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

[JRKH]

Just be careful. Councils are there to advise the popes but don’t have authority over the Pope.

True, but then where would the Pope be without the Magisterium (the bishops) which, in a sense, is a council that is constantly discussing issues.
And we must not forget that the Pope is selected by a council.

The Pope and the Bishops (The magisterium) are thoroughly interconnected with and by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

True, but then where would the Pope be without the Magisterium (the bishops) which, in a sense, is a council that is constantly discussing issues.
And we must not forget that the Pope is selected by a council.

The Pope and the Bishops (The magisterium) are thoroughly interconnected with and by the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

its all part of the whole. The pope is the ultimate authority on earth, but he understands the gravity of his pronouncements so he uses the (name removed by moderator)ut of the magesterium to make sure he gets it right. Councils have the same purpose. But the pope is not bound by its findings… This is the church governance issue that led to the great schism. The orthodox believed in the supremity of the council over the pope.

 

[JRKH]

its all part of the whole. The pope is the ultimate authority on earth, but he understands the gravity of his pronouncements so he uses the (name removed by moderator)ut of the magesterium to make sure he gets it right. Councils have the same purpose. But the pope is not bound by its findings… This is the church governance issue that led to the great schism. The orthodox believed in the supremity of the council over the pope.

Percisely…It is all part of the whole…

One of the things that I have noticed, and maybe I haven’t expressed it very well, is that I find many protestants tend to look at Mt 16 and Mt 18 and Acts 15 and automatically get defensive over the whole"pope" issue. This clouds the equally important issue of the “visible earthly authority” of “The Church” universal in determining proper teaching.

If one can get someone to see the “universal authority” of the council of Jerusalem to “bind and loose”, regardless of who “chaired”, who “pronounced” etc, then it is easier for them to grasp the idea of a single earthly heirachy in communion with a single earthly leader heading up The Church Universal.

So long as people read into scripture the unbiblical notion of “independent local churches” they will never see the truth of these passages and how they all tie together to support the ancient church (both East & West)

Peace
James

 

[ab75]

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

In addition, there were early councils without the Pope’s presence, where the bishops decided many issues with a caveat that in effect said as long as the roman church agrees. The time certainly did not allow for communication to be handled as it is today.

 

[JRKH]

In addition, there were early councils without the Pope’s presence, where the bishops decided many issues with a caveat that in effect said as long as the roman church agrees. The time certainly did not allow for communication to be handled as it is today.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Laying the groundwork for a response

• what did the early Church call itself,
• how did it view authority

From the 1st century, DURING apostolic times, (St John is still alive living either in Ephesus or Patmos at the time of this writing) Clement successor to Peter, bishop and pope of Rome, is settling sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece. Clement writes

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
( Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c~ AD 80)

As Catholics, we have the luxury of looking back for 2000 years in ECF writings, and see that the papacy has been here by the promise of Jesus from the 1st century DURING apostolic times, until today. And the papacy is not only vibrant and alive, it’s authority covers the planet . And the Catholic Church is ONE Church worldwide, under the pope, successor to Peter. BTW, Clement settled the sedition.

What did the East say about your question?

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the apostle, writes 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. (letter to the Church of Rome ~ 108 A.D).,

Rome holds the presidency

Ignatius (letter to the Church of Smyrna ch 8) ~108 A.D.

“Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

ergo the Church is called the Catholic Church. And so that all that the Church does is valid, (especially the sacraments) let nothing happen without the bishop.

Irenaeus from Smyrna, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. writing ~180 A.D.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all,founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 )

several comments.

• Look at how the Church called itself. the Catholic Church.
• how did it view the flow of authority from the very beginning? (Bishop, + worldwide agreement with the Church of Rome)
• where did this hierarchy of authority come from? The apostles passed it on & the faithful everywhere who maintain THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.
• When you use “Roman” as a qualifier for the Catholic Church, as someone else has already responded, that leaves out the other Catholic rites which would be wrong to do. Even though the Latin rite makes up 98%+ of the Catholic Church, the other rites, are just as Catholic with equal dignity. One rite is not MORE Catholic than the other. The name of the Church is the Catholic Church.

 

[NHInsider]

It is apparant from scripture that Jesus never intended to have one person as the ultimate authority on earth.

Apparent to whom?

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 Old Covenant parallel of the Pope is not the king, it’s king’s steward.

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.

What do you do with the numerous examples in the NT of Peter acting as the spokesperson of the Apostles, or of the Apostles defering to him?

 

[gtrenewed]

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.

True but we argue because the RCC says they are the true church and everyone else is schismatic.

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

 

[gtrenewed]

Apparent to whom?

the Old Covenant parallel of the Pope is not the king, it’s king’s steward.

What do you do with the numerous examples in the NT of Peter acting as the spokesperson of the Apostles, or of the Apostles defering to him?

Apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear!

How is it the kings steward?

When do they defer to Peter?

 

[gtrenewed]

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 .

You missed the point. In #2 James says that it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit. James as an elder or an apostle or both spoke for the council. Peter since he was there should have according to your belief.

Not the correct one but one that you accept. An RC always reverts to saying we cannot bear it but it has nothing to do with bearing anything but seeing Jesus as the head as Scripture says.

 

[diggerdomer]

Jesus Christ founded the universal Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Apostolic Succession.

Example. the Russian Orthodox Church. . .

Where does the Eastern Orthodox Church claim to be founded by Apostolic Succession, and not by Jesus Christ?

Where does the Catholic Church teach that the Eastern Orthodox Church was founded by Apostolic Succession, and not by Jesus Christ?

Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

You say they both hold to a hierarchical structure. True, but exactly the point of division.

These two Churches share everything in common EXCEPT the acknowledged hierarchical structure.

 

[JRKH]

You say they both hold to a hierarchical structure. True, but exactly the point of division.

These two Churches share everything in common EXCEPT the acknowledged hierarchical structure.

More correctly let us say they share everything in common EXCEPT a single acknowledged hierarchical structure.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You missed the point. In #2 James says that it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit.

Interesting. The same language used by the Pope when issuing a teaching document.

James as an elder or an apostle or both spoke for the council. Peter since he was there should have according to your belief.

Simple explanation… the Council was taking place in Jerusalem. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. James, as the hosting bishop, chaired the council. Peter, as the “servant of servants”, did not Lord it over the council, but Peter DID silence the debate by his speech in which he, and not James, first expresses the wisdom of the Holy Spirit that the faithful not be subjected to mosaic law. James then reiterated this in a formal announcement of the decision of the council.

Not the correct one but one that you accept. An RC always reverts to saying we cannot bear it but it has nothing to do with bearing anything but seeing Jesus as the head as Scripture says.

But the thing here is that you are arguing a difference that does not exist. The Catholic Church too believes that Christ is the head of the Church, as Scripture says.
But what Scripture also says (to Peter and to the Apostles) is that Christ established an authoritative “Church” with the power to “Bind and loose…Whatever”.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

True but we argue because the RCC says they are the true church and everyone else is schismatic.

By your simple statement you, in a sense, prove my point. Naturally the RCC believes everyone else is in Schism. Just as “everyone else” believe the Catholic Church to be in error. This is not what I was talking about in my post.

Acts 15 is a clear example of “universal” Church authority in action. It is a clear example of the Church leadership deciding the one correct doctrinal view on an issue of contention between two local church groups. Regardless of Peter’s specific role at this specific council (or council session) the demonstration of “universal authority” is clear.
This is the point I was trying make.
Yet the Protestant, who rejects any such visible and universal authority must find a way to discredit or diminish the authority shown in Acts 15, so that the intra-protestant schism(s) can be justified. Lutherans can believe differently than Methodists, than Calvinists, than Nazarines, than SDA than CoC than…
They can ALL believe differently and they can ALL claim the Holy Spirit and the Bible as their foundation. AND they don’t have to meet to resolve their differences because why???
Because they reject the overarching, universal, authority of a Visible Church which Christ quite clearly taught in the Gospel.
Argue as you might over structure of that visible authority, but a single universal authority He did establish.

Except, there is the insistance that the Pope is the ultimate authority on earth and can rule independently and has throughout history. The RCC bishops do not consult with the EO bishops since the latter are in schism. Except for matters of resolving the schism.

The Bishops in communion with Rome do not consult with those outside the Church for the same reasons that you do not consult with other faith communites that disagree with your own. Why toss stones at the RC when non-RC churches act in the same manner.
This seems to be just another attempt to deflect the fact that Christ established an authoritative Church.

Yes the Pope is the ultimate authority, second only to Christ Himself. The Pope is the visible head of the Church on Earth. As to his “ruling independently”, I am no expert, but I would suggest that you would be hard pressed to find an instance where a pope ruled on a matter of faith and morals that had not already been thoroughly discussed among the Bishops of the Church, perhaps not in formal council, but discussed none-the-less.

Peace
James

 

[NHInsider]

Apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear!

And the problem of people of good faith and intentions believing that the Holy Spirit has taught them completely opposing “truths” continues to point to the need for an authoritative Church. But that’s another thread.

How is it the kings steward?

When do they defer to Peter?

The steward exercised the authority of the King in the Davidic kingdom, symbolized by the keys. Jesus words to Peter in Matt. 16 are a direct reference to Isaiah 22.

This is not, however, contrary to the conciliar structure of the Apostolic college. The Pope’s authority is that of the head of the council, whether the council is meeting or not.

We see Peter exercise this role multiple times during the life of Jesus (Mt. 16:16, 17:24, 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41, 24:12 - not an exhaustive list, just a few examples) and after the Resurrection we see Jesus explicitly tasking him with responsibility for the rest of the Apostles. (John 21:17) In addition, Peter is always listed first in a list of the Apostles and his name appears in the gospels more than all the other apostles’ names combined.

In Acts and Galatians we see questions regarding the church’s administration and mission referred to the Twelve, to Peter, James and John as a tribunal, and to Peter alone - but never to another of the Apostles alone.

During the lifetime of John the Apostle we see Clement exercising Petrine authority in his letter to the Corinthians.

 

[JRKH]

Excellant response NH…

And the problem of people of good faith and intentions believing that the Holy Spirit has taught them completely opposing “truths” continues to point to the need for an authoritative Church. But that’s another thread.

This is the “800 pound gorilla” in all of these discussions and one that those who hold to Sola Scriptura cannot adequately address. What do good and sincere Christians do when they hold to opposing views? But as you say that is another thread…

Peace
James

The steward exercised the authority of the King in the Davidic kingdom, symbolized by the keys. Jesus words to Peter in Matt. 16 are a direct reference to Isaiah 22.

**This is not, however, contrary to the conciliar structure of the Apostolic college. The Pope’s authority is that of the head of the council, whether the council is meeting or not. **

We see Peter exercise this role multiple times during the life of Jesus (Mt. 16:16, 17:24, 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41, 24:12 - not an exhaustive list, just a few examples) and after the Resurrection we see Jesus explicitly tasking him with responsibility for the rest of the Apostles. (John 21:17) In addition, Peter is always listed first in a list of the Apostles and his name appears in the gospels more than all the other apostles’ names combined.

In Acts and Galatians we see questions regarding the church’s administration and mission referred to the Twelve, to Peter, James and John as a tribunal, and to Peter alone - but never to another of the Apostles alone.

During the lifetime of John the Apostle we see Clement exercising Petrine authority in his letter to the Corinthians.

In many ways the bolded section above is the real crux of the matter in these discussions.
The office of Pope is NOT contrary to the councilior model.

Both the Vatican and the EO would agree with this. What they DO disagree on is some of the particulars of the office of Pope. This is why the two churches are able to be in discussion today.

The Protestant however, due to the rejection of visible authority, Must hold to a position that not only is the office of Pope wrong, but the entire teaching of a universal and visible authority is wrong. In other words they throw out the baby with the bath water.

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

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.

But it seems to me that Vatican I makes the other bishops superfluous. I know that Catholics don’t admit this, but I don’t see any other possible consequence. I think, with all due respect, that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You don’t want to renounce Vatican I, and yet you also want to maintain adherence to the ancient Catholic Tradition of collegiality and conciliarity which was definitively renounced at Vatican I. I can understand why you want to do this–we Anglicans are guilty of the same thing, without the excuse of believing in infallibility (in other words, we really could renounce our Protestant heritage instead of desperately straining to reconcile it with Catholicity). But that’s how it seems to me.

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.

Check what I’m saying with the Orthodox, but as I understand the Orthodox position, the Patriarchate is not really an ecclesiological component, but just a convenient way of expressing respect for certain Sees of great antiquity and authority. In other words, the essential Orthodox ecclesiological claim is that all bishops are equal. Inequality among bishops is seen as a matter of good order and proper respect for particularly ancient and prestigious Sees. It isn’t an essential element in the Church’s structure.

I think that members of your Communion tend to assume that the Orthodox think about things more similarly than they really do. Admittedly, a case can be made that many Orthodox historically have thought about things in the way you describe, and that a bunch of weird Russians have foisted the “different” perspective on the Orthodox Church. I have taken that critique quite seriously over the years, and I think it’s definitely true that there was a “renewal” of ecclesiology in the 19th century which broke with some of the more “Rome-like” ways of thinking common in the Orthodox Church before that point. But on the whole it does seem to me that this renewed ecclesiology was fully in keeping with the dogmatic declarations of the Orthodox Church and with the patristic approach to ecclesiology. In other words, the Russians were giving a better basis to what the Orthodox already believed, rather than changing that belief.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Edwin

 

[paul_c]

You missed the point. In #2 James says that it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit. James as an elder or an apostle or both spoke for the council. Peter since he was there should have according to your belief.

Not the correct one but one that you accept. An RC always reverts to saying we cannot bear it but it has nothing to do with bearing anything but seeing Jesus as the head as Scripture says.

Jesus is the head of the Church. Peter and his successors are his vicar on Earth.

Also, you shoul recognize that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem at the time of the Council there. He represented the Jewish Christians that ha cause the stir with the Gentiles to begin with, demanding that they be circumcised. When Peter ruled that this was not required, James stood up and publicly asceeded to his position, thus demonstrating Peter’s right to declare doctrine.

 

[gtrenewed]

Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. Apart from Him we can do nothing. Abide in Him and we bear fruit.

Many christians, labels aside, bear fruit so they fulfill this scripture and are part of His Church.