The Split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches

Until the bishop of Rome tried to establish a centralized hierarchy in the church, all churches were guided by Bishops. These bishops would have the churches of a particular geographic area under their care. All bishops were considered to be the same level. In some cases, there were bishops who guided other bishops – much like a pastor of pastors. But these bishops were still at the same level of authority as all other bishops – there was no hierarchy as exists in the Roman Catholic Church. It was through agreements of the majority of bishops that major doctrinal issues were decided. The bishop of bishops of an area is known as a Partriach or an archbishop or a metropolitan. The bishop of Rome was considered to be at the same level as the patriarchs who guided churches of various regions – one among equals. The patriarch of Rome was given the honor of “first place in honor” because of its influence in the Roman Empire. But this was an honor, not a rank or position of leadership.

The Bishop of Rome wanted to be supreme bishop. Additionally, the Roman church modified the Nicene Creed, after having agreed to not do so. “A council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON (“Filioque” in Latin.) [The Orthodox bishops] objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son. Rome would not listen. Their faith in the Holy Spirit began to erode, and it showed in their doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide the Church, Rome continued to falsely boost the centralized power of the Papacy. In time they came to believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of doctrine. Unsure of the Holy Spirit’s ability to pray with us and for us, they elevated Mary and the Saints to almost be a means of “getting around Jesus…. In 1054 the crisis came to a head. A Papal legate, in a fit of anger over [the Orthodox Church's] “refusal” to acknowledge the Pope’s inflated claims and warped doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.”

“In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues like the filioque clause and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism.”

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocephaly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church_organization

So, The Roman Papal Legate excommunicated the Patriarch of the Orthodx church in Constantinople because the patriarch refused to accept Rome’s inflated claims to power and poor doctrine.

“Efforts were made to reconcile. But the Pope would not give up his claims to power, and [the Orthodox church] would not compromise [their] doctrine. 

“Rome went independent. Unchecked by any kind of “peer review” by the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome’s theological innovations proceeded unchecked. Within 500 years after the Great Schism, they had become so warped that they incited a revolution – the Protestant Reformation. “

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/split-Roman-Church.htm

 

Question to the reader: I have noticed this post receives quite a few hits. If you could, please leave a comment letting me why you were drawn to read this post? Why you are interested in the split between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches? Thanks.

About these ads

120 Responses

  1. [...] The Split Between Roman Catholic And Orthodox Churches [...]

  2. I LOVED IT I AM A REALLY INTERESTED IN THIS STUFF THANKS FOR THIS WEBSITE XX

  3. Andrea, I’m glad you liked the post. I hope you find many things of interest on my blog.

  4. Неплохой пост, но много лишнего.

  5. I went to http://babelfish.yahoo.com
    and translated the above comment from Russian to English for my benefit and that of others:
    “Not bad post, but is much excess.”

    Thanks for your kind words. Many people, at least in the United States of America, have no historical context of the Orthodox Church. For this reason, I had to include many details of which you may already be aware.

  6. Ваш сайт в опере не очень то корректо показывается, а так все отлично! спасибки вам за умные мысли!

  7. I went to http://babelfish.yahoo.com
    and translated the above comment from Russian to English for my benefit and that of others:
    “Your site in the opera not very the [korrekto] shows, but so everything is excellent! [spasibki] to you for the clever thoughts!”

    Harryillavor,

    I wish the translation site I use was better at Russian to English. I’m guessing that what was translated as ‘opera’ is what we would call ‘web’ or ‘internet’. And I think ‘spasibki means ‘thanks’. But thank you for your kind words.

  8. отличный дизайн )

  9. Эээ, а объясните, плиз, а то я че-то не совсем въехал, это как?

  10. I translated this: “отличный дизайн )”, from Russian to English using http://babelfish.yahoo.com:
    “outstanding design )”

    Thank you so much for your kind words.

  11. I translated this from Russian to: “[Eee], and you will explain, [pliz], but that I even number entirely did not enter, this as?”

    I am afraid I do not understand the translation. Could you please find another way to say this?

  12. На Ваш блог знакомый в аську ссылку кинул. Оказалось ,что не зря Понравилось. Тепрь постоянно читать буду

  13. http://Babelfish.yahoo.com translated Bydayodons’ comment:
    На Ваш блог знакомый в аську ссылку кинул. Оказалось ,что не зря Понравилось. Тепрь постоянно читать буду

    as:
    ==
    The familiar into [asku] reference threw to your [blog]. It turned out that in vain it was not pleased. [Tepr] constantly read I will be
    ==

  14. Thank you for your kind words. I wish the translator worked better, so I knew the words being missed by it. I have tried numerous translators and none of them translate the words in [].

    Just to let all you Russians know, I do not attend an Orthodox Church, and I do not attend a Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant Christian. Not that it matters to me, but it might to all of you. I love Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and know that God the Father sent Him to suffer and die for my sins, I have repented from them and turned to God. As such, I know I will be with God in heaven when I die. Do you know this for yourself?

  15. Ты как обычно радуешь нас своими лучшими фразами спасибо, беру!

  16. I translated the message from Honenamb using http://Babelfish.yahoo.com comment:
    Ты как обычно радуешь нас своими лучшими фразами спасибо, беру!

    as:
    ==
    You as usually gladden us by your best phrases of thanks, I take!
    ==

    I really appreciate your kind words. You are welcome and thank you!
    And I MUST say, thank yo for using words the translator could understand! :)

  17. Спасибо за статью.. Актуально мне сейчас.. Взяла себе еще перечитать.

  18. На Ваш блог знакомый в аську ссылку кинул. Оказалось ,что не зря Понравилось. Тепрь постоянно читать буду

  19. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated what aponia wrote:
    “Спасибо за статью.. Актуально мне сейчас.. Взяла себе еще перечитать.”
    as
    “Thanks for the article. It is urgent to me now. It took to itself to still re-read.”
    You are welcome. I hope it is helpful.

  20. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated what VienpneupniZ wrote:
    “На Ваш блог знакомый в аську ссылку кинул. Оказалось ,что не зря Понравилось. Тепрь постоянно читать буду”
    as
    “The familiar into [asku] reference threw to your [blog]. It turned out that in vain it was not pleased. [Tepr] constantly read I will be”

    Thanks. I hope you find my web site helpful.

  21. Уважаемый автор блога, а вы случайно не из Москвы?

  22. Огромное вам человеческое спасибо, очень актуальная заметка.

  23. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated snobre’s comment:
    “Уважаемый автор блога, а вы случайно не из Москвы?”

    as
    “The respected author of [bloga], but you by chance not of Moscow?”

    No, I am not from Moscow. I am from the United States. I am not part of the Orthodox church; I am Protestant.

  24. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated Sperpelt’s comment:
    “Огромное вам человеческое спасибо, очень актуальная заметка.”

    as
    “Enormous to you human thanks, very urgent note.”

    You’re welcome. Thank you for your kind words.

  25. Огромное вам пасибо! а еще посты на эту тему будут в будущем? Очень жду!

  26. http://babelfish.yahoo.com transated Mannadakap’s comment of
    “Огромное вам пасибо! а еще посты на эту тему будут в будущем? Очень жду!”

    as:
    “Enormous to you [pasibo]! and other posts on this theme will be in the future? Greatly I wait!”

    You are welcome. I don’t know what themes I will post on in the future. Right now, I don’t have any planned on this theme. But it may be that God will have me do research and post on it later.

  27. Довольно граммотная запись. Добавил Ваш блог в избранное. Спасибо.

  28. http://babelfsh.yahoo.com translated Вместен’s message “Довольно граммотная запись. Добавил Ваш блог в избранное. Спасибо.” as
    “Sufficiently [grammotnaya] record. Added your [blog] in that selected. Thanks.”

    You’re welcome.

  29. Интересно и позновательно, а будет еще что-то по этой теме?

  30. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ translated lughhesBeere’s comment:
    “Интересно и позновательно, а будет еще что-то по этой теме?”
    as
    “Is interesting [poznovatelno], and there will be still something on this theme?”

    I’m not really sure where to take this theme. This post was written in response to something someone had asked.

    If you want to know something specific, concerning either of these churches denominations, I would be more than happy to research and post my findings. However, I do not belong to either the Roman Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Catholic Church. So I would be writing as an outsider.

    I tend to specialize in what the Bible says concerning topics people have to deal with in life, rather than specific churches.

  31. а вот вопросик можно? У вас время после поста указано. Это московское? Заранее спасибо!

  32. http://translate.google.com translated prasiday ‘s comment;
    “а вот вопросик можно? У вас время после поста указано. Это московское? Заранее спасибо!”
    as
    “but вопросик possible? You have time after the post stated. This is Moscow? Thanks in advance!”

    I am afraid I do not know what message you are trying to ask. I’m sorry, but I can not answer what I do not understand. Please find another word for “вопросик”.

  33. Огромное вам пасибо! а еще посты на эту тему будут в будущем? Очень жду!

  34. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated Unsepsystymn’s comment:
    “Огромное вам пасибо! а еще посты на эту тему будут в будущем? Очень жду!”
    as
    “Enormous to you [pasibo]! and other posts on this theme will be in the future? Greatly I wait!”

    You are welcome. And thank you. I do not know what I would post in this theme, as I am not Orthodox or Roman Catholic. This post was in response to a question of why did the church split.

    If you have a question you would like answered, please ask it and I will try to find answers for you.

  35. Спасибо крупное за предоставленную сообщение. Нахожусь рад разместить ее у себя на дневнике. Если Вы не против, то я так и совершу.Если соли какие-то проблеммы со копирайтом, постучитесь на мой дневник,я целое исправлю. Так же прибавил Ваш место на соцзакладки. Вообщем если что обращайтесь, – неизменно выслушаю и осознать. Со, почитанием, Firestarter.

  36. Спасибо здоровенное за предоставленную сообщение. Дух рад разместить ее у себя на дневнике. Если Вы не против, то я так и совершу.Если находимся какие-то проблеммы со копирайтом, постучитесь на мой дневник,я целое исправлю. Так же прибавил Ваш место на соцзакладки. Вообщем если что обращайтесь, – извечно выслушаю и разгадаю. Со, почтением, Firestarter.

  37. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ translated Cupeexone’s coment
    “Спасибо здоровенное за предоставленную сообщение. Дух рад разместить ее у себя на дневнике. Если Вы не против, то я так и совершу.Если находимся какие-то проблеммы со копирайтом, постучитесь на мой дневник,я целое исправлю. Так же прибавил Ваш место на соцзакладки. Вообщем если что обращайтесь, – извечно выслушаю и разгадаю. Со, почтением, Firestarter.”

    as
    “Thanks are very strong for that given communication. Spirit is glad to place it in itself on the diary. If you not against, then I then [sovershu].[Esli] are located some [problemmy] [kopiraytom], you [postuchites] to my diary, I will correct whole. So it added your place on [sotszakladki]. Generally if that be turned, age long I will listen and will guess. , By respect, Firestarter.”

    You are quite welcome. i pray God continues to speak through me. You may add it to your blog and translate it if you so desire – just give God credit.

  38. Отличный пост, прочитав несколько статей на эту тему понял, что всё таки не посмотрел с другой стороны, а пост как-то очень заинтересовал.

  39. http://translate.google.com/ translated Beekfaifyfep’s comment:
    “Отличный пост, прочитав несколько статей на эту тему понял, что всё таки не посмотрел с другой стороны, а пост как-то очень заинтересовал.”
    as
    “Excellent post, after reading several articles on the subject has understood, that still is not looked on the other hand, a post as something very interesting.”

    Thank you for your comment.

  40. Useful information , great post . Thanks for sharing
    _______________________

  41. Thanks for an interesting post, I wait for continuation

  42. I’m sorry. But I am not Orthodox Catholic nor Roman Catholic. So I have little interest in the history or doctrine of these churches. I HAVE written on Mary and the foundation of the church being Christ, not Peter. See http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/index-by-topic/roman-catholicism-issues/ for issues with the Roman Catholic Church.

  43. Интересно, а почему так редко блог обновляете?

  44. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ translated Unsepsystymn’s comment: “Интересно, а почему так редко блог обновляете?”
    as:
    “It is interesting, and why so rarely [blog] you do renew?”

    I’m sorry. I try to make a post at least once per day. Perhaps what ever you are reading to view my post is not showing you the newer posts?

  45. Благодарю!!!У Вас часто появляются очень интересные посты! Очень поднимаете мое настроение.

  46. http://babelfish.yahoo.com translated Unsepsystymn’ comment:
    “Благодарю!!!У Вас часто появляются очень интересные посты! Очень поднимаете мое настроение.”
    as:
    “I thank!!! In you very interesting posts frequently appear! Greatly you raise my mood.”

    I’m glad I could help. :)

  47. Как говорится.. Не дать не взять, зачётная статья!

  48. http://translate.yahoo.com translated нежный’s comment
    “Как говорится.. Не дать не взять, зачётная статья!”
    as
    “As the saying goes. Not to give not to take, final article!”

    I hope that means you liked the article. :)

  49. Слушай, ты долго такой пост сочинял? Жутко интересно….

  50. layelmNefly’s comment is translated by http://babelfish.yahoo.com as:
    “Listen to, you for long this post did write? It is terrifically interesting….”

    I am glad you enjoyed the post. The research took me a couple of days, but it did not take long to actually write.

    Let me know if you would like me to write on other topics.

  51. wb, I believe you would benefit if you read my page on my blog. It’ll be available after Pasch.

  52. I am a protestant who is looking into the difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthadox. I am very confused. I have been an apostolic Pentacostal for about 15 years and have found how judgemental the protestants are. They all beleive “IF YOU DO NOT BELEIVE OUR WAY YOU ARE GOING TO HELL” I do not beleive that. I went and spoke to a preist at a Roman Catholic church and his outlook was way different. All about love thy neighbor and the lord is first above all things. I really enjoyed talking to him and don’t know were my jurney will end up at just pray for me.

  53. Dear man on a Journey,

    I think God has made it clear: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength (Deuteronomy 6:5, 10:12, 11:13, 13:3, 30:6; Joshua 22:5; Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27).

    But God also said something else in John 3:14-18,

    14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

    and in John 3:36

    36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.

    The point is that If you believe the Son of God (Jesus) was sent by God to save the world and that those who believe in Him will have eternal life, and those who do not believe are condemned.

    As for you having experienced some pentecostal folks who were judgmental, I thought I’d say: I think its easy to be judgmental. I’ve found people of all denominations, including Roman Catholic, who are judgmental. But by the same token, I’ve found people of all denominations who are NOT judgmental. All denominations have some doctrines right and others wrong. Some are more right than others. I pray God will make clear where HE wants you to be.

  54. Greetings, WB, long time no hear? We got busier after some layoffs…not me, praise the Lord!

    To Man on a Journey, I am a Catholic, have been for 4 years after being a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, and not much of anything.

    I became ‘not much of anything’ because I found out that, if the particular denomination you attend preaches something that you don’t like, it’s just so easy to change denominations. Then I found out that the Baptist church on this corner doesn’t teach the same thing as the Baptist church down the street. This is why I fell away. I WAS anti-Catholic.

    I became Catholic because I found out that the Catholic Church has taught the same essential articles of faith for 2000+ years. Based on the knowledge that Jesus taught-that God loves everybody equally. And if you are really Catholic, meaning you believe and have faith that all that she teaches is true, then there is no other true faith. We have come to believe that all denominations of Protestants have some of the truth, but we are the full deposit of all the truth.

    Jesus taught us to love everyone, to hate their sins, but to put their sins aside and love each person.

    WB is right that there are judgemental people everywhere, including in the Catholic Church. We think these people don’t live their faith very well. But we try to let God be the judge of that! If you’re interested in learning what the Catholic faith is all about, visit my blog (shameless plug) rootofjesse2.wordpress.com and catholicscomehome.org for more information.

  55. Hi David,

    I’ve been busy also – some with life and some with work. I too praise God that you weren’t laid off.

  56. I agee with much of your post here, however the historical element is always underplayed too often. These issues are not always cut and dry. We must seek and try to put ourselves in the historical time. This means constant study!

    And even the Orthodox see the Roman Bishop & Church – at least some early history – as in the place of certain leadership. Too many early historical documents to deny this!

    Fr. Robert (Anglican)

  57. My understanding was the Roman bishop was given a place of respect because of its political influence, but the bishops were still considered to be at the same level, and all bishops had to come together to agree upon or refute doctrine, and that no one bishop had power to set doctrinal positions for all. Am I missing something?

  58. I would agree with your or the line here somewhat, but also the history of the Roman Church and the bishop of Rome were seen early as connected to both St. Peter and St. Paul. Their martyrdom, etc. See 1 Clem. 5. Also St. Ignatius use words (Rom.4:2) which suggest the Peter and Paul were Apostles of special authority for the Roman Church, and see also St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1. 2;3. 3.1). Thus the real place of respect is not just political.

    Fr. Robert

  59. WB, Fr. Robert, I see it this way. Peter was an apostle just like the other twelve. They were equals. But Peter had a special charism given by the Holy Spirit to answer the question correctly, when Jesus asked “Who do you say that I am?” When Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Holy one from God, Jesus changed his name (a significant act in biblical times), and proclaimed him the Rock upon which the Church would be founded. This is where papal primacy comes. The pope is first among equals. If there is a dispute among bishops, it is the pope who would settle the question definitively, as Peter did in the Acts of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter was also the one who gathered the apostles to name a new apostle to replace Judas.

  60. David,
    You wrote, “proclaimed him the Rock upon which the Church would be founded. ”

    I disagree. I think it is upon Himself (and the faith Peter exemplified) that Christ founded His Church. Yes, all the Apostles were foundational stones, but Peter was no more a foundational stone than any other Apostle. But Christ is the cornerstone – to which Paul and Peter both testify.

    Ephesians 2:20
    built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

    1 Peter 2:4-8
    4 As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him – 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for.

    No, no one apostle was more important than the others.

    First among equals indicates respect, not power. And the early church did not even say THAT. They simply came together to discuss what God was doing. And if you notice in Acts 15, it was NOT Peter who put an end to the discussion – he was simply one person who spoke that Luke mentioned of a group of people discussing the issue. After the discussion and the stories of the evidence of God working in the ministries of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles, it is JAMES who ended the discussion with HIS judgment (Acts 15:13-16). THIS indicates leadership.

    You wrote, “Peter was also the one who gathered the apostles to name a new apostle to replace Judas.”
    And no one heard anything more of HIM, while CHRIST chose the replacement for Judas, who was Paul. And Paul was instrumental in the foundation of the Church.

  61. There’s a reason why Peter was always named first. There’s a reason that the phrase ‘Peter and the other apostles’ was used. There’s a reason Peter witnessed the transfiguration and was named first among the three. And there’s a reason why the resurrected Christ asked Peter three times if he loved him, and commanded him ‘feed my sheep’. And there’s a reason Jesus changed his name from Simon to Peter.

    The reason? Because Peter was first among equals.

    Acts tells us that the replacement for Judas was Matthias.

    WB your interpretation of Matt 16:18 conflicts with the interpretation of it from the first 1500 years of Christianity. But that’s to be expected. You guys interpret many other things differently. Witness your interpretation of Acts 15. Which is how we have 35,000 denominations of Protestant. I wonder, by what authority do you change the meaning of scripture?

  62. David,

    Thanks, I am not unaware of the Papal Dogmas. I was a Roman Catholic Benedictine monastic (England) for many years. I am in my late 50′s now. But I am an Anglican with certain reformed theological elements at present. But I hope seeking some humility in Christ!

    I would agree with wbmoore’s post. WE must let Holy Scripture decide, and not any form of church history overtly. Though of course the historical is very important…the Incarnation, etc. 1 Tim. 3:15-16, The One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church! (All the elect people of God!)

    Also St. Paul is certainly the greatest theologian of the Church! His great “charism”! (Eph. 3:1-4)

    Fr. Robert

  63. WB, another proof of Peter’s primacy, in Luke 22:31-32, just before he denies Jesus, Jesus tells him:

    “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat,
    but I have prayed that your own (singular Peter) faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” (of course bold and parenthesis mine.)

    Jesus’ prayer for Simon’s faith and the commission to strengthen his brothers anticipates the post-resurrectional prominence of Peter in the first half of Acts, where he appears as the spokesman for the Christian community and the one who begins the mission to the Gentiles (Acts 10-11).

  64. Actually, Peter is NOT always named first.
    Galatians 2:9

    9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

    But even if he WERE named first always, this does not necessarily indicate position, but familiarity.

    Peter was not the only one who witnessed the transfiguration – so did James and John. These were the three closest disciples. So this can not be used to indicate position.

    The reason Christ asked Peter three times if he loved Him and then told him to feed his sheep was that Peter had denied Christ three times when Satan sifted him. So this can not be used to indicate position.

    Acts 1 tells us that Peter said Scripture tells us the place of Judas should be filled. And that the lot was cast and it fell to Matthias. I think it was a case of Peter moving ahead of the Holy Spirit. It is CHRIST who chose Paul as an apostle, just as He had the rest of the apostles.

    My understanding of Matthew 16:18 only conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church teaching of that verse, not with the Orthodox teaching of it – which has been around as long or longer than the Roman Catholic Church. My understanding of Christ as the foundation stone, rather than Peter, agrees with scripture. I’m OK if churches disagree with me, as long as I am led by the Holy Spirit and what I state agrees with Scripture. If my understanding is not what SCRIPTURE says, then by all means, please show me in Scripture where I am wrong, because I need to line up with what God has stated.

    I’ve written on this subject elsewhere:
    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/what-rock-did-jesus-build-his-church-upon/
    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/peter-and-the-rock-2/

  65. Fr. Robert, no doubt here about Paul being the theologian, but that doesn’t diminish Peter’s primacy. You know we’ve had theologians, pastors, teachers, and those with other charisms as pope, all as God sees fit.

    Regarding historical teaching, this is how the Church keeps herself in line. Taking what those closest to the apostles had been taught, and passed down, from age to age. It’s also how they decided canonicity of the scriptures. Peter was seen very early on as the prime apostle, the one whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

  66. David,

    I like the idea that the encourager is the leader, but I think you will often find this is not the case. The leader is often encouraged by someone else with dynamic faith. I LOVE Peter and how he stepped up and spoke out, how he seems to have always tried, even if he messed up (it gives me hope for myself). But I dont see him being more (or less) of a leader than James, or John, or even Paul.

  67. BTW,

    David, I’m enjoying this. Thanks.

  68. “which has been around as long or longer than the Roman Catholic Church. ” Can you explain this? Since the Catholic Church was founded on Pentecost 33 AD 50 days after Christ rose from the dead, how is it possible that the orthodox teaching has been around longer?

    WB, I always enjoy understanding my faith better. You make me think, and read more, and knowing our Lord more is always a great thing. This isn’t really arguing, I think you really try to understand.

  69. David,

    Well, the Orthodox Catholic Church holds to being founded at the same time as the Roman Catholic Church (Pentecost 29-34, I’ve read differing dates and each seems to have some valid points). But in fact, the RCC formerly became a separate denomination at the formal split of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

    Now, either they were both formed at Pentecost, or they were both formed when the split occurred, or one of them was formed at Pentecost and the other was kicked out or split away causing its foundation. *shrug* I think its a matter of perspective as to how one views that and expresses it. I think they started at the same time and formerly separated at the same time (not necessarily the same thing). So I see them as being equally aged :). I don’t belong to either one, so have no energy invested in which it is/was. But that’s why I said as long or longer.

    I KNOW I’m weak in church history. Its why I rarely get into these discussions concerning things outside the Bible. But when I do, I have to go read and read so I have an understanding to be able to discern what occured. I prefer to read from the perspective of each side involved, so I can get a fuller understanding of the issue. But that’s why I asked Father Robert if I was missing something.

    I may not agree with you on certain points. But I DO try to understand. And people I have not agreed with in the past have had the ability to point out something I had missed in scripture which turned me around, so I’m not a lost cause. Plus, it makes me think, and points me back to God and His Word, and I can think of nothing better.

  70. We believe Jesus founded one Church, gave the keys to Peter, and from there it went. I believe the Orthodox believe the same thing. We all believed, for a time, 830 years or so…that the pope is the successor to Peter. The Catholic Church still does. The Orthodox broke from that. So it seems they are the offshoot. I am not getting into why they split. But this became the Greek Orthodox Church.

    Regarding Peter being named first, he is always named first in the Gospels, and first half of Acts.

    Regarding the primacy of the Church of Rome, Iranaeus in Against Heresies Book 3 Chap 3 says “”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 succession 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 [of Rome], 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”

    I know you do, WB, that’s why I like working out my brain and research skills with you!

    God bless!

  71. Very interesting. I’ll go find the quote, to get a better perspective on it. thanks!

    But I thought the church at Jerusalem was oldest.

  72. It was, but Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. Which forced the Church to spread, a good thing for all of us. :)

    While you’re at it, look up Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Romans, the introduction. He lived from 50AD to 117, a disciple and auditor for St. John the apostle.

  73. Also remember that there were 5 Patriarchies-Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage and Rome. But because Peter went to Rome and died there, and Paul died there too, and because of our belief of Matt 16:18, Rome is the first among equals…and the only one of the 5 which still exist as churches.

  74. I have my answer on the church at Jerusalem, from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_in_Christianity

    “The Acts of the Apostles and Pauline Epistles show James the Just, the brother of Jesus, as leader of the early Jerusalem church. He and his successors were the focus for Jewish Christians until the destruction of the city by Emperor Hadrian in 135.”

    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Jerusalem

    “As a result of the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136), the persecution of Jews by Roman authorities in Judea increased. Most of the Jewish and Christian population of Judea was enslaved and dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, and the importance and place of the Church of Jerusalem in the life of the Christian Church diminished; though a Jewish and Christian remnant always remained in the city and the land.”

    Iranaeus would have written about 180AD, after the destruction of the church at Jerusalem. So now I understand something of the history regarding what he wrote.

  75. Well, be careful with Wikipedia…I use it too, but always try to verify…I think the destruction of the temple in 70 and the siege of Masada in 72 really started it. I think it was Nero that engineered those, and got things started. He also killed Peter and Paul. It’s really an amazing story how the Romans kept, for 300 years, trying to wipe out Jews and Christians, but how strongly the faith grew. And think about how persevering those Christians were to stand up for their faith even in the face of death! I wonder if I can be that strong??? I used to think they were crazy for dying for an idea, but boy has my attitude changed!

    But read the bottom article a little further and you see that there has always been a patriarchate at Jerusalem. The GO claim the succession, but for 800 years they were us…:) notice how the history there ends about 600 or so???

  76. David,

    I am not sure the issue is the “primacy” so called of St. Peter. As it is both St. Paul and St. Peter, both Apostles.

    But my point, as I refered to Scripture (Eph.3:1-4), that St. Paul was the only Apostle to the Gentiles or Nations. And thus this is still the case, this is part of “revelation”, but also part of St. Paul’s lasting stewardship (oikonomia, Gk). The only real lasting “charism” of both St. Paul and St. Peter is their Apostolic Letters…Epistle. And of course the historical revelation of the Book of Acts.

    In the end, Scripture alone is the “tradition” of God’s revelation! (2 Thess. 2:15 / 3:6)

    Fr. Robert

  77. Fr. Robert, Church came well before scripture, so how could Scripture Alone fly? And if Scripture Alone was the rule, how come we have so many denominations of churches, especially when Jesus said there would only be one church, His church?

    Iranaeus, in Against Heresies (189 AD): But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

  78. David,

    You did not answer my biblical argument, St. Paul “apostle of the gentiles or nations”, etc.? But, Holy Scripture itself has its own “tradition”, in that as it was given…OT to the New: “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers (various) portions and in divers (various) manners, Hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his (lit. Gk. a Son)..” (Heb.1:1-2 R.V.) Also verse 8, “But of the Son , Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of unrightness is the sceptre of His kingdom.”

    Indeed, in the Apostolic Letters and Gospels we have this revelation. But even the Church is subject here! (2 Tim.3:16) Note in verse 15, for St. Paul it is “the sacred writings” which give wisdom unto salvation. The Church, very important, is still subservient as always a “pilgrim” Church! (See, the whole of the First Letter of Peter)

    Finally, we must see as in the Book of Acts.. a Church that is making the transition from the OT only, to the NT reality and fulfillment. See also this transitory action of the Law, in the Letter to the Hebrews…(Heb.7:12).

    It is “covenant” first, then Church. WE must learn to think in Scripture!

    Yours beloved,
    Fr. Robert

    PS My youngest Son, almost 13 is named David. Born when I was 46!

  79. “Church came well before scripture”

    Wow! What a statement.

    Lets see, revelation comes from God. This was passed on to others directly and indirectly.
    Inspiration is the communication of the truth that God revealed. Inscripturation is the writing down of the truth God has revealed. Illumination is when God helps us understand the message HE has communicated. I wrote a post on this you might want to look at for slightly more info.

    In fact, we had scripture, in the form of the Old Testament, before there was a church. We had the teaching of God in the form of Christ and the Apostles who learned from Christ before there WAS a church. Christ revealed God’s truth, in some cases He merely repeated what had already been inscripturated (ie. Matthew 21:42, 22:29, 26:54-56; Mark 12:10, 12:24, 14:49; Luke 4:21, and others), and in other cases, He was explaining scripture (ie. Luke 24:27, 24:32,24:45) – while the Apostles and teachers communicated some of that truth to everyone, in some cases while still meeting in synagogues. The New Testament teachings were originally revealed to the human authors and they were inspired to write it down as a form of instruction, inscripturated it, as the number of believers grew – in letters. God determined what should be written, and what should be preserved. The church did not choose what should be considered scripture, they merely agreed with God.

    In Acts 8:35, Philip explained scripture.
    In Acts 17:2, Paul explained from the scriptures.
    In 1 Corinthians 2:13-14, Paul tells us he taught the words of the Spirit, and that people who do not accept what he said were without the Spirit.
    Even Peter called what Paul taught scripture, in 2 Peter 3:14-16.

    Churches, and church leaders, worldwide create teachings that can not be found in the Bible, or twist scripture to try to make what it seems to say something different than what it really says. They were doing it while the Apostles were still around (Titus 1:10-11). And as Paul wrote, in Titus 1:9, we “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught.” We get this message from what GOD has communicated, the Bible. We need to be illumined by the Holy Spirit to be able to understand what God has said. The HOLY SPIRIT must teach us (and no such teaching will be contrary to what God has already revealed), and we must be accepting of what God’s word says, and obey. Many times, we are not open to what God’s word says, or to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Or if we are, we later turn our backs on God and what He has said. This does not mean God is wrong – but that we are self-willed, self-seeking, stubborn, and rebellious – humanly sinful.

    Iranaeus wrote about 100 years after the Apostle John died. It is certainly possible he had it 100% right. But it is also possible he misunderstood some things – just as the supreme court of the US has interpreted things not based upon what the laws’ authors meant, or upon the constitution which they are supposed to uphold, but from their own experiences and traditions and practices of the day – sometimes even claiming it is what the founding fathers of the country meant. While judges may be right in their rulings, they might also be wrong – we need to go back to the founding documents. In the same way, Christians need to go to the BIble and read it for themselves – and so few actually do so.

    If anything taught in any church is contrary to what God has written (considering all passages related to the subject), then that teaching is wrong.

  80. wbmoore,

    Nice post! My point too in stating the “covenant” of God, which came first in the OT. Also even as St. Paul writes down his given “revelation” and stewardship, he always has his eyes, heart & mind on the Judeo Scripture…OT. (2 Tim.1:3 / Rom.16:25-26).

    I await our brother David thoughts… I was born in Dublin Ireland, baptised Roman Catholic, and rasied as such. I know the “line” and many of the arguments. However, the idea of the Reformation, that the Scripture alone must always reform the Church, is still true, and most applicable/capable!

    Thanks mate.

    Fr. Robert

  81. Fr. Robert,

    Thank you.

    I agree with you. Paul always kept what had already been inscripturated in mind, reconciling what was revealed to him with what was illumined and then put into practice in everyday life. We see this in 1 Corinthians, where Paul has to chastise members of the church at Corinth for not chastising someone who had his father’s wife – this points back to the moral code laid out in the Old Testament.

    I grew up in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but honestly recall very little of what the “Church” taught back then – merely how certain things were practiced. I HAVE researched certain doctrinal positions the RCC, and find they had added to or ignored Scripture in certain areas. But I have no ill will towards it. I think its doctrine is correct in many areas. I just find I must always return to what God has said in His word.

    David has a fine mind. I enjoy discussing this with him. But the main area of our disagreement seems to be whether the church has a position above what God has written, or vice-verse, in terms of doctrine. For me, the hierarchy is always God, what God has said, and what God’s people say about what God said. But people can be mistaken for a variety of reasons, and we always have to return to what God has said.

  82. wbmoore,

    Again, we are on the same page. I like your posts, reason and scripture logic.

    I too have no ill toward my RCC Brethren. I was Benedictine for several years, with mostly good memories. One of the reasons I married late, plus a military career…always the Royal Marine! But I am an Anglican (for many years) mostly low church, but I do see Mary as the Theotokos. I am very Trinitarian also, the doctrine of the Triune God is little understood today. The Church always needs her spirituality centered here! (Eph. 2:18)

    Yes, I can see that David and you are friends…wonderful. I respect true conscience and any real biblical search. In the end only the regenerate mind can please and understand the things of God. (1 Cor. chap.2) Though always with much human imperfection, (Rom.7:13-25).

    Forgive me if my blogs are short, I catch it…”hit and miss” at times. I have been off my blog for over a year. Just now getting back.

    Looking forward…

    Yours,
    Fr. R.

  83. (I said scriptures before, I meant ‘Bible’)

    WB, what was the Bible before it was defined? Can you define the Canon of 1 BC? How about the canon of 33 AD? When was the first book of the New Testament written? When did Jesus declare his church? Jesus told his apostles and disciples to go out and preach rather than to go out and write. I don’t believe even Paul expected his letters to carry on to today.

    Paul even received all of his revelation through transmission, not through reading, although he knew the OT as a Pharisee.

    In this way, the Church came before the Bible

  84. WB, they didn’t learn things in ECF times like we do today (where we can hear it once or read it and totally misinterpret).

    The disciples of the disciples were good students, and scrutiny of what they wrote compared to what Jesus taught in scripture bears that out. You are right that the first test of any teaching is that it has to agree with scripture, or at least not disagree. Same thing with all of the Church Councils, and all of Catholic doctrine. They must agree with scripture, and the teaching of the early church. And they do!

  85. David,

    Excuse me, then what do we do with the East & West divide…Orthodoxy verses Roman? I personally believe, as the East in the “regal” nature of the Father in the Godhead. But, I don’t follow them everywhere, like their lack of proper, biblical Imputation of sin. Here I am always Augustinian.

    Yours,
    Fr. Robert

  86. Its a nice thought that the disciples of the disciples got every thing right, but if that were the case, much of the new testament would not have been written.

    As for the church and the canon, the church leaders did not create the Bible, they merely agreed with God concerning what He had written. Sometime church leaders get it right, and sometimes they dont – because sometimes they allow themselves to be led by God and sometimes not.

    In terms of primacy, they cant both be right. I think sometimes the orthodox have it right, and the romans do not (married vs unmarried priests, for instance), based upon what Scriputre states. I think in some areas, Rome has it right and in other areas, I think they are both wrong.

  87. As for Paul, I think some of his teaching clearly points us back to the moral code found in the old testament, while other teachings clearly were revelations.

  88. wbmoore

    Well said! What do you think of “Theonomy”? As C.S. Lewis said, “in reality every real Christian is really called upon in some measure to ‘enact’ Christ.” And as you note, this moral code or idea is first found in the Old Covenant.

    Since I don’t have the time, I would love to see a sound Christian blogger take up the issue of Mary as Theotokos. Does such interest you? She really does belong to Christology!

    Yours,
    Fr. Robert

  89. WB, the Holy Spirit guides the Church Jesus founded, and that’s the key here. Jesus told us that he built his Church on Peter, the Rock, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and sent the Holy Spirit as our guide to the truth.

    And it’s the Holy Spirit that guided the ECF to the canon. The canon developed over time. There were lots of written materials available, but how did we know which ones to chose?

    To answer the question, bishops got together and hammered it out, at the same time hammering out doctrine. Doctrine developed at the same time as the canon. But if there were no canon, where did the doctrine come from? The answer to that is ‘apostolic tradition’ guided by the Holy Spirit.

    So by saying that the ECFs got things wrong, you’re laying open the possibility that the very canon of the New Testament could be wrong.

    Tradition is clearly part of the development of doctrine. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, ‘And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.’

    There were three main qualities used by the early Church to decide which books belonged in the New Testament: apostolicity, catholicity, and orthodoxy. Did an apostle write the book or did it have apostolic authority backing it? Was it used in the majority of the churches founded by apostles? And did it conform to the traditions faithfully passed on by the apostles? The criteria of apostolic tradition was the determining factor. When the episcopal successors to the apostles were exercising their offices in the form of ecumenical councils, the Holy Spirit kept them free from error. This goes for not only when they determined which books belonged in Scripture, but also when they determined Jesus was both fully man and fully God, as well as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and all of the other Catholic dogmas.

    The only way to know the Bible is the Bible is if the Catholic Church is correct. If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, then it is up to each individual Christian to decide, by relying on the Holy Spirit, which books belong in the Bible, if any, and not rely on the traditions of men like Martin Luther. However, history has shown this method produces a schizophrenic Christianity.

  90. David,

    I will not break into your discussion with wbmoore. But, I will say that Luther was no “schizophrenic”. I am not a Lutheran, but I do like much that Luther has written. And there are many fine books written, past and present on Luther…

    Just a few I like: Luther’s Faith The Cause of the Gospel in the Church, by a R.Catholic, Daniel Olivier.

    Luther’s Theology of The Cross, by Alister McGrath.

    Luther’s Theology of The Cross, by Walther von Loewenich. This is an older book.

    Finally, my favorite: and no doubt OP, but look still perhaps?
    Let God be God, An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther, by Philip S. Watson.

    Fr. Robert

  91. “Jesus told us that he built his Church on Peter, the Rock”

    I diagree with this statement. THe church was built upon Christ and the apostles and the faith they showed. Nothing you have shown me has changed my mind on this.

    I think God guided the church leaders in the forming of the New Testament canon. But like all men, some times they listen to God and sometimes they do not. The church agreed with God in this case as to what He had written.

    The Roman church and the Orthodox church were still one at that time – it was simply the church. It is my understanding that at that time, there was agreement as to which books were in the canon. Later, other books, which had been disputed and about which no agreement was reached (or previous disagreements were ignored) were added by differing groups.

    The only way to know which books were written by God is to be guided by God and to see if they are in disagreement with other things already agreed upon are from God.

  92. Fr. Robert,

    Thank you for the compliments.

    I had to look up theonomy. Its a huge topic. But I tend to think we need to allow God to work in us and we need to work with God in ourselves to become as much like Christ as we can. I think that just as there are laws of physics, there are laws of morality. Mankind has discovered some of these – for instance, aboriginal tribes across the world all recognize the need to not murder people or steal from people – they differ their definition of people (ie. some believe that if you are not of our group then you are not people). When mankind tries to make rules of behavior that move away from what God has laid out, it seems to me those societies begin to crumble.

    Mary as Theotokos. I’d have to research it. I dislike the English translation, Mother of God, because it leaves the unitiated believing that is not so – that Mary gave birth to God. I believe Mary was the mother of the human incarnation of the second person of the trinity, the Son of God (Jesus), but is not the mother any part of the divine God-head (who is outside time, having created it).

  93. wbmoore,

    If you check the history of Theotokos, and certainly the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus (431, Against Nestorianism). There we see the declaration of this Council was primarily to ensure the truth about the Incarnation and about the incarnate Lord. Thus Mary as Theotokos is a safeguard in reality to the truth about Christ. She is not the Mother of the Godhead, but the Mother of God Incarnate. This is as far as the Council really goes. But Mary the Mother of the Lord, is certainly a moral agent herself in the Incarnation, as the second versicle and response of the Angelus tells us. She is not a passive instrument: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to Your Word.”

    Finally going beyond Nestorius, the Church must insist that Mary was not only Christotokos, the Mother of Christ (only man), but Theotokos, the Mother of God, not just the mother of a man with whom the eternal Son formed a specially close partnership but the giver of human nature to God himself, since He who took human nature in her womb and to whom she gave birth was none other then the Second Person of the Holy Trinity!

    Can we say too, as Elisabeth…”Who am I, that the mother of the Lord has come to me? (Lk.1:43) Amen, all the redeemed can join in this!

    Yours,
    Fr. Robert

  94. Fr. Robert, Luther was a clergyman, and I respect all clergy, whether or not I agree with them. I didn’t say Luther was a schizophrenic. But for well over 1500 years there were basically two Christian religions. Luther came along, and his cohorts in other European countries, and added several more, but they were basically Catholic without some pieces. Now we have 30-40,000 different denominations. And Jesus said he would build his church (singular, not plural).

  95. PS… See also the Council of Chalcedon (451). And read also St. Cyril of Alexandria on this subject. It certainly become orthodox, in both the East & West.

  96. Fr. Robert.

    Thanks for your explanation. I see what you are saying regarding Theotokos. And I don’t disagree in the slightest, given the way you have explained it. I just find the language very specialized and without the understanding of the history behind the term one can easily be confused as to what is being said. This is part of why I dislike Christian-speak – the uninitiated have no way of understanding what is being said.

    Perhaps I WILL do a post on it. I’d like to take that Christian-speak and make it understandable to the average person.

  97. wbmoore,

    Yes, indeed…work this up. We need to understand the things of God! So many are fast to place this, “the Theotokos”, in the High Church camp. But in reality Calvin, Luther, and later even John Wesley held to the position.

    Thanks my brother.

    Fr. R.

  98. WB, you may not agree, and I respect that, but it’s what the church believed for nigh on 1500 years. It’s what the Church Fathers said, and we have a complete line of succession from 33AD to the present. Why do we have this record if it wasn’t true? Seems all falsehood drops away into obscurity pretty quickly…

    “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name, Peter, itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

    From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

    As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it.” This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

    The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation of the church. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

    In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

    So I’m not disagreeing that Christ is the rock, the cornerstone, but he’s the invisible. Peter and his successors are the visible head of the Church on Earth.

  99. WB, reading your understanding now of Theotokos, and your statement about understanding history, you have hit the nail on the head. If we study history, the history of the Church of Christ, from that first Pentecost to now, you will see many, many things. I urge you to keep studying.

    I was raised Evangelical, then Presbyterian, then Baptist, then Methodist, and learned my history, but when I came back to Christ and opened the wealth of knowledge of the writings up through history, it became clear to me. When we go to Mass we are in the real presence of Jesus. He’s there, sacrificing himself for us. This Church is the only 100% true church. That statement in no way says that all others are false. For all who believe and worship Christ have some of the truth. I’m here trying to show you all of it.

    I will need to probably leave the debate alone for a while, as I’m taking my wife on a trip to the South Pacific, and need to make sure all my work is tied up in pretty packages before I leave. I will come back.

    God bless you.

  100. wbmoore,

    For me Christian-speak is simply theology. One must wade in and get wet! lol Course I am a theolog. But I wasnt always so.

    Yours brother,
    Fr. Robert

  101. David,

    Be careful when you use grammatical arguments, because there was no punctuation in the time of Christ. Punctuation can change the entire meaning of what is being stated. What follows is an example of what I mean.

    Dear John:

    I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy – will you let me be yours?

    Gloria

    Now compare the above letter with the one that follows.

    Dear John:

    I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be?

    Yours,

    Gloria

    A paraphrase of the passage in question shows what I am referring to,

    Jesus: “Who am I?”
    Peter: “You are Truth.”
    Jesus: “You are blessed for having been shown this. I will call you Truth, and I will build my church upon this Truth.”

    In the above example “Truth” can refer to Jesus (being Truth), the belief that Jesus is Truth, Peter (being called Truth). In the same way, in the actual passage in question Rock can mean Jesus, the believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or Peter.

    Because this passage IS in dispute, one MUST look at what the rest of Scripture states regarding the issue. The rest of Scripture is clear regarding who/what Christ used to build His Church – Himself and people who believe in Him.

    So while it might make sense to believe that Christ was speaking about Peter when He said, “upon this rock I will build my church”, it is more likely, given what the rest of scripture states, that He was speaking of Himself and the faith in Him that God gives.

    Again, while the Roman church claims the church has always believed Peter was the rock upon which Jesus founded His Church, this simply isnt the case. Otherwise the Orthodox church would not be in disagreement and they have been around as long as the Roman church.

    I found it interesting you chose to mention 1 Corinthians 3. In this passage, Paul speaks about how men are merely servants. We belong to Christ; we are God’s field, building, temple. Paul did not claim primacy over Apollos, but simply stated each person has his role in building the church. But it is Christ who is the foundation, with all the apostles and prophets being part of the laying of the foundation and the building of the temple, and all believers are spiritual stones. In 1 Corinthians 4:6 tells us not to go beyond what is written. It is not written that Peter was or should be head of the entire church.

    Ephesians 2:18-22 tells us the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles with Christ as the cheif cornerstone. Note, there is not sense of ranking among the prophets and apostles – only that Christ is chief.

    In Revelation 21, we see the wall of the city had 12 foundations (one per gate?) – and one would assume all the foundations were all of equal size and strength. No foundation is more or less important (or of higher or lower rank or position) than any other foundation. The same is true of the apostles.

    According to Scripture, all the apostles and prophets were the foundation stones – they were all at the same level. At different times different people have led various influential churches, but this does not mean those churches or their leaders are to hold a position of leadership over others. Influence is not leadership. Just because a person or a church is influential does not mean the church at Rome was head church, even if some believed you should follow the lead of the church at Rome. Some believe you should follow the lead of Willow Creek and Saddleback churches in the USA (and that they and their leaders can do no wrong), and afford every honor and respect to them. But this does not mean those churches nor their leaders are or should be considered first in rank. The same is true for the church at Rome.

    When I look at the whole of scripture, I see individual leaders of various individual churches. Each individual church has one or more leaders. I see apostles (church planters and pastors to pastors), elders, prophets, teachers, evangelists, etc. I see churches led by elders and assisted by deacons (and deaconesses, depending on how you translate certain passages). I see influential people in the church, but no one leader of all churches. I see leaders coming together to determine doctrinal points, but no single person who leads all the churches, nor an organization of churches and church leaders, other than informally.

  102. WB, very busy getting my job ready for me to leave (more work than if I didn’t go!), but let me leave you with this.

    I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m saying your interpretation does preclude what the Church believed and taught for 1500 years.

    Also, your belief that primacy makes Peter ‘the boss’ is wrong. He’s just first among equals. He is given special things to prepare him, like his presence at the Transfiguration. The Pope is just a bishop. He has the same qualities as all the other bishops, including guidance of the Holy Spirit. The ONLY thing a pope can do that another bishop can’t is speak for the whole church. If the Pope says ‘the Church says XYZ’, then it does. That’s what ex cathedra is all about. A bishop cannot speak for the whole church, but as a body of bishops in communion with the Pope, they can.

  103. Have a nice trip!

  104. David,

    I have a great respect for the Roman Catholic Church, at least in modern times. But, the whole premise of the Infallibillity of the Pope breaks down historically. Are we really to believe that every Pope always got it right from the Chair of Peter? Hardly, there is not space to get into every detail on a blog. But just look at Galileo, the Itailian astronomer. As too the case of Luther, etc.

    It is very interesting to note that the great Cardinal John Henry Newman, at first voted against the doctrine of papal infallibillity. Only after pressure, and some kind of majority vote did he capitulate.

    Just my thoughts my brother. Have a good trip, and God Speed.

    Yours,
    Fr. Robert

  105. PS…David, of course I refer to the First Vatican Council 1869-1870. And by the way, looking back myself at this – the vote was 533 to 2, most of the minority (those not in the conservative Ultramontanes) having abstained from voting. But not Newman, he was one of the two. The other was J.J. I. von Dollinger.

    The definition made clear that the claim of papal infallibility was “not from the consent of the church,” but it restricted the exercise of the right to those occasions when the pope spoke ex cathedra. The great problem with this is, when in the past or before this judgment, many popes certainly errored in both faith and morals!

    Fr. R.

  106. Fr. Robert,

    I would agree with you. But so many have no framework to be able to understand what is being said in the Christian sub-culture. I came to Christ after having grown up a Roman Catholic, but not really having faith, and then drifting into things of the occult for many years in my teen and young adult life. So when I became a Christian, I really had no framework for understanding what people who had been Christian a long time were saying. It made it difficult to understand. We tend to use so much specialized language that the uninitiated simply do not understand. I think it can cause people to remain babies, rather than mature in Christ.

    Once they begin to grasp the true message of the Bible, it becomes easy to incorporate teaching theological concepts to them.

  107. wbmoore,

    I am mainly speaking here to David, and those intellectual Roman Catholics. But, the great problem is also with the loss in the West, of a Judeo-Christian world-view. Even with those in the Church today, that are regenerate, there is this need! My point also with the “face” of postmodernism.

    Theology is really not pedagogical, but a part of the Judeo-Christian use to understanding. Thus a proper world view, and also epistemology.

    Fr. R.

  108. Good articles about Peter.

    http://vintage.aomin.org/ShotDown.html

    http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html – includes a quote from Augustine about the rock

  109. I think think this is good article about how church fathers view upond this rock etc.. vs it being peter directly him self.

    http://christiandefense.org/Debates.htm#MATT16

  110. [...] Thre are at least two recent posts about it: here and here, and here is something someone posted in a comment to me about it. This is what the Orthodox say concerning the title. Here is some of the history [...]

  111. Just wanted to see the minority position. Found it interesting although intelectually dishonest.

  112. Please, feel free to enlighten us!
    I’m not Roman OR Orthodox Catholic, so I have no vested interest in either position.

  113. I found this post listed on Google when I searched “when did the Greek Orthodox church separate from the Roman Catholic church?” My brother, a Protestant Christian, asked me this after we recently travelled for a holiday in Greece. My father-in-law is Greek, and we were visiting his country to appreciate its culture and traditions. I found several articles on the Google search results very helpful, including this one.

  114. I found this searching google for information on the split between the Catholic and Orthodox church. My family is Protestant and have been considering the Catholic faith for some time, but we can not come to terms with the Papacy within the Catholic church, and have begun looking into the history of the churches and into the Orthodox faith.

  115. Thank you for your article. I have enjoyed reading it. I am trying to find out when exactly the Catholic Church came into existence, and why it split off from the Church of Jerusalem.

    Somewhere and somehow the recorded teachings of the early Jewish apostles, directed by the Lord Jesus Christ got diluted by other sects.

    I’d like to know where the remnants from the Church of Jerusalem are today, who did not adhere to the Catholic doctrine.

  116. You’re quite welcome. The church of Rome existed when Paul wrote to the Romans, in the first century AD. Look at Orthodox Catholic history and Roman Catholic history to find your answer. I dont think we have the church of Jerusalem as existed in the first century, but I might be wrong. Good luck in your search.

  117. Wow! I love the discussions here. History, scriptures, wit.. Thanks..

  118. Thank you for your article! I am researching the religious and political disputes that led to the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church.

  119. I hope you find it helpful! :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers

%d bloggers like this: