What is the Church Lord Jesus established?

[Kullervo]

These are good arguments. Thanks!

 

[Kullervo]

That’s an interesting idea!

 

[TheLittleLady]

It is a simple teaching from the Catechism:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."

 

[steve-b]

How do we know that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Lord Jesus Christ rather than his Church being Christianity as a whole?

Yes, Jesus established one Church, 2000 yrs ago, on Peter and those in complete and perfect unity with Peter.

The book of Acts 9:31 names the Church established by the apostles. Where?

HERE​

Acts 9:31 ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς

Translated:

ἐκκλησία,= ekklésia = church ,
καθ’, = kata = according to ,
ὅλης, = holos = whole / all / universal ,
τῆς, = ho = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

Acts also names the followers in the Church as “Christians” Acts 11:26

Therefore​

Acts 9:31 the Church = the Catholic Church
Acts 11:26 the members = Christians

And all are to be perfectly one in this plan HERE

 

[JohnR77]

Each Christian denomination is catholic t

.
If that were true they would have to be Catholic through time and you would be able to trace each of their set up Of doctrines back through time to the 1st century

.

 

[steve-b]

Your conclusions are not true outside of the commentaries you believe.
Each Christian denomination is catholic they are just not roman catholic. Or as you have defined them as protestant.
As saint Paul said to the Ephesians. In acts 19. Into what were you baptised into?
Well these denominations are baptised into Jesus Christ. But roman catholic have better ritual ceremonies.

Nope!

But I suppose Irenaeus was dealing with such an idea when writing against the heretics of his day,

1st point​

… while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said. HERE THAT is one of the characteristics of the Catholic Church

2nd point,​

The succession of bishops in Rome from Peter, in continuous seccession, is the one Church everyone is to agree with … HERE written ~180 a.d.

No other Church has those credentials or that history

Irenaeus is a bishop who learned from Bishop Polycarp, a direct disciple of St John the apostle.

 

[fhansen]

How do we know that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Lord Jesus Christ rather than his Church being Christianity as a whole?

What is “Christianity as a whole”? Would God really have intended for His Church to split and split and split-generally over Scriptural interpretations meaning that often very significant differences in beliefs and practices occurred? Didn’t God establish a Church to guard against division by receiving and preserving the “deposit of faith” , for one thing, which the RCC continues to do? What about “one Lord, one faith, one Baptism”?

 

[FrancisFan43]

Easy, Jesus isn’t a polygamist. He has one one bride, His Catholic Church. All the other schisms and heretics that say lord lord and praise Him with their lips but disobey Him and disrespect His judgement are not with Him.

 

[Inquiry]

I would argue that most of the denominations are part of the one church in Christ’s eyes. That doesn’t mean the schisming is a good thing or that all denominations are equally correct, far from it, just that it is a purely earthly conceit that they think they are separate from each other.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Every baptized person is in some way in the Church. However, those who do not hold fullness of faith are in imperfect union with Bride of Christ.

I would say that view undermines the Holy Spirit Himself as guardian of the Bride of Christ from falling into error.

I agree- though in certain sense Pope was held to have authority over “all Baptized” and hence in one way, every Baptized person is part of the Church. Though their denominations are not and neither is their faith.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

for us Orthodox, Rome recants of its numerous heresies and returns to the Orthodox faith

Such as? According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, John XI of Constantinople, St Athanasius and others, Filioque is issue of semantics and not heresy. Energy-Essence distinction is terminology issue and ignored by many Orthodox hesychasts either way. What heresies do you speak of?

whereas for you it would be us Orthodox abandoning Orthodoxy

Wrong. There was never such demand.

and submitting to Rome

That is true. Submission teaches us so many great things- Priests submit to Bishops, Laity submits to Clergy and all submit to God. Catholics submit to Pope- which surely adds to our responsibilities. This is not East submitting to West scenario, and having Pope teaches us submission and protects Church from disunity, such as current Orthodox Schism.

something we have no inclination of doing anytime soon.

Interestungly enough, there have been advocates of “Rome can be Primate with full power if they recant their errors” view aswell as those who do not view Rome as heretical either. As with everything, this largely depends which National Orthodox Church you mean when you refer to “we” or perhaps which parish or territory.

Many of your Sainta, such as George the Hagiorite or Pope St. Gregory or St. Maximus the Confessor defended inerrancy of Roman Church. Cool, right?

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Such as? According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, John XI of Constantinople, St Athanasius and others, Filioque is issue of semantics and not heresy.

[/QUOTE]
Read the Mystagogoy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius I of Constantinople, it outlines the heresies of the Filioque. It it a common Latin trope to say the Filioque is only about semantics when, in fact, it is not. The Filioque could technically be understood in an Orthodox sense, but Latin theology morphed it into a clear heresy when it declared the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as “one spiration” in the medieval councils. St. Mark of Ephesus refuted all attempts to promote the Roman Catholic idea of the Filioque as somehow compatible with Orthodoxy. The Latin definition actually stands against everything St. Maximus the Confessor was attempting to defend you Latins from. Read Vladimir Lossky who articulates quite well why the Latin Filioque is heretical in nature.

Wrong. There was never such demand.

Wrong. There would be such a demand. We would have to conform to your heretical notions about the nature of sin, the intermediate state, papal supremacy, the Holy Spirit, certain Marian dogmas such as the immaculate conception, and other viewpoints as the Eastern Catholic churches do under the false guise of Orthodox teaching. This would be an abandonment of Orthodoxy for heterodoxy.

That is true. Submission teaches us so many great things- Priests submit to Bishops, Laity submits to Clergy and all submit to God. Catholics submit to Pope- which surely adds to our responsibilities. This is not East submitting to West scenario, and having Pope teaches us submission and protects Church from disunity, such as current Orthodox Schism.

The Pope is the patriarch of the Western Church. You even admit that it is true we would have to submit to Rome, but then that would mean Rome would be overstepping its jurisdiction and claiming supremacy over our bishops, this is a heretical idea and against Orthodoxy. Schisms are painful for the Church, this is why the Church has ecumenical councils, which are above any authority of one bishop, like the Pope, who can cause schism and who have caused schism as is evident today. The entire context of all the ecumenical councils in themselves refute the Latin heresy of papal supremacy. When the Bishop of Rome fell into heresy the grace of the Holy Spirit left the Roman Church, whereas it did not in the holy Orthodox Church who continued the faith of the 318 Fathers as taught to us by our Bishops and priests who all recognized the heresy of Rome and chose to separate the Church of Rome from holy Orthodoxy.

Many of your Sainta, such as George the Hagiorite or Pope St. Gregory or St. Maximus the Confessor defended inerrancy of Roman Church. Cool, right?

None of them do. Roman apologists just enjoy cherry picking and the articles I posted above refute some of the Roman Catholic apologetic claims about the holy saints.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It it a common Latin trope to say the Filioque is only about semantics when, in fact, it is not.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is not Latin, neither was John XI of Constantinople, neither was St. Athanasius. Your understanding of Filioque rests on bad terminology, without actually understanding reality behind it was many times repeated in Orthodox Church. Latins understand Filioque as per Filio and Orthodoxy has no complaints with that, officially and hierarchically anyway. I guess you’ll have to provide sources from authoritative people, such as Bishops (who are guards of truth in the Church) or historical authoritative documents, not internet articles resting on misinterpretation and cherry-picking. I’d take opinion of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, defender of Orthodoxy and a Bishop, over internet article any day. Don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in many things (obviously, he is Orthodox and I am Catholic) but this is one of things even he had to step back from.

St. Mark of Ephesus refuted all attempts to promote the Roman Catholic idea of the Filioque as somehow compatible with Orthodoxy.

Why is his opinion authoritative, when opinion of St. Athanasius is not? Actually, why is not Mark’s opinion on Purgatory not authoritative but one on Filioque is?

We would have to conform to your heretical notions about the nature of sin, the intermediate state, papal supremacy, the Holy Spirit, certain Marian dogmas such as the immaculate conception, and other viewpoints as the Eastern Catholic churches do under the false guise of Orthodox teaching.

I was under impression immaculate conception is taught in Orthodox sense, as Liturgy celebrates Our Lady to be born without stain of sin. Papal Supremacy is not theological issue, though it was defended by pre-Schism Orthodox Saints such as George the Hagiorite (so, would you anathemize this Georgian Monk for defending inerrancy of Roman Church)?

then that would mean Rome would be overstepping its jurisdiction and claiming supremacy over our bishops, this is a heretical idea and against Orthodoxy.

Ecclesiology is not on boundary of heresy, so your last point is null and void. On the other hand, jurisdiction was overstepped many times in pre-schism history, as can be easily proven by Clement’s letter, or by Pope Gregory’s statements, and also during Alexandrian and Photian Schism. Church always had higher authority over Patriarchates, as shown during times of St. Cyril of Alexandria (if it would be overstepping jurisdiction of Alexandria, why would Cyril be allowed to be reinstated? Why Ignatius during Photian Schism? Why would Pope St. Gregory lie about his authority?).

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

None of them do.

As of now, you have provided us with clear, well-known understanding from Orthodox perspective with no clear arguments. I view articles above as cherry-picking, and especially George the Hagiorite can not be refuted because him defending inerrancy of Roman Church comes from Eastern sources and not Western- neither was nor is he popular Saint to use to defend Papal Supremacy, as he is not known in the West.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware is not Latin, neither was John XI of Constantinople, neither was St. Athanasius. Your understanding of Filioque rests on bad terminology, without actually understanding reality behind it was many times repeated in Orthodox Church. Latins understand Filioque as per Filio and Orthodoxy has no complaints with that, officially and hierarchically anyway. I guess you’ll have to provide sources from authoritative people, such as Bishops (who are guards of truth in the Church) or historical authoritative documents, not internet articles resting on misinterpretation and cherry-picking. I’d take opinion of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, defender of Orthodoxy and a Bishop, over internet article any day. Don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in many things (obviously, he is Orthodox and I am Catholic) but this is one of things even he had to step back from.

Citing the opinions of a few later bishops doesn’t prove anything about the Orthodox faith as it certainly wouldn’t about the Roman Catholic faith. Believe me, I could quote numerous of your cardinals or bishops holding opinions that are contrary to your faith. Besides, you need to provide proof, and I’m sure whatever you cherry pick could be refuted. But even if it cannot, all you’re doing is helping expose a heretic which I could also do with numerous of your bishops and priests.

Why is his opinion authoritative, when opinion of St. Athanasius is not? Actually, why is not Mark’s opinion on Purgatory not authoritative but one on Filioque is?

St. Athanasius said nothing in support of the heresy of papal supremacy. Also. Mark of Ephesus made it one of his points to refute the Latin doctrine of purgatory.

I was under impression immaculate conception is taught in Orthodox sense, as Liturgy celebrates Our Lady to be born without stain of sin.

There are different opinions in the Orthodox world. Some believe she was sinless from birth, others hold the opinion of St. John Chrysostom that she did indeed sin or that she sinned but was cleansed from all sin at the annunciation.

Papal Supremacy is not theological issue, though it was defended by pre-Schism Orthodox Saints such as George the Hagiorite (so, would you anathemize this Georgian Monk for defending inerrancy of Roman Church)?

It absolutely is a theological issue for Orthodox since it introduces theologies about infallibility and who has the ultimate authority in the Church (other than the holy Trinity as we can all agree). And you’re going to need proof of your second assertion which, I’m sure, could also be refuted quite easily.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Ecclesiology is not on boundary of heresy, so your last point is null and void. On the other hand, jurisdiction was overstepped many times in pre-schism history, as can be easily proven by Clement’s letter, or by Pope Gregory’s statements, and also during Alexandrian and Photian Schism. Church always had higher authority over Patriarchates, as shown during times of St. Cyril of Alexandria (if it would be overstepping jurisdiction of Alexandria, why would Cyril be allowed to be reinstated? Why Ignatius during Photian Schism? Why would Pope St. Gregory lie about his authority?).

You do realize it is the entire Church as a whole which grants privileges to the patriarchal sees, the first of which was Rome in the pre-schism era. Canon 28 of Chalcedon says it is the Fathers of the Church as a whole which grant Rome or any other see its privileges. Likewise, if any see falls into heresy, like Rome did, then it is the right of the Church as a whole to take action against. If Rome was granted “supremacy” (as Roman Catholics like to say) because of its association with Peter, then why wasn’t Antioch or Alexandria also given supremacy since both sees are also associated with Peter. But you forget that it was St. Cyprian who declared that all bishops have the authority of Peter, not just Rome. Rome was granted its privileges as first among equals in the early Church for numerous reason, for its association with both St. Peter and Paul, for being at the center of the Roman world as a whole, and for its reputation for defending orthodoxy. This is how Rome was granted it privelege as first among equals in the early Church. So it is the whole Church that has the authority, not just one particular bishop like the bishop of Rome. The very nature of an ecumenical council shows this. The Church’s authority is ruled through the collection of bishops, there is nothing in the ecumenical councils which suggest Rome had any kind of supremacy over the rest. Rome could be appealed to, this was well within its privileges as the see with primacy. But the Fathers were quick to call out any overstepping of jurisdiction, including if it was Rome. St. Cyprian and Blessed Augustine did when the Pope attempted to mess around with what was going on in North Africa. The Synod of Carthage (A.D. 419) condemns the Pope for interfering with their affairs. Further, the Fathers at the councils never had any problem with confronting Rome when it needed to, such as in the second and sixth ecumenical councils. Rome still doesn’t accept the entirety of the second or sixth ecumenical councils. But clearly the bishops of the east did and they never sought out any kind of “ratification” from the Roman Pope to accept the councils.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

As of now, you have provided us with clear, well-known understanding from Orthodox perspective with no clear arguments. I view articles above as cherry-picking, and especially George the Hagiorite can not be refuted because him defending inerrancy of Roman Church comes from Eastern sources and not Western- neither was nor is he popular Saint to use to defend Papal Supremacy, as he is not known in the West.

But that’s exactly what you Roman Catholics do. You have no clear arguments, nothing. All you do is cherry pick the Fathers and take them out of context. You have so far given no proof for any of your assertions.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But even if it cannot, all you’re doing is helping expose a heretic which I could also do with numerous of your bishops and priests.

A post-schism Saint of Georgian Orthodox Church, though- and with almost no connection to Western Church at all. It just shows that idea of Roman Inerrancy was not Western invention at all. Calling Kallistos Ware heretical is indeed bold, but I have no basis to refute it- other than that he was never condemned by his Church and stays one of top contemporary Orthodox writers, while also being a Bishop (so he has charism of teaching and charism of preaching, unlike you do, I suppose).
https://www.encyclopedia.com/religi...s-transcripts-and-maps/georgia-church-ancient
ctrl-f inerrancy to find source about George the Hagiorite, I provided non-wikipedia one.

St. Athanasius said nothing in support of the heresy of papal supremacy

No, he implied “per Filio” as being natural, orthodox stance.

Mark of Ephesus made it one of his points to refute the Latin doctrine of purgatory.

Yes, he won Council of Florence debate over Purgatory, so Latin Church adheres to it as dogmatical.

There are different opinions in the Orthodox world.

Hence you can not call it a heresy, but pious opinion or a theological view- yet to be refuted in Orthodox sense, yet to be proclaimed heretical. It may not be dogma in Orthodox Church, but it is definitely not heresy either.

Canon 28 of Chalcedon says

And that canon’s wording was rejected not only by West, but also by Alexandria and Antioch, until Caesaropapism stepped in and/or issue was forgotten.

But you forget that it was St. Cyprian who declared that all bishops have the authority of Peter, not just Rome.

Yet Ecumenical Councils cite reference to Rome holding Keys of St. Peter, as do numerous Church Fathers. I understand Apostolic Authority lies within every Bishop, as does entire Catholic Church. Bishops are not legates of Pope, but they have full and immediate power over their Sees.

The very nature of an ecumenical council shows this.

And here lies the problem; there were numerous Robber Councils (believed to be true) and numerous Councils not accepted as Ecumenical. By very nature of Ecumenical Councils, it can not be clear whether or not Council is infallible without any outside authority- Emperor, or Pope? Take your pick. “Church as a whole” does not work because never ever did all baptized people (who are in the Church, as by “one baptism” rule of Nicea) accept Council and neither did all people who were in the Church before Council accept it ever, and as such that criteria fails for accepting the Council, other than if you take biased view. How would you refute Oriental Orthodoxy’s notion that Chalcedon is not Ecumenical by your logic?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Synod of Carthage (A.D. 419) condemns the Pope for interfering with their affairs.

When they fell into heresy of rebaptizing people… yeah, does not hold any water as Orthodoxy now regards Pope’s step into their affairs as good. Should Pope stay silent if part of Church proclaims heresy?

clearly the bishops of the east did and they never sought out any kind of “ratification” from the Roman Pope to accept the councils.

That is wrong, as Patriarch of Constantinople begged “as son begs his father” Pope to accept the Council’s decision. Plus, Pope St. Gregory the Great says that he can make Eastern synods null and void with strike of a pen- would you say he was lying, or misinformed about Church hierarchy, or that people thousand+ years later could be wrong? There are more Church Fathers who go for Roman Primacy and authority than those who go against it, and even St. Augustine said “Roma locuta, causa finita est” unlike anything ever spoken about Constantinople or other Sees.

 

[historyfan81]

instead of arguing from a cahtolic perspective (wich iam not ) or a protestant one ( which iam not )

i argue from the historical perspective

to asnwer your original question did jesus found the Roman catholic curch

just so where clear i want to just in case dismiss the biggest and wierdest protestant argument ,Constantine didnt found the catholic cruch its traditions predate his birth by a long margin of time

despite that i dont belive

why

1. Peter founding rome , its here where the historical record really kills the montion that peter founded the roman catholic curch, while the protestant argument that he never went there is weak the argument that he didnt found the curch of rome is strong

a) paul letter to the romans ( 50s AD)

When Paul penned his Letter to the Romans, he was writing to an already existing community, no mention of peter

b) the curch of rome predates even 50 AD , emperor claudius expulses the jews of rome do to debates of “chrestus”( chirst) in 41 AD by catholic tradion peter is wondering the middle east

so peter didnt found the curch of rome he just took control over it by late 50s or early 60S AD

1. most catholic tradions appear in the 3rd century AD

before we see things that bearly insuinite these things or they dont appear at all

example being

Official curch commemoration of saints in Rome beginning as early as the third century.

tertulian mentions" worshiping images " around 200

baptisim of infansts and its even mentioned among tertulian ( even he was against the baptism of babies )

mary is given the tittle mother of god circa 250 AD

the morden apostolic succesion also comes in this century

etc so my claim is always the cruch founded by chirst continued until the third century where all these things came

and protestanisim was a failed attempet to go back to the first curch