Which church did Jesus set up...the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bingbang
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bingbang

Guest
Both have the same exact lineage and split over 1000 years after Jesus died. So how do we know which one is the real one and which one is the fake one? Because they disagree on some things, so obviously one of them is wrong and one of them is right…right? So how do you know that you are following the right one?
 
Hi Bing,

Jesus promised that he would be with His Church until the end of time. When the Orthodox went their own way, they were making a statement that the Church was in error, therefore that Christ had abandonned it. This goes against the faith.

Verbum
 
Both have the same exact lineage and split over 1000 years after Jesus died. So how do we know which one is the real one and which one is the fake one? Because they disagree on some things, so obviously one of them is wrong and one of them is right…right? So how do you know that you are following the right one?
One thing to note is that when you use the term ‘Roman Catholic’ you are excluding all the other rites of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic limits the discussion to the Western (Latin) rite. There are 20 or so other rites that make up the Eastern Church (Coptic, etc).

As I understand it, one of the common threads is that these rites are all in union with the Pope.
 
Both have the same exact lineage and split over 1000 years after Jesus died. So how do we know which one is the real one and which one is the fake one? Because they disagree on some things, so obviously one of them is wrong and one of them is right…right? So how do you know that you are following the right one?
The Roman (Latin) Rite is only one Rite in the Catholic Church. There are other Rites having their own liturgy and code of canon law. It is their union with, and acknowledgement of the supreme authority of, the Bishop of Rome that makes them fully part of the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Churches (note, there isn’t one “Orthodox Church” but many Churches) reject the supremacy of the Pope and severed union with him and the Church of the West.

They are in schism. However, they have valid Apostolic Succession and valid Holy Orders. They are true Churches, they are not “false” or “fake” Churches.

You know you are following the right one when you are following the office of the Pope, established by Christ (Matthew 16:18-20) and are in union with him, either in the Latin Rite or one of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.
 
Hi Bing,

Jesus promised that he would be with His Church until the end of time. When the Orthodox went their own way, they were making a statement that the Church was in error, therefore that Christ had abandonned it.
That’s petitio principii (the fallacy of “begging the question”). The point at issue is whether your Communion is the Church. Until that question is answered to the questioner’s satisfaction, you will accomplish nothing by an argument that assumes that your Communion simply is the Church.

The Orthodox would deny the premise: “if Rome errs, then the Church has erred.” You need to prove that premise instead of simply assuming it.

Edwin
 
Both have the same exact lineage and split over 1000 years after Jesus died. So how do we know which one is the real one and which one is the fake one? Because they disagree on some things, so obviously one of them is wrong and one of them is right…right? So how do you know that you are following the right one?
Simple.

Jesus established Peter as the head of the Church. The Catholic Church continues to acknowledge the supremacy of the Petrine office while the Orthodox do not.

Got Popes?
 
Simple.

Jesus established Peter as the head of the Church. The Catholic Church continues to acknowledge the supremacy of the Petrine office while the Orthodox do not.

Got Popes?
Why, at the council of jerusalem described in acts, did James take the authority instead of Peter?
 
Why, at the council of jerusalem described in acts, did James take the authority instead of Peter?
All bishops have the authority to teach and make decisions. The difference is that all bishops defer to the bishop of Rome as the ultimate authority. The fact that someone else took charge or disagreed with Peter is no indication that Peter is not the ultimate authority, this side of heaven.
 
That’s petitio principii (the fallacy of “begging the question”). The point at issue is whether your Communion is the Church. Until that question is answered to the questioner’s satisfaction, you will accomplish nothing by an argument that assumes that your Communion simply is the Church.

The Orthodox would deny the premise: “if Rome errs, then the Church has erred.” You need to prove that premise instead of simply assuming it.

Edwin
One thing is for certain, it’s not the episcopalian church.
 
Both have the same exact lineage and split over 1000 years after Jesus died. So how do we know which one is the real one and which one is the fake one? Because they disagree on some things, so obviously one of them is wrong and one of them is right…right? So how do you know that you are following the right one?
Both
 
Why, at the council of jerusalem described in acts, did James take the authority instead of Peter?
That’s not what happened…

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: *Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? *bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm
To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
“Now then, why do **you [Judaizers] **try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
 
I think it is hard to distinguish between the two on this claim. From the beginning they were one Church. They both have vaild apostilic succession, and the 7 sacraments. They have a number of minor differences. The biggest difference being the authority of the Pope and the filoque. There are a number of minor differences. Some of the differences are political, cultural and initially geographical in origin.Being Catholic, I am more familiar with the Catholic Church, but I have had some exposure to the Orthodox Church and would have a difficult time saying that one church is more valid than the other. Sometimes the differences are semantics, and when you read into it they are really on the same page. They just approach things from a slightly different perspective. I believe both churches can lay claim to being the true church that was left by Jesus. I don’t think any other church can even remotely make such an argument. Every time I read something that makes me say. “Ah-hah, the Catholic Church is right”, I can turn around and get the same valid argument from the perspective of the Orthodox Church and can see where they are coming from. After many years of trying to find the one thing that solidly places one over the other, I continue to come up empty-handed.
 
The Orthodox Churches (note, there isn’t one “Orthodox Church” but many Churches) reject the supremacy of the Pope and severed union with him and the Church of the West.
Actually there is ONE Orthodox Church. As God is both one and multiple (three), so too is the Orthodox Church both one and multiple. My own parish is Greek but I am able to receive Holy Communion in any other Orthodox Church whether it be Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Antiochian, Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, etc as long as I have properly prepared through confession, prayer and fasting. We are all in communion and all share the same faith. You cannot judge the oneness of the Orthodox Church through the lense of Papal Catholic unity.

John
 
One thing is for certain, it’s not the episcopalian church.
No disagreement whatever.

Have you ever met an Episcopalian or other Anglican who thought that either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion is the True Church?

Granted, I have less confidence than most Anglicans do that we are in the fullest sense even a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

Edwin
 
No disagreement whatever.

Have you ever met an Episcopalian or other Anglican who thought that either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion is the True Church?

Granted, I have less confidence than most Anglicans do that we are in the fullest sense even a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

Edwin
I’ve not.

The claim seems to be limited to the most ancient of communions [Catholic, Orthodox and some of the ancient near eastern churches], as one would expect, and rather inexplicably some of the most recent and novel inventions.

The branches of Christianity that formed most closely to the reformation seem to be pretty clear that they did in fact separate from the communal root so to speak.

Most of these mainline denominations seem to claim instead no need for communal unity in the Catholic sense. i.e. Unity in the “essentials” rather than hierarchical or strict theological unity.

Chuck
 
Christ founded His Church. There is only one. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Body.

The divisions amongst us (one wise canon of the Anglican communion called them "wounds in the Body of Christ) are human-created and human-experienced. They are like the boundaries between nations - humans drew the lines and humans defend them, but if you look back at earth from space, they disappear. So too the lines that divide the Body of Christ.

Jesus knows, perfectly, who is with Him and who is against Him, and He will judge.

I believe the Catholic church retains the fullness of what He guaranteed (although there are parts of the Christian walk where, I am sad to admit, some of our “imperfectly joined” brethren do a better job of doing parts of what He commanded). But I don’t pretend that the Catholic church is perfect or that other parts of His Body aren’t really parts at all.

Based on what He said and what the Apostles wrote, I think there is still, and always, only One Church. I think when He looks at us, He sees not many churches but one church, divided by human failings and obstinancy.
 
All ya’ll are wrong. The Baptist Church is the True Church.
We may be wrong, but we’re right in communicating what the Catholic Church teaches.

Does the Baptist Church really teach that it is “the” True Church? Reference? Thank you.
 
T=
[/INDENT]Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
Those opinions are interesting, yet Christians still read Acts 15 and Galatians 2 and are not deductively led to those same conclusions.

Regardless, these episodes neither require nor deny the present existence and exercise of the papacy in the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top