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

[JRKH]

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.

Nicely stated, and quite in line with Catholic teaching as per the catachism in the section: "The Church is One", and more specifically here:
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”
"
So you are not stating anything that is contrary to Catholic Church teaching.

However, this does not answer the question of the OP as to which church community Christ set up. Nor does the statement above somehow nullify the idea of the earthly Church, as an entity, having Christ granted authority. The statement above speaks to a different matter, that of the spirtual journey of the individual church member, and not to the “ecclesial community” (Church) that was established by Christ through His most holy apostles and their successors.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

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.

First - Vatican I did not create infallibility it only defined it. So your premise above regarding Vat I and the magisterial function of the bishops is incorrect. They were necessary before Vat I and they are necessary after as well.
No Pope who is considering a teaching to be promulgated wishes to do so in a vacuum. This would be inconsistant with the biblical model where Christ says to “tell it to the church (community)” and the “model in action” presented by Acts 15.

Second - Your premise that Vat I, “definitively renounced”, “the ancient Catholic Tradition of collegiality and conciliarity”, is flawed too. If this were the case then there would have been no Vatican II. Pope John the XXIII would have just started making pronouncements.

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 suppose we will need to hear from our Orthodox members to clarify this.

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.

Not being familiar with the Russian Orthodox Church I cannot comment on this to any great extent.
The only comment I will make is that, in discussions I’ve seen nere, the documented doctrinal differences seem smaller and more easily overcome than some of the attitudes seen among church members on both sides.
This why I end to stick to “documented teachings” rather than the views and opinions of some members, whether they be EO or Vatican.

Peace
James

 

[brb3]

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.

Randy C gives the valid point.

I’ve recently read the history of the schism. It was the East that left over ‘politics’. REPEATED over the last 1700 years … the West has made petitions to the East for re-unification.

And, in fact the East did rejoin the West … only to go back on their ‘written’ confession of error … and fail to fully join back in full unity. Even today, they could return with all forgiven and be FULLY encorporated into the Church founded by Peter and sustained/maintained by the martyrdom blood of BOTH Peter and Paul.

Paul’s final wish before leaving this earth was to go to Rome. The H.S. told him this was his final destiny and mission on earth. He witnessed the great Tribulation that St. John wrote of … and died under the anti-Christ Nero.

Go back to the roots of the early faith … in those days the faithful lived in unity, and what the East later did was unthinkable.

 

[James_Least]

Which one is right? East? or West?

Why are these the only possibilities?

Is it not possible that both are wrong? Surely, both cannot be right.

These are not gray, arbitrary and capricious issues.

Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns?

Yes. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

It is no wonder, Satan himself is become and angel of light.

Ponder the Book of Jude, especially verse 3.

Peace,

James Least

 

[paul_c]

Which one is right? East? or West?

Why are these the only possibilities?

Is it not possible that both are wrong? Surely, both cannot be right.

These are not gray, arbitrary and capricious issues.

Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns?

Yes. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

It is no wonder, Satan himself is become and angel of light.

Ponder the Book of Jude, especially verse 3.

Peace,

James Least

Would you mind elaborating. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to us.

 

[JRKH]

Which one is right? East? or West?

Why are these the only possibilities?

Two reasons.

1. Because these are the only two churches clearly tracable to the Apostles and thus to Christ.
2. Because Christ Promised to be with His Church, ot guide and protect it and that the gates of hell would not prevail against her.

Is it not possible that both are wrong? Surely, both cannot be right.

No it is not possible that they are both wrong for the very reason stated in number two above.

These are not gray, arbitrary and capricious issues.

You are right. It is quite black and white.

Will The Lord find The Faith when He returns?

Yes he will

Yes. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

It is no wonder, Satan himself is become and angel of light.

Ponder the Book of Jude, especially verse 3.

Ponder also, Mt 16:15-19, Mt 18:15-18, 1 Tim 3:15

Peace,

James Least

Peace also to you
James

 

[James_Least]

…clearly traceable to the Apostles…

Traceable to be sure-- through The Book of Acts. It is also corroborated in secular history, not that it needs corroboration. This traceability to which you refer gets really murky going back through the Dark Ages and lot of the information is provided by the ones who were victorious, their biases included. The history gets really shrouded along about the time of Constantine the Great and his mother. There remains a lot of conjecture based on preconceived notions and traditions, all of which would not hold up in terms of being a faithful and true witness. Most of man’s traditions are corrupted–because man is corrupted, in fact, depraved by nature. We could not recognize Truth if it knocked us over. See: Saul of Tarsus and his trip to Damascus. This guy wound up receiving a large portion of NT revelation–Pauline Epistles. Paul was not dictating the words of Saul the Pharisee. He got them directly from God.

Then there are the Holy Fathers. They seem to not agree much. Hence all the Church Councils. Each Father has his own following, not unlike Plato and Aristotle, etal.

If one wants the real history, take the Word of God and promises of God to preserve His children through the gates of hell; then follow that through the secular history. There is another group out there. They have not been attached to Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg, Canterbury, or Nauvoo. They have been assailed by Hell, to be sure.

Peace,

James Least

 

[JRKH]

…clearly traceable to the Apostles…

Traceable to be sure-- through The Book of Acts. It is also corroborated in secular history, not that it needs corroboration. This traceability to which you refer gets really murky going back through the Dark Ages and lot of the information is provided by the ones who were victorious, their biases included. The history gets really shrouded along about the time of Constantine the Great and his mother. There remains a lot of conjecture based on preconceived notions and traditions, all of which would not hold up in terms of being a faithful and true witness. Most of man’s traditions are corrupted–because man is corrupted, in fact, depraved by nature. We could not recognize Truth if it knocked us over. See: Saul of Tarsus and his trip to Damascus. This guy wound up receiving a large portion of NT revelation–Pauline Epistles. Paul was not dictating the words of Saul the Pharisee. He got them directly from God.

Then there are the Holy Fathers. They seem to not agree much. Hence all the Church Councils. Each Father has his own following, not unlike Plato and Aristotle, etal.

If one wants the real history, take the Word of God and promises of God to preserve His children through the gates of hell; then follow that through the secular history. There is another group out there. They have not been attached to Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg, Canterbury, or Nauvoo. They have been assailed by Hell, to be sure.

Peace,

James Least

To be sure take the Word of God who is Jesus Christ. And also hold to His written word that we call bible or Scripture… But be sure you hold to the True Word…Test where and how this written word came to be in the form we have today. It is through that very Church that you call “murky” in the dark ages. The Church of the ecumenical councils who met
to clarify that which was murky.
And this includes conflicting interpretations of what the Written Word of God actually says and means so that the truth of the Gospel be preserved from error due to private interpretation and the True Gospel be taught universally.

I would say that your “way” which is supposedly unattached to, “Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg, Canterbury, or Nauvoo”, is far more murky and untracable, than any of these other faith traditions, and it’s interpretation of the Word of God is founded on far less stable ground since it is based on, non-apostolic, private interpretation which is contrary to the very Bible you hold up as truth.

The Church is visible, it is constant, it is tracable, it is authoritative, and it has survived intact for 2000 years precicely because of Christ’s promises, and Christ’s protection, and Christ’s authority vested in His visible Church.

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

…clearly traceable to the Apostles…

Traceable to be sure-- through The Book of Acts. It is also corroborated in secular history, not that it needs corroboration. This traceability to which you refer gets really murky going back through the Dark Ages and lot of the information is provided by the ones who were victorious, their biases included. The history gets really shrouded along about the time of Constantine the Great and his mother. There remains a lot of conjecture based on preconceived notions and traditions, all of which would not hold up in terms of being a faithful and true witness. Most of man’s traditions are corrupted–because man is corrupted, in fact, depraved by nature. We could not recognize Truth if it knocked us over. See: Saul of Tarsus and his trip to Damascus. This guy wound up receiving a large portion of NT revelation–Pauline Epistles. Paul was not dictating the words of Saul the Pharisee. He got them directly from God.

Then there are the Holy Fathers. They seem to not agree much. Hence all the Church Councils. Each Father has his own following, not unlike Plato and Aristotle, etal.

If one wants the real history, take the Word of God and promises of God to preserve His children through the gates of hell; then follow that through the secular history. There is another group out there. They have not been attached to Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg, Canterbury, or Nauvoo. They have been assailed by Hell, to be sure.

Peace,

James Least

Frankly, this post is simply a lot of arm waving with no data to support it. You have an agenda, be upfront about it. Are you tyring to convince us that you belong to the true church and its not any of the above. Prove it…

 

[clmowry]

yet you also want to maintain adherence to the ancient Catholic Tradition of collegiality and conciliarity which was definitively renounced at Vatican I

How was this definitively renounced? Could you reference the specific pronouncement that you believe did this?

Thanks,

Chuck

 

[James_Least]

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?

---

Getting back on track: this is not any particular agenda, just trying to think and communicate outside the box of man’s canned religious systems.

True, both East and West have a lineage back to the fourth century when the emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, moved his throne and his gods to Constantinople, his very own city. This certainly put a strain on the power struggles which existed between the religious powers that be. That Constantine was Christian before his deathbed is a matter of mostly conjecture. His in hoc signo vices apparition is also of dubious origin. However, he was probably a pontifex maximus, an interesting notion in itself.

So, how does one know which one is the right one? Why is it not reasonable to ask if they both could be wrong? How does one decide whose set of rules are scriptural? But then if everyone’s traditions are right, there is no infallible referee or arbitrator. This amounts to so much religious gobbldegook.

The one with the most gold wins.

That there is a group called The Way which has survived the onslaughts of hell is perfectly within the realm of possibility. Most of them were burned as heretics. Many of them have shown up in recent generations, still bearing witness to the uncorrupted Truth of the Scripture. This is not a paraphrase of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

James Least

 

[paul_c]

---

Getting back on track: this is not any particular agenda, just trying to think and communicate outside the box of man’s canned religious systems.

True, both East and West have a lineage back to the fourth century when the emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, moved his throne and his gods to Constantinople, his very own city. This certainly put a strain on the power struggles which existed between the religious powers that be. That Constantine was Christian before his deathbed is a matter of mostly conjecture. His in hoc signo vices apparition is also of dubious origin. However, he was probably a pontifex maximus, an interesting notion in itself.

So, how does one know which one is the right one? Why is it not reasonable to ask if they both could be wrong? How does one decide whose set of rules are scriptural? But then if everyone’s traditions are right, there is no infallible referee or arbitrator. This amounts to so much religious gobbldegook.

The one with the most gold wins.

That there is a group called The Way which has survived the onslaughts of hell is perfectly within the realm of possibility. Most of them were burned as heretics. Many of them have shown up in recent generations, still bearing witness to the uncorrupted Truth of the Scripture. This is not a paraphrase of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

James Least

What are you talking about . Where is the proof that this group has any continuity to the Apostles…

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

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

I am not aware of the Catholic Church teaching that the Pope is second only to Christ Himself. Any references?

We know from history that Popes have often been wrong, and even condemned of heresy.

thanks for any clarification.

 

[JRKH]

I am not aware of the Catholic Church teaching that the Pope is second only to Christ Himself. Any references?

We know from history that Popes have often been wrong, and even condemned of heresy.

thanks for any clarification.

My statement may have been a bit overly “blustery” thanks for bringing it to my attention. However, the Church does teach in the Catechism that,
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
I know of no one else save Christ himself who has such authority.
Of course the Pope should always excersize such authority in communion with the college of bishops comprising the magisterium of The Church.
This is more fully covered in HERE.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Getting back on track: this is not any particular agenda, just trying to think and communicate outside the box of man’s canned religious systems.

And just why would one presume that the “canned religious systems” are wrong?

True, both East and West have a lineage back to the fourth century when the emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, moved his throne and his gods to Constantinople, his very own city. This certainly put a strain on the power struggles which existed between the religious powers that be. That Constantine was Christian before his deathbed is a matter of mostly conjecture. His in hoc signo vices apparition is also of dubious origin. However, he was probably a pontifex maximus, an interesting notion in itself.

Right here you demonstrate a falicy. The Church, East and West, is tracable well before Constantine through several sources. The Early Church fathers demonstrate a continious lineage from the Apostles to more recent times. The listing of the Bishops of Rome also demonstrate continuity.

So, how does one know which one is the right one? Why is it not reasonable to ask if they both could be wrong? How does one decide whose set of rules are scriptural? But then if everyone’s traditions are right, there is no infallible referee or arbitrator. This amounts to so much religious gobbldegook.

Here you do have a legitimate question though perhaps outside of the intent of this thread. Once one DOES start looking at the ancient churches without all the “gobbldegook” that has been applied by those seeking to discredit her, then who is right becomes clear.

The one with the most gold wins.

More Gobbldegook

That there is a group called The Way which has survived the onslaughts of hell is perfectly within the realm of possibility. Most of them were burned as heretics. Many of them have shown up in recent generations, still bearing witness to the uncorrupted Truth of the Scripture. This is not a paraphrase of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Which Scripture is this “Way” bearing witness to. Is it the 66 book Bible?

Peace
James

 

[James_Least]

What are you talking about . Where is the proof that this group has any continuity to the Apostles…

---

See Book of Acts: the missionary journeys of Paul, The Apostle; see the accounts of Paul in front of Agrippa, Festus, Felix.

The Way or That Way has a direct connection to the Apostles. The history of this “sect” can be found in every generation–even through today. The written evidence has been destroyed in some cases by their enemies, who unwittingly recorded their existence thus verifying the fact: they exist. See: History of the Inquisition. See also: heretics-- in the Catholic Encyclopedia. NOTE: not all heretics are The Way.

The promise of Jesus to never leave them nor forsake them through another Comforter should be sufficient to declare they still exist. See Mt. 28:20; Eph. 3:21.

Peace,

James Least

 

[gtrenewed]

Nicely stated, and quite in line with Catholic teaching as per the catachism in the section: "The Church is OneSo you are not stating anything that is contrary to Catholic Church teaching.

However, this does not answer the question of the OP as to which church community Christ set up. Nor does the statement above somehow nullify the idea of the earthly Church, as an entity, having Christ granted authority. The statement above speaks to a different matter, that of the spirtual journey of the individual church member, and not to the “ecclesial community” (Church) that was established by Christ through His most holy apostles and their successors.

Peace
James

It does answer the question - neither and both - for in the kingdom of heaven view, God no longer resides in a building made with human hands but renewed man is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The church Jesus set up is the body of Christ where ever they happen to fellowship.

You view Jesus putting ultimate power into Peters’ hands and then Peter passing that power down mostly through the eyes of tradition outside of Scripture even though you reference some Scripture. I view Scripture showing all Apostles being given authority and Jesus giving Paul amazing revelation and authority into the kingdom of heaven even though Paul did not walk with the earthly Jesus. This authority then passes to the believer in proportion to their calling but available at all times by faith.

To me this demonstrates a difference between OT and NT. Ultimate visible authority of the high priest in the old and a distributed authority by Jesus as the ultimate authority through the Holy Spirit to the believer who is part of a group of believers voluntarily subject to one another. It was that way with Paul, he voluntarily compared his gospel with the Apostles’ but was not subject to them, Galatians chapter 2.

Initially, the twelve and then Paul taught the gospel of Jesus which then was written down overseen by the Holy Spirit to be viewed by all generations to come. So today I have the teaching of the Apostles revealed by the Holy Spirit as if I was there when it was written. I can make wrong assumptions but Jesus promised that I would not be left there for the Holy Spirit will guide and Jesus will never leave me or forsake me.

The error comes in when I want to bring someone into subjection to my gospel when it differs from the gospel of Jesus and I demand obedience from others. Scripture says that error promises freedom but brings you into bondage.

Due to the large Jewish contingent, the Roman church was politically given the preeminence. Thus adherrence to OT thinking about a single ruler. To this end history shows that it split a number of times due to political corruption by demanding papal supremecy. By demanding obedience the RCC brings into bondage what should be free. While elements of the RCC are true gospel, others are not supported by Scripture.

Finally, that is why I wrote that Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. There is no mediator between the believer and Jesus. We submit to one another by love.

 

[paul_c]

---

See Book of Acts: the missionary journeys of Paul, The Apostle; see the accounts of Paul in front of Agrippa, Festus, Felix.

The Way or That Way has a direct connection to the Apostles. The history of this “sect” can be found in every generation–even through today. The written evidence has been destroyed in some cases by their enemies, who unwittingly recorded their existence thus verifying the fact: they exist. See: History of the Inquisition. See also: heretics-- in the Catholic Encyclopedia. NOTE: not all heretics are The Way.

The promise of Jesus to never leave them nor forsake them through another Comforter should be sufficient to declare they still exist. See Mt. 28:20; Eph. 3:21.

Peace,

James Least

Please… The Catholic Church was called the “way” at the very beginning before it could be truly called universal… Just because someone else tried to co-opt the name doesn’t mean they have any continuity to the Apostles. The Catholic Church has the doctrinal and organizational continuity that you will not be able to show for any other group…

 

[paul_c]

It does answer the question - neither and both - for in the kingdom of heaven view, God no longer resides in a building made with human hands but renewed man is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The church Jesus set up is the body of Christ where ever they happen to fellowship.

These are empty words. God ever resided in a temple made with human hands. He’s omipresent. The church is the community of believers and it has nothing to do with buildings. It has everything to do with administering the blessed sacrements, doing good works and teaching the faith.

You view Jesus putting ultimate power into Peters’ hands and then Peter passing that power down mostly through the eyes of tradition outside of Scripture even though you reference some Scripture. I view Scripture showing all Apostles being given authority and Jesus giving Paul amazing revelation and authority into the kingdom of heaven even though Paul did not walk with the earthly Jesus. This authority then passes to the believer in proportion to their calling but available at all times by faith.

Scripture is a subset of tradition. Scripture definitely does not give all the Apostles equal authority. Read Matthew 16, Luke 22 and john 21. Peter is clearly singled out for leadership. And no where does it say that that authority passes to each believer. Authority in scripture is passed by the laying on of hands (ordination).

To me this demonstrates a difference between OT and NT. Ultimate visible authority of the high priest in the old and a distributed authority by Jesus as the ultimate authority through the Holy Spirit to the believer who is part of a group of believers voluntarily subject to one another. It was that way with Paul, he voluntarily compared his gospel with the Apostles’ but was not subject to them, Galatians chapter 2.

Initially, the twelve and then Paul taught the gospel of Jesus which then was written down overseen by the Holy Spirit to be viewed by all generations to come. So today I have the teaching of the Apostles revealed by the Holy Spirit as if I was there when it was written. I can make wrong assumptions but Jesus promised that I would not be left there for the Holy Spirit will guide and Jesus will never leave me or forsake me. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would guide the church. You have separated yourself from the Church that Holy Spirit is guiding. That’s why you have these erroneous views.

The error comes in when I want to bring someone into subjection to my gospel when it differs from the gospel of Jesus and I demand obedience from others. Scripture says that error promises freedom but brings you into bondage.

The error comes in when you differ from the teachings of the Church. Why do you assume the Church with its tradition and millions of scholars is in error and you, alone with your thoughts, are correct?

Due to the large Jewish contingent, the Roman church was politically given the preeminence. Thus adherrence to OT thinking about a single ruler. To this end history shows that it split a number of times due to political corruption by demanding papal supremecy. By demanding obedience the RCC brings into bondage what should be free. While elements of the RCC are true gospel, others are not supported by Scripture.

What large Jewish contingent? The Jews had no political or temperal power over Rome.
The church split because people like you felt they know more about salvation than the Church to which it was entrusted.

Finally, that is why I wrote that Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. There is no mediator between the believer and Jesus. We submit to one another by love.

Jesus set up the Church to teach the faith and administer his sacraments. (Matthew 28:18-20) Why won’t you beleive Jesus instead of trying to put words in his mouth.

 

[James_Least]

What would be the criteria for the determination of the correct doctrine and authority? Your Way relies on tradition and an infallible earthly vicar with a magesterium for validation.

The Way to which I refer is validated by Jesus, The Scripture, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples, The Way, that He would send another Comforter who would lead in all Truth. Jesus prayed to Father to sanctify them in The Truth; Thy Word is Truth. Jesus also said He would be with them throughout the age. He has kept His promises. He is faithful, even when we are not.

Jesus gave no permission to add to or take away from The Word; nor did He appoint an earthly vicar and vicar-archy as executors/legislators.

The basic question of this thread adds to my basic point: there is a long standing schism between East and West; and it regards authority and doctrine. Both sides cannot be right. By the same token, both sides could be wrong.

Let God be found true, and every man a liar.

Peace,

James Least