R
rben20
Guest
So then why don’t you consider Catholicism? If you don’t mind me asking
Which church did Jesus set up...the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church?
- Status
R
rben20
Guest
It’s important to note that Orthodoxy is not false or fake…if I were to say that it is, it only makes Catholicism false and fake as well. They are the same Church on there way to reunification (praying and hoping it will happen soon). I ultimately side with the Catholic Church because of the primacy of Peter among the Apostles as shown in Scripture. It should hold true today, but because of political and some theological issues thousands of years ago there is not the same Primacy given to the Office of Peter. Matthew 16:18 Peter is the rock! No way around it.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
They’re both real. I think this is just a case of Gentile Christians vs. Jewish Christians in the 1st century.
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi Contarini,
The point at issue is whether your Communion is the Church.
NO. I am talking about the Church that included both the Eastern and Western Churches. That Church was considered to be the Church of Christ until the East went on its own, claiming to constitute the Church of Christ all by itself.
Verbum
The point at issue is whether your Communion is the Church.
NO. I am talking about the Church that included both the Eastern and Western Churches. That Church was considered to be the Church of Christ until the East went on its own, claiming to constitute the Church of Christ all by itself.
Verbum
J
JRKH
Guest
Jesus did not “set-up” a church. He “built” His Church upon the Rock of Peter and Peter’s confession. This church grew and developed over the next thousand years until there came a split between East and West.
Fast forward to today. Those Rites who are in full communion with Rome have faithfully followed (or returned) the Chair of Peter. The Chair of Peter has also recognized that the Eastern Orthodox are validly apostolic and the late JP II refered to the EO and the Catholic Church as the right and left lung of the universal Church.
As to who is right and who is wrong in the various disagreements, I believe that the two Churches are in discussions on these matters and it is best to leave it to those trained in these matters to settle the differences with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
When it comes to “Knowing” which is right, I prefer to remain in communion with the See of Peter. When it comes to people converting, or coming into the Church, I’d be happy to see them become EO if the Papacy were a real sticking point for them. I say this because the EO succession is legitimate and therefore their sacraments are licit (I think that’s the right term).
Peace
James
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
G
gtrenewed
Guest
It is apparant from scripture that Jesus never intended to have one person as the ultimate authority on earth.
First, in the old testament God says that He did not want Israel to have a king over them but to be ruled by a council of twelve tribes. However, Israel wanted to be like other nations so He gave them a king. The precedent is carried through in selecting 12 apostles. We see much more scriptural evidence to the council ruling with the help of the Holy Spirit. Acts would be a great place to cement the one ruler doctrine but it never does, it shows just the opposite.
The Roman bishop ruler is something that took place after the first century. Since Rome was the center of Jewish activity after the diaspora, it is possible that the jewish christians set this up because of their phariseeical roots and training.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
You and Bonocore are wrong for two reasons:
- Acts 15:6 “the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter”
The church of jerusalem were united under the apostles there was no separate congregation of james. You read too much into the text. - Acts 15:28 " For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…" This is speaking with the authority of the Holy Spirit or from the chair of authority.
P
paul_c
Guest
I would say your points are completely nullified by what Jesus actually said in the Gospels: Here’s Matthew 16: where Jesus commissions Peter as head of the church
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
And Luke 22: where he explains Leadership to the apostles and then tells Peter to lead
24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
And John 21, where the Good Shepherd turns over the flock to Peter:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.
W
Wesley7
Guest
Its either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. There is also the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the history of Christianity.
P
paul_c
Guest
You seem to be contradicting yourself in the two points. In point 1, you say that there was no leader and then in point 2, you seem to be ascribing leadership to James. This is not very compelling. The explanation given to you was the correct one. You just can’t bear it year because it contradicts your theology. You will one day come to see it is the truth .
P
paul_c
Guest
I think the Catholic Church teaches this correctly. There is one truth that was taught by the apostles. Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth. Where there are differences from Catholic doctrine there is error. In the Case of the Orthodox, there are very minor doctrinal differences, so very little error, and none that effect an individual’s salvation. The issues are generally matters of church structure and the understanding of the trinity and the spiritual world (purgatory). The differences in understanding are not insurmountable because the Eastern churches always recognized Rome as first among equals and when the Othodox churches separated from Rome, 21 Eastern churches separated from the Orthodox and stayed with Rome, showing that it was far from a unanimous break in the east. Pope Benedict is making significant strides in healing this rift.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t understand. Sorry. Can you clarify what you mean related to this Thread? Thank you. (p.s. I think you mean “it’s” and not “its”).
W
Wesley7
Guest
I am. For next couple yearsSo then why don’t you consider Catholicism? If you don’t mind me asking
W
Wesley7
Guest
Jesus Christ founded the universal Catholic Church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Apostolic Succession.
Example. the Russian Orthodox Church. . .
J
JRKH
Guest
You are right but one must also look at the larger picture. We must look at what the two churches do and do not believe in.
The two Churches discussed here are the “Catholic” (those in communion with Rome) and the EO, not in communion with Rome. Both of these Churches have clear lineage back to the Apostles. They both hold to a heirarchial structure and a “three legged stool” of Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. Neither church rejects the authoritative structure of The Church in favor of some non-authoritatve “bible alone” or “personal interpretation” theology.
What the two churches DO disagree on is the specific structure of The Church and the actual authority of the Pope. There are other matters as well but this really is the crux.
So - if one looks deep back into history, one will see that The Church has always excersized a councilior model to resolve issues (ala Acts 15) and has recognized the legitimacy of a leader - call it patriarch or pope or whatever.
If one looks at the huge similarities between the two branches of the ancient Church one can easily see that any reading of Acts 15 that precludes the universal authority of the Church is, as Peter said (paraphrased), Twisting Scripture to their own destruction.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
While you have some good information here, there also shows one of the problems that we have in discussing these matters. That is the tendency (on both sides) to look only at the “RC model” as it were and argue over that and ultimately miss the fuller truth of what Acts 15 conveys.
Catholics accept as correct the system headed by the Pope - yet does this acceptance mean that we live under and are satifsied with a “one ruler” system? Not at all. For the Bishop of Rome rules in conjunction with his fellow bishop, and these bishops in council or other communication, seek to rule under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
EO’s accept a system that stops just short of having a pope. Instead they have a very small group of Patriarchs. These patriarchs and the Bishops under them function quite similarly to the Catholic Church in that they are a councilior model.
The opposing position, taken by many Protestants, is not really that Acts 15 does not demonstrate “papacy”. Personally I’ll grant that. It does NOT clearly demonstrate papacy (as we know it today). But what it DOES demonstrate is that the early church communities were not doctrinally independant. It shows that The Church was one and that doctrinal matters in dispute could should and would be settled by coming to a common, universal teaching.
Peace
James
P
paul_c
Guest
I would agree with you that Acts 15 by itself does not clearly demonstrate the papacy. But it isn’t to be held in a vacuum.
We start with Jesus commissioning Peter as the leader, with full authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16, we follow that with Jesus’s teaching of leadership in Luke 22, and then proceed with the risen Jesus, the good shepherd, turning over the flock to Peter in John 21. We then see Peter carrying out this leadership throughout the first half of ACTS, replacing Judas with Matthias, interpreting scripture for the crowds at pentacost and defining salvation through baptism. healing the sick and speaking for the Apostles to the Sanhedrin, etc. He declares Paul’s letters as scripture in 2Peter 3 and in the culmination of his Biblical work, defines the doctrine that the Gentile Christians don’t need to follow the Jewish dietary/ sacrificial laws in Acts 15. So while, Acts 15 doesn’t describe definitively the entire role of the papacy in the church, its part of a bigger New Testament picture that does.
J
JRKH
Guest
Well stated. I would add to this, feeding into the councilior model, Mt 18:15-18 where Chrsit Himself tells us to take contentious issues to “The Church”.
In fact, the term “Church” (Ekklesia) is used only twice in the Gospels, both times spoken by Christ and both times in granting the authority to “bind and loose…whatever”.
My main thrust with my previous post was that regardless of the specific issue of the papacy, both ancient and apostolic churches use the councilior model to discern and promulgate “universal” teachings. Neither ancient church recognizes (and Scripture does not support) the sort of independent SS structure espoused by the post reformation churches.
So to tie this in with with OP, we recognize this essential truth. That both Churches are tracable to the Apostles and to Christ and have ably preserved the the proper method(s) of teaching the Truths of the Gospel. Thus either Church can be seen as fundementally legitimate to the person seeking the True faith. This is especially true given the statements made by our recent Pontiffs.
Peace
James
P
paul_c
Guest
Just be careful. Councils are there to advise the popes but don’t have authority over the Pope.
- Status