lump all sex acts I believe wrong into one. There are varying degrees of seriousness between them, and child rape is not the same thing as homosexuality or sex outside of marriage, as the latter two are much less serious (serious nonetheless in my opinion, but much less serious just as stealing a car is serious but is still far less worse than murder).

What is sin?

Sin is to miss the mark. To sway away from the directed course.

If you set a different course you aren't in sin by default. You have to be a Roman Catholic to commit a Roman Catholic sin (however the church assumes all people to be subject to their God).

The Church teaches that Catholics will be judged more harshly than others, so even if you commit a serious sin by Catholic standards, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that you're automatically going to hell. We believe that God is merciful as well as being just (I know they seem contradictory, but I'm not getting into that right now), so God will allow for your situation and beliefs on earth when judging you. If it seems offensive to you that I believe you will be judged by my God, then I am sorry, I don't mean offense.

Who elected this God person anyway?

The position of most Abrahamic religions is that sex is for one thing and one thing only and that is to create children. Theologically it has it's basis in the Mesopotamian myth of the Garden of Eden. Adam and his third wife Eve steals the power of reproduction from God after listening to a talking peni...snake.

The story of the Garden of Eden is recognized as an allegorical story by most Catholics, and as such there are details that are not necessarily literal. The statement "Adam and his third wife Eve"...hold on, third wife? Where did that come from? Anyway, "steals the power of reproduction from God"--have you read that story, or are you referring to a different Mesopotamian myth on which the Biblical story is based, or vice versa? It is not even implied that they did not have sex or could not have sex before eating the allegorical "apple." All it says is that "they were not ashamed" of their nakedness, not that they had no sexual attraction towards each other, or couldn't reproduce.

Therefore the magic wish power must only be used in a sanctified way.

Politically if you can control who has sex by issuing a sex license and periodically allow massacres of people who don't have the same license you can rake in a lot of cash.

The Roman Catholics don't do this much anymore but give them or the Scientologists et al enough inches and they will make a rule of it. Dogma needs no recourse to reason, especially when there is money to be made.

Historically the Catholic Church has been a den of every kind of nasty behavior (torture, murder, political assassination) but even recently.

The members of the Catholic Church are not perfect, and Church leaders (Popes, Bishops, et al.) have made mistakes--serious mistakes--in the past and present. That shouldn't be enough to discredit our religion though if that is what you believe.

We have too many people on the Earth as it is so this obsession with biological reproduction that most humans seem to have isn't currently practical.

Make spaceships and then you can make babies left right and centre.

 It also isn't sustainable for older generations to have greater populations than younger generations (unless you kill off all the old people which is an acceptable solution for some people, but I would beg to differ).

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said: One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance.

and taste correct? 

 Appearance includes everything that can be detected by our human senses, so yes, it tastes like bread and wine.

Warbler said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Jaitea said:

But running a Church costs money

J

 Yes, all that bling must be pricey...

Joking aside. I always thought all of that ^ was very much at odds with the beliefs of this man...

People need a place to pray out of the rain and why shouldn't it be beautiful. Some of the most beautiful buildings I've seen and visited have been Churches, Mosques and Synagogues and I used to live oposite this stunning sandstone Sikh temple...

(^ View from my front door)

In fact I kinda get sad when I go past an ugly modern church. Glorifying God through architecture is natural but building vast golden palaces in his name seems crazy. I can only imagine Jesus standing before the Vatican with a look of horror on his face.

Is this a problem for people within the church?

 Jesus was upset because they turned his church into a "den of thieves".   I am not certain that the Vatican qualifies as a den of thieves. 

 Warbler is correct. Jesus was upset because people were selling things in the Temple and dishonouring it. In the gospels (can't remember exactly where off the top of my head) Jesus commends a woman for giving all her money (two coins) to the Temple treasury, praising her for her selflessness compared to the rich who gave only a small portion of their money even though it was a greater amount. So Jesus wasn't against collecting money.

(The above also helps to explain what you were asking, AntcuFaalb)

Regarding the ludicrous amounts of money used to build some churches, I believe it should be spent helping the poor and homeless first. I have nothing against honouring God by building beautiful churches, but it is my personal opinion that the money should be primarily used to help those who really need it. Pope Francis is a good example of how I think the leaders of the church should be. He has dispensed with most of the honours and expenses the Pope is entitled to, and prefers to live more simply than other Popes and Bishops do. I have nothing against building expensive and beautiful churches, but the money should go towards ending hunger and poverty before getting a new set of gold chalices.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

how can you be sure adult/child sex won't be acceptable to society in the future if the child gives consent?

a child can not give consent,  a child's mind is not fully developed and therefore doesn't what he/she would be consenting to.  Therefore, it can not really be considered consent.   

I seem to remember that Xhonzi once asked this. 

 I guess that's true--depends on the age of the child maybe. I think that comment was a little extreme (the one I made, not the one Warbler made), so I'll retract that statement/question/idea.

AntcuFaalb said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Again, pedophilia is worse, so I'm not saying homosexuality is just as bad, so that is not my point.

How do you feel about Ephebophilia?

 I gave a more detailed answer but it failed to post and I lost it, so I will give you a simplified answer since I want to be able to answer the other questions on the thread.

I think that the bigger the age gap between the ephebophile/pedophile and the child/adolescent, and the younger the kid is, the more wrong it is.

AntcuFaalb said:

I was raised by a Roman Catholic family, but I've been a Strong Agnostic for quite a long time now.

How do you feel about the common practice of Roman Catholic churches taking collections?

It has always seemed a bit corrupt to me to take time away from mass to walk around and request donations from people. My former church, St. Robert Bellarmine, managed to raise $2 million from collections alone while I was there.

Plus, doesn't God have enough money?

 The money is not for God, but for the physical aspect of the Church. I'm not sure how else churches (buildings) and other Catholic buildings would be maintained if it weren't for revenue from this. I have never seen a church budget, so I don't know for sure where all the money goes and the collection at Sunday Mass may not be the only source of revenue for maintenance. I know that that money is used for maintenance though, and it is also used for the priests, since they have no salary and rely on that money for purchasing food, clothing, and other necessities.

An additional reason for tithing besides its practical purposes is to encourage people not to be too attached to their money. One of the beatitudes is "blessed are the poor in spirit" and tithing is supposed to help us follow that. Poor in spirit means being detached from physical things (it doesn't mean not having them), so by giving ten percent of our earnings, Catholics are encouraged not to be so selfish with our physical possessions as well as supporting their church and priest.

Jaitea said:

How does your interest in Star Wars tie into your faith, would you believe in extraterrestrial life?

J

 I believe extra-terrestrial life is possible, but so far I don't believe it exists. If intelligent extra-terrestrial life is discovered in the future, that could have an impact on my religious beliefs, but it depends. If we (humans) were to find that some of them worship a god similar to the Christian god, then that would definitely reinforce my beliefs. The chances of sentient life existing elsewhere in our universe are incredibly low, so the discovery of such life might serve to increase my faith, or if there was no indication of a belief in a similar or identical God then it would have a serious negative impact on my faith.

As to my interest in Star Wars, I don't think it conflicts with my faith because I know it is fiction. Extra-terrestrial life would not itself harm my faith, so I have no problem with fictional aliens, etc.

Carp. It appears I have some catching up to do... :P

To prevent derailment of this thread, especially since I will be gone and unable to moderate for a few hours, please restrict yourself to questions and continue your conversations via PMs or wrap them up.

Thank you, I just want to keep on topic here and this thread is for informative purposes, not debating.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

how can you be sure adult/child sex won't be acceptable to society in the future if the child gives consent?

I can't even respond to this, it's so insane.

 That is your opinion. I don't think society will let it get that far, but I think it could happen. This is a touchy subject and a big reason Catholics are criticized and ridiculed. I don't wish to discuss it further because I likely won't make you understand my POV and you aren't going to change my mind by arguing with me.

Leonardo said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Regarding homosexuality, it appears to be psychological. since homosexuals can be reoriented to be straight and many have been. It can work in the reverse too. Apparently the statistics are quite high for men who join the navy becoming gay because their "sexual orientation," if you want to call it that, changes when they are away from contact with the opposite sex for so long. Because of that, Catholics don't recognize it as true and good sexuality.

Here are a few articles on the subject, for informational purposes.

Reorientation

Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Further Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Those are links to a christian site. Whatever they wanna say, they have their right, but they have no scientific authority. You cannot "reorient" somebody, just like you cannot change the colour of your eyes. Sure, you can use coloured contact lenses. Do you see my point?

Gay men have lived double lives for years, either because they could not come out of the closet, or because they felt fine the way they were, or for whatever reason. Some of them would get married (the so called "beard"). But a gay man married to a woman does not a heterosexual make.

 It seems to work, but I don't really know enough about it to say so conclusively. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

Sorry, my goal is not to insult people here, though it's hardly surprising when they are insulted, but please realize that the point is not to equate one with the other, as I believe pedophilia is far worse, but to show that it is headed that way, and how can you be sure adult/child sex won't be acceptable to society in the future if the child gives consent? If it is going that way with pedophilia, then perhaps we are being to accepting of homosexual sex and marriage.

Again, pedophilia is worse, so I'm not saying homosexuality is just as bad, so that is not my point.

What does you believe regarding homosexuality (besides whether or not you think it is wrong)?

TV's Frink said:

That definition of "love" is highly debatable.

I don't disagree that something someone does won't harm a relationship, but it won't always end it.

You say you believe homosexual acts are wrong.  Why?

 To understand why we believe homosexual acts are wrong, you have to understand what we, as Catholics, believe about sex. We believe that the primary purpose of sex is for procreation of the human race. Secondary to that is that it is an expression of love between a married man and a woman. (This may seem extremely limiting to non-Catholics, but studies such as one that shows that those who only have sex within marriage are far less likely to divorce are examples of why we believe what we believe besides the fact that much of it is covered in the Bible.) The first is why contraceptives, homosexual sex, sterilization, masturbation, etc. are not permitted by the Catholic Church. It is a broad topic, so if you have specific questions I will answer them as they come, rather than writing a full-length essay on the subject. :)

Regarding homosexuality, it appears to be psychological. since homosexuals can be reoriented to be straight and many have been. It can work in the reverse too. Apparently the statistics are quite high for men who join the navy becoming gay because their "sexual orientation," if you want to call it that, changes when they are away from contact with the opposite sex for so long. Because of that, Catholics don't recognize it as true and good sexuality.

Here are a few articles on the subject, for informational purposes.

Reorientation

Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Further Increase of Sexual Tolerance

Disclaimer ;): I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you, just trying to give you something from our perspective. If you are offended by it, I'm fine with you saying that, but please be respectful, I'm not trying to start a hate war here.

TV's Frink said:

You just compared two people in a loving relationship to someone stealing a car.  Also, if you condemn homosexual acts, you are condemning homosexuals.  Separating one from the other might make you feel better, but it's not reality.

 I compared car-stealing with homosexual sex acts with the intention of demonstrating that it is possible to love a person who does things you think/believe are wrong, not because I think they should be punished the way a car-thief should or anything like that. There is a distinction, whether or not it is clear the way I explained it.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

timdiggerm said:

How can Roman Catholic & Eastern Orthodox reconcilliation take place?

 It could be very complicated, since both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe they have the fullness of the truth, so a compromise in beliefs between them likely won't happen, or at least not for some time. Unification will have to be a very gradual process, and as the first steps towards reconciliation only began in the mid-20th century, so there is a long ways to go. The Catholic Church (unless I specify otherwise I will always be referring to the Roman Catholic Church when I use the term "Catholic") permits Catholics to receive Orthodox sacraments and go to Orthodox churches on Sunday if there isn't a Catholic church nearby, but the Orthodox Church has yet to respond in kind. Making peace with each other is the first step and that has gone quite far, but there may never be true unification.

If by "reconciliation" you mean unification, then it will probably take something pretty drastic to unify the two churches. Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm taking you to mean making peace with each other and not necessarily unifying. Well, this has already began with Pope John XXIII I believe, the Pope who began the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s. There were several representatives from the Orthodox Church present at the council and I believe the Pope had met with at least one of their main Patriarchs before that. Later Popes, most notably John Paul II, also met with Orthodox Patriarchs and I believe it was he who declared the Orthodox Church's sacraments valid (I'm going off the top of my head right now, but I will make sure I have my facts straight when I have more time). The next step is for the Orthodox Church to reciprocate and then the two Churches can take further steps forward. The Churches are in a far greater state of reconciliation than they were a hundred years ago, so we have made progress and I believe the best way to reconciliation is mostly to continue as we are now with a bit more communication and cooperation between the Churches.

(I have heard that many members of the Orthodox Church are willing to join the Catholic Church and accept papal supremacy, but that is just hearsay and I'm not sure what "many" means.)

Hopefully that answers your question. If not, then I can find you some links and give a better explanation later.

 what drove the Orthodox and Catholic Church apart in the first place?

 A variety of things spread out over several hundred years caused the first Great Schism and the disagreements built up over time, culminating in complete separation. One such disagreement was over papal supremacy. The Orthodox Church has multiple Patriarchs as leaders rather than having a single Pope like the Catholic Church. Political and theological disagreements (there is a clause in the Nicene Creed that created a bit of a rift for example) also contributed. The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated by a cardinal representing the Pope and he excommunicated the Pope in turn, which really helped to push the Church towards the Schism. In 1054 they split and have remained separated ever since.

Here are some links for further reading in case you are interested.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Centers_of_Christianity

Christianity Today Article: http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1990/issue28/2820.html

(This one has a short bit about reconciliation between the Churches if you are interested, timdiggerm):  http://www.theopedia.com/Great_Schism

Double post :(

I'll clarify then. Catholics do not hate homosexual people, but rather condemn homosexual acts. That is an important distinction to make. Not all homosexuals engage in homosexual acts; they are distinct concepts. That doesn't mean we should shun those who have or do commit such acts, but we should not encourage what they do. If you had a son who started stealing cars as a teenager, you could still love him, but you most likely would not encourage him. Chances are you would do your best to get him to stop. The same thing goes for just about everything. Catholics (and all Christians for that matter) are supposed to have love for everyone, but that love does not encompass the wrong they do. Instead we are supposed to discourage their sinful actions, mainly by example.

Hopefully that does clear up the distinction instead of confusing it more or making me sound bananas. :P

Ryan McAvoy said:

I'd be interested to know which Pope brought in mandatory Celebacy, when it was and what were his reasons?

 The rule of celibacy was recognized in the west (i.e. in Europe) by the time of Pope St. Leo I (the Great) who was Pope from AD 440-461. It was made a rule in the Synod of Elvira (AD 305 (as a synod it is and was not applicable to the church as a whole but directed at a certain region) and reaffirmed in the Council of Carthage (AD 390). The rule of celibacy is not a Church doctrine, meaning that it is a rule that is not universal in the Church and can be changed. It is what is known as a discipline and its purpose is to allow a priest to focus on God and his parish alone, without the difficulties of having a spouse and a family. In most rites of the Catholic Church, the Latin Rite being the main exception, priests are allowed to be married when they are ordained but cannot marry afterwards. In the Latin Rite, that same rule applies to deacons only. Married converts to the Catholic Faith can be granted exception to the rule of celibacy in priesthood and can be ordained. This usually happens with Protestant ministers who convert to the Faith and in fact this happened recently in my diocese.

The rule of celibacy might change in the future, or more allowances may be made. It is understandably a frequently misunderstood rule and one that causes a lot of criticism of Catholics, but hopefully my explanation makes the rule a bit clearer to you (if not, feel free to clarify if you wish).

No worries. I'm following along using the program you linked me to and I think I have this coordinate business figured out, so I'll be okay without screenshots for the most part.

S-3b.

Wolfman said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Wolfman said:

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion ? Am I not good enough ?

 To answer that question, I would like to ask what your beliefs are regarding communion. There are three different beliefs among Anglicans, so my answer may depend on which belief is held in your church. One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance. Another Anglican belief is that Christ is completely present in Communion, but that the bread and wine are not Christ himself. The third belief is that of consubstantiation in which Christ is believed to be present in the sacrament to those who "permit their souls to be radiated with the Holy Spirit at the time of the sacrament."

 The first from your list. Simply, The bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

 Well, the answer is certainly not because you aren't good enough or anything like that. The Catholic Church prefers to share communion only with those who share the same beliefs and church practices. Some outside of the Church are granted access to the Catholic sacraments such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, due to the similarities in their sacraments to those of the Catholic Church. One of the reasons Catholics practice closed communion is that many Protestant denominations don't have the same beliefs regarding the sacrament, so there is a concern that visiting Protestants won't have the same reverence or disposition to receive it as they should or that they won't be baptized, which is an essential requirement for reception of Communion in all but extreme cases. Of course many Catholics don't have the proper reverence or disposition either, and it is sad that the respect for the Eucharist has plummeted so far, but we believe God will take care of any injustices against his sacrament. There are rules to decrease these injustices though, and closed communion is one of them.

Obviously, because you believe in transubstantiation, you would likely know to show the proper respect when receiving it, but if you think about what the word "communion" means, you might understand this a bit better. Communion means "union", so the sacrament of Communion is a symbol of the unity of our beliefs and worship in the Catholic Faith. If you are not a member of the Catholic Faith you don't have the same beliefs as we do and are therefore not really in "communion" with the Catholic Church and the parishioners at the specific church you are visiting. Our intention is not to make you feel unwelcome, but considering that the sacrament is also symbolic of our unity, it is preferably shared only among baptized members of the Church.

There are exceptions to this rule though. If a non-Catholic is in danger of death or the local Bishop decides that their is a grave need, then members of other Churches/denominations can receive the sacrament if (a) they are not able to receive it from ministers of their own denomination, (b) they ask for it of their own accord, (c) they demonstrate a belief in the Catholic teachings on the Eucharist, and (d) they are properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

Hopefully that clears it up a bit for you. Our restrictions on reception of Communion are not because of a holier-than-thou attitude (or at least that is not an attitude endorsed by the Catholic Church), so please don't feel unwelcome at a Catholic Church because of closed Communion.

Warbler said:

what drove the Orthodox and Catholic Church apart in the first place?

 I'll get back to you on that with some links hopefully.

Wolfman said:

In an Anglican church, we invite everyone to take communion whatever denomination, if they are are in good standing with their church.

If I enter a Catholic church, why can I not take communion. Am I not good enough ?

 To answer that question, I would like to ask what your beliefs are regarding communion. There are three different beliefs among Anglicans, so my answer may depend on which belief is held in your church. One of the beliefs is that of transubstantiation, the belief held by the Catholic Church, in which we believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, not symbolically or spiritually, but in every way aside from appearance. Another Anglican belief is that Christ is completely present in Communion, but that the bread and wine are not Christ himself. The third belief is that of consubstantiation in which Christ is believed to be present in the sacrament to those who "permit their souls to be radiated with the Holy Spirit at the time of the sacrament."

The second belief is that which is defined in the Thirty-Nine Articles, but I may have misunderstood it, so apologies if I didn't define it correctly. I will answer your question as soon as you clarify your beliefs on the sacrament of Communion. :)

timdiggerm said:

If Peter was the first Pope, why did James preside over the Council of Jerusalem?

Here's an article that might explain it better and in more detail than I can:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church

James was the local Bishop and Jerusalem was pretty much the headquarters of the Church at the time, so James would have had a good deal of authority there. There is a theory that Acts 15 describes two separate events, one regarding circumcision, which was the Council of Jerusalem (led by Peter), and another regarding dietary laws which was a local decree and not Church wide like the Council. This is evidenced by Acts 21:15-25 in which Paul once again goes out to Jerusalem and they address the dietary and Mosaic laws a seeming second time which would be odd if they had already brought it up in the council of Jerusalem. If that were the case, then there is no problem as Peter would have presided over the Council of Jerusalem. If this is not the case however, then consider that he was the first to speak, which is indicative of his higher position. He also calls directly on the authority of God, as is the role of the Pope. The Pope is a mediator between God and his Church and is not himself the authority behind the Church's teachings, so by giving his judgement, James was not necessarily contradicting Peter's authority. Peter also spoke authoritatively, stating, "we believe that we are saved by through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they", (Acts 15:11) rather than giving his "judgement" on the matter. This may have just been a character trait of his, but it may also indicate that he had enough authority just to state that it "was" a certain way or "should be" a certain way rather than giving his judgement or opinion on the matter. James also only reinforced what Peter said. It is also notable that Peter met with no opposition to his statements (Acts 15:12a: The whole assembly fell silent...), even though there were many present who did not agree with that position initially, so that also indicates that he had authority.

Check out the link if my explanation doesn't quite cut it and hopefully it will help. You may want to skip straight to the explanation, which begins about two thirds of the way down at "Petrine Primacy in Acts."