Is Catholicism or Orthodoxy the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church set up by Christ?

Question

I know they were originally one body and both can trace their bishops back to Jesus and the Apostles but who was leaving whom. The Catholics claim the Orthodox abandoned Rome by not accepting the power of the Pope to unilaterally add the filioque and to rule the other bishops while the Orthodox claim the Roman bishop left the other four bishops and therefore left the true Church when it began unilaterally making decisions without ecumenical councils like they had originally. It is more complicated than that but that is my summary. I want to know what Catholics, Orthodox and I guess Protestants think about this. Who abandoned whom? I'm leaning towards the Orthodox explanation of things based on what I've read on both sides but if a Catholic can convince me then maybe I'll become Catholic. I am sure I am no longer a Protestant though. How could God's Truth be in individual interpretation that has led to thousands of separate denominations teaching contradictory things?

Answer 1

During life time of Jesus Christianity did not exist as a religion. It was after two hundred years of his death that it got organized into a faith by his name. Christianity spread as an organized religion after Constantinople decided to adopt a religion as the state religion. The division of churches is a development which is much later in history that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ himself.

Answer 2

I'll give the most simple answer I can.

Jesus Christ said "there shall be one fold and one shepherd." There is to be only one true Church. So which is it?

This question was answered very early on in Church history. Many doctrinal disputes arose in the Church and there had to be a final voice of authority.

Orthodox claim that final authority was the communion of bishops. However, the bishops frequently argued amongst themselves and could not come to an answer.

That's where the Bishop of Rome stepped in and settled the dispute. Rome had spoken.

God does not want bickering and factions in the Church. The Catholic magesterium is the final word in disputes and this is how Jesus wanted it to be.

Look at the Catholic and Orthodox today and you will find your answer still.

Orthodox bishops and patriarchs have actually excommunicated EACH OTHER and cannot settle their doctrinal and pastoral disputes. Where is the unity? There is no ultimate authority.

But when a dispute arises in the Catholic Church, the Pope settles it. End of story. Some Catholics may disagree, some bishops may even disagree, but no matter. When the Bishop of Rome speaks, the matter is settled and Christ has spoken.

Pax Vobiscum+

Answer 3

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, ) Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2). Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant. The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, ) By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26). The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, ) Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles. The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865) The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim. Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Answer 4

Both Catholics and Othodox are part of the same techniqually. Nethier split from the other. Basically the western tradition was latin and the eastern tradition was greek because when an Emporer of Rome died Rome split into the east and west that had there own emporer. The two churches had different points of view. They are both part of God's true church because they both can trace their roots back to Jesus and hell has not prevailed against them.

Answer 5

Neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy are the one true church, and I agree with you about the doctrinal bickering in the Protestant church. Those aren't the only choices. The early Catholic church abandoned the early Christians because they were Jews. After that, it's been in-fighting amongst the faithful, whether RC, Orthodox or Protestant. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, speaks of the olive tree, in which Jews are some branches and gentiles others. These two separate groups should have remained one church, worshiping God together in the name of Jesus (Yeshua), the Messiah.

As gentiles came to outnumber Jews in the 1st century, the drive for power began. It led to Jews who wanted to worship Jesus (Yeshua) being forced take an oath swearing that they would abandon every aspect of being Jewish, cultural and otherwise. It has also led to the annihilation of Jews over the centuries.

There is a group of people that is growing so rapidly worldwide that it's hard to keep up with. In the gentile community, it's the Messianic gentiles, and in the Jewish community it's the Messianic Jews. It is the restoration of the original church. If you're interested in it, I'd recommend the audio files from a congregation in Jerusalem (linked), beginning with Elhanan Ben Avraham's, "The People Known as the Early Christians."

My husband is a former Catholic, who became Protestant for reasons I won't go into. We were both disenchanted with the doctrinal battles there, until we began to study the roots of Christianity. When things become confusing, it's always a good idea to start at the beginning. In this case, the beginning is also going to be the end and the church will be restored.

Answer 6

Of course the Orthodox will say Orthodox, and the Catholics will say Catholics. All you have to do is read the canons of the Ecumenical Synods and you will have your answer. Which group actually preserves the traditions, doctrines and practices of the ancient Church?

Answer 7

as a Roman Catholic many orthodox churches are in Communion with Rome, the fact they don't accept some doctrines.. but they share the apostolic succession.. in many places the orthodox churches have survived in the middle east, before the Islam.. the ecumenical councils summarize the Catholicism in general.. but orthodox churches and roman catholic share the apostolic succession

Answer 8

Orhtodox Christianity is not about being eastern. It is about clinging to the truth Any church in comunion with Rome can not be Orthodox as to be in comunion iwth Rome one must hold to the view of papal infalibility and other western and Roman doctrine. I believe the Orthodox stance as the councils themselves wore conciliar. Peter may have had primacy but he used it to call the council of Jerusalem and not just simply make a unitateral decision. The fact Peter himself did not seem to be aware of the excathadra statement leads me to conculde that is a new invention. the colective athorty of the Orthodox church embodies Christ statement that the apostles were not to rule over each other so thi leaves a primacy of honnor where no Bishop is superior to another.

Answer 9

http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=the+great+schism&mh=25&type=keyword&bool=and
http://catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=orthodox

here are some articles that may help.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
i suggest you check out the church fathers section, from these writings we find that the catholic church of today is the same as it was back then,testimony to the first christians being catholic, you will also notice that these writings disclose the primacy of peter and the church in rome being the head church that other churchs were to be in line with. i could give you my opinions etc. but if you want to be convinced research the history and you will find the roman catholic church is the one true holy catholic apostolic church, the orthodox abandoned the roman catholic church.
try also http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

hope this helps and god bless.

Answer 10

not to forget!

One side spoke Greek, the other spoke Latin. Translators were rare to find, it was not an integrated world as it is today. Suspicions grew as documents were signed without proper translations, customs were left unexplained, and when Constantinople declared its separation from Rome, it would not be a surprise that the rest of the Eastern Patriarchs would follow the leadership of the side they understood.

The schism was sparked by a personal power struggle in Constantinople, but tensions built up beforehad from lack of communication. I´m sorry I forgot the names involved, it is perhaps no use fingerpointing anyway.

Answer 11

The answer is somewhat complicated, so this'll be long...

It's true that the early Church always believed in the existence of a single universal Church composed of a set of particular churches. According to Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD), the "credentials" of Church could be verified through a twofold test: (a) Apostolic succession through the bishops, of which the main illustration he used was the Roman succession from the Apostle Peter, which would then guarantee (b) the faithful transmission of Apostolic tradition (see also 2 Thess 2:15).

However, the traditionalism of the 2nd element did not mean mechanical repetition, but an organic development of the Faith as its understanding was deepened through the centuries (cf. the Commonitorium of Vincent of Lerins). By the time of the early Councils, this meant the use of both old & new philosophical terminology (e.g., homoousios, hypostasis) to define what Christians believed on the nature of God, Christ, and salvation; hence the progressively modified formulations of the ancient creeds (or "symbols"), as new questions and disputes arose.

Herein lies the 1st major Catholic-Orthodox difference, for by the mid-1st millenium, Western thinkers came to see a major, even fatal problem in the early theology of the Trinity: Given that the Divine Persons have one being and substance, so that They are distinguished only by their relations (the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten by the Father, etc.), then how are the Son and the Spirit to be distinguished if They both directly come from the Father alone? Also, if the Son is equal to the Father in Godhead, how can He not share the power to generate the Spirit?

When the western churches (and lastly, Rome) incorporated this insight/innovation into the Creed of Constantinople, the eastern churches viewed this as a corruption of the Faith of the Eastern Councils. This was strange, in view of the frank innovations made in those same Councils (one thinks that the East stopped favoring development when the West started doing the developing), but understandable if we remember how lowly the half-barbarian West and its theology was viewed by the civilized East. In fact, even before this doctrinal controversy had erupted, the East had declared canonical war on the West when, in the Quinisext Council under the East Roman Emperor, it condemned Western customs of prayer that differed from the Eastern and even sent an army to compel the Pope to submit.

This leads to the 2nd major Catholic-Orthodox difference: on the role of the Papacy. In the early Church, Rome was accorded a passive primacy (i.e., in "soft" power); hence Irenaeus' dictum that the whole Church must agree with Rome--"which presides in charity", according to Ignatius of Antioch. Active primacy (i.e., in "hard" power), however, was another matter; for while Eastern patriarchs like John Chrysostom, Athanasius, etc. would appeal to, and be championed by, Rome when beleaguered by secular and ecclesiastical politics, they would often resist Papal authority in other times. In practice, then, real control was held by the Emperor, who thus presided over the disagreeing bishops; and Rome, though given "primacy of honor", was a spare tire when it came to "primacy of jurisdiction".

The major break came when, in the Reform of the 11th century, the Church in the West attempted to break free of the State control that had characterized both East and West for centuries, which attempt meant, among others, a shift in central jurisdiction from Emperor to Pope. This was resisted in both East and West, for it amounted to revolution, and the established bishops didn't take kindly to the confrontational tactics of Reformers like Hildebrand and Silva-Candida. The East-West estrangement was formalized as a result, and the attempted unions of succeeding centuries failed because of Eastern hostility and Western stupidity--though the West would still send an army to help the East against Muslim attack as late as 1396.

In short, both sides share the blame for the separation; and yet, based on the foregoing, I'm of the opinion that there is still only one Church, with its main body centered on the Roman See, but with its particular churches jurisdictionally divided into several pieces; for Roman doctrine is more consistent with the tradition-development and faith-reason pattern of the early Church, and with its recognition of Papal primacy, of which universal jurisdiction is an organic but historically-influenced development. Nonetheless, one cannot deny the value of the conservatism of the East, which helps anchor the Church in times of intellectual ferment; hence Pope John Paul II’s fervent wish that the Church breathe at least with her two lungs.

Sorry for the length, but I do hope it helps. For further discussion, you could email me if you like, but in any case, God bless you.