HOLDING TO THE STANDARD OF CHRIST’S TEACHING:
THE ORIGINAL CHURCH
The original Church is difficult to find in modern America. With varying denominations that all confess different beliefs, it is perplexing to decide on one of them. Looking throughout history, there is one Church, split into Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and then divided into the Protestant Churches. The defining concept between these Churches is the faith they profess. The Christian faith was written down in the form of a creed at Nicea in the time of the Ecumenical Councils, which leaders in the Church used to define right belief from wrong. This faith and the fullness of it is foreign to many in the modern era. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church both recite their version of Nicene Creed in their services. It is essential to know which one rightly confesses the faith of the original Church and which one holds its legacy. The Church has the power and the authority to preserve truth[1] which it received from Jesus Christ.
Historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, in A History of the Expansion of Christianity, defined Christianity as “the continuation of the impulse given by the life, teachings, and death of Jesus, and by the convictions held by his immediate disciples concerning his resurrection.”[2] He argued that, throughout history, neither Christians nor the Church kept the founding principles of Jesus Christ. After his resurrection Jesus told his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”[3] In this commission Jesus provided his apostles with the basis for spreading Christianity and the charge to keep the faith as he delivered it. The modern desire to be like the New Testament Church shows an unquestioned belief in its purity, but the idea that Christianity did not have to defend its members or its doctrine against unbelievers and heretics is historically inaccurate.
Historian Justo L. Gonzalez, in A History of Christian Thought, provided Christian history by describing various heresies that confronted the Church and its action toward them.[4] The earliest heresy that the Church encountered was from the Judaizers, who believed it essential that Christians followed the law of the Old Testament.[5] A sect called the Ebionites[6] believed that Christ was not the Son of God from birth, but became divine because he kept the law at every point. They insisted that Jesus was not born of a virgin but was instead a prophet who received God’s powers at baptism.[7] The discrepancy between Christians and Jews arose because of the constant interactions between them at the Synagogue after Christ’s resurrection.[8] In that Christ is indeed the Messiah and Savior of the world, Christians needed to defend that fact and this turned out to be the precedent for all other challenges to the Christian faith. Still, never completely separating itself from its roots, Christianity considers itself a fulfillment of Judaism.[9] In addition to staying in the Synagogue, Christians met together the day after (Sunday) to confer baptisms and to celebrate the Eucharist.[10] Responding to the Jewish rebellion in 70 CE, the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and Christians never went back. The break between Judaism and Christianity was final. The Roman Empire now saw Christianity as independent from Judaism. Christianity had to ensure that Christ’s teaching would be upheld in history.
Gnosticism was a major heresy that led many people astray in the early centuries of the Church.[11] Gnostics argued that salvation was the “liberation of the Spirit which is enslaved because of its union with material things.”[12] Knowledge was the way to this “liberation,” yet it was a “mystical illumination.”[13] Gnostics made a distinction between matter and the spiritual in the world. They argued that matter was evil and spirit was good. These heresies consisted of “the doctrine of creation and of the divine rule over the world” (no good God would create evil matter), “the doctrine of salvation” (the body is a part of salvation – especially considering the resurrection), “and Christology” (Christ really did not have a body because he cannot inhabit something evil).[14] The Church confirmed that God was good and created everything. God saved the whole person, not just their spirit or soul. Christ had a real body – indeed, he was like humans in every sense.[15] The consequences of Gnostic dualism influenced the Church because it contradicted Christ’s teachings.
The constant disregard for the teachings of Christ led the leaders in the Church to come together and make formal statements that declared the teaching they received from Christ by establishing the New Testament Canon, the rule of faith, creeds and councils, and the emphasis of apostolic succession.[16] Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312 CE led him to become the protector of the Christian faith. He set the precedent for an imperial call for the Church to confront heresy by calling a Council so the bishops of the Church had an opportunity to meet and declare the faith that Jesus Christ founded. The seven ecumenical councils spanning 325-787 CE explained the Trinity.[17] More specifically, Jesus Christ was both fully human and divine,[18] having wills corresponding with each nature[19] in one divine person.[20] Councils defined the Trinity in a way that distinguished the three equal persons in the Godhead, while each abiding in the same essence.[21] Conciliar canons defined the structure of the Church, and established the ranks of the patriarchs of the Church. Patriarchal ranks came to a bitter contention at the Great Schism in 1054 CE. But in the first large split, the Oriental or Coptic Orthodox Churches[22] maintained that Christ existed as two persons, divine and human, while the rest of Christendom accepted the decision of the Council of Chalcedon.[23] The Seventh Council held at Nicaea in 787 CE condemned the iconoclasts. The rising political threat to the Byzantine Empire by Muslims and their demand of the absence of art in religion, iconoclastic Christians thought that the use of images in worship was wrong.[24] In addition to these, there are other Councils held by the Church, clergy, and laity as the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”[25]
In the Schism of 1054 CE between West and East, Papal authority and the filioque were two primary matters of dispute.[26] The Bishop of Rome supported adding the filioque to the Nicene Creed,[27] “who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and together glorified.” The use of the filioque arose in Spain in the sixth century in response to the barbarian invaders from the North who were Arians.[28] It spread in use throughout Europe without the demand or approval of the Bishop of Rome. The loudest proponent of the rejection of the filioque was Patriarch Photos of Constantinople. In 866 AD he made a statement concerning the filioque after finding out that Roman missionaries were evangelizing Bulgaria, as were priests were ministering to them under his jurisdiction. When they realized that they were not saying the same creed, Patriarch Photios regarded the filioque as another form of modalism, as it confused the persons of the Trinity.[29] Despite the numerous theological ramifications, the other matter that concerned the Eastern Churches was the authority of the Ecumenical Councils.
The tradition of the Church was that the only way to amend the Creed was by an Ecumenical Council, to not do so is to question Conciliar authority. No individual had the authority to define the Christian faith, not even the Bishops.[30] The Roman Catholic Church and her Bishops kept to the decision of the Bishop of Rome to excommunicate the Eastern Church, which did not accept the filioque. The Eastern Patriarchs, moreover, did not budge in its decisions.[31] The Fourth Crusade (1202-04 CE) brought an end to the hope for reunification when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople,[32] and the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church simply drifted apart in the succeeding years. The Roman Catholic Church did continue in its developing of doctrine and this led to the Protestant Reformation.
Martin Luther nailed the 95 Thesis to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral in 1517, beginning an unending reformation. The ‘creeds’ of the Reformation are the five solas: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo Gloria.[33] Absent from this list is any reference to ecclesiology, which leaves little room for keeping the charge that Christ gave to his Church to keep the faith undefiled. Reformers like Luther and Calvin rejected the supreme authority of the Pope,[34] as did the Orthodox, but for different reasons. Protestant theologians did not, however, agree with the Orthodox rejection of the filioque.[35] This, of course, made reunion with the Orthodox Church problematic. The acceptance of the filioque made it necessary for Protestants to remain within the same mental framework that Roman Catholics hold. The Protestants agreed on the importance of the existence of the apostolic Church but claimed that the Roman Catholic Church was not faithful to the apostolic faith.[36] They rightly rejected the Roman Catholic Church because of its abuse of doctrine, but a union with the Orthodox Church was not possible because it was deemed too foreign.[37] The Eastern mindset was completely different from the Western, as were the worlds in which they lived.[38] According to Protestants the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”[39] disappeared from the history of the Church,[40] and this was what Protestants set out to reclaim. However, if one broke from the line of apostolic succession that the Church always held, there is no going back. The apostolic faith still confesses itself in the form of the Nicene Creed, and that will never change.
The guardian and preserver of the Christian faith is the Church, both institutionally and individually. The Church is the communion of all Christians believing the same thing, the faith preached by Christ. The Orthodox take comfort in the authority and traditions of the Church. Orthodox Historian and Theologian, Alexander Schmemann, in The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, explored the origin of the Church and made a historical argument for the Church to be the original preserver of apostolic truth:
Thus all ministry in the Church, indeed her entire hierarchic structure, is rooted in her apostolic beginnings, this means that she is rooted in Christ Himself, since the apostles were His witnesses. The Church chooses her own ministers, but it is God Himself, through the hands of the apostles, who bestows upon them the special gift of the Spirit to perform their ministry.[41]
The power of God[42] operates in the authority of the Church through the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ taught the faith to the Apostles and them to their descendents. Yet in spite of what it seems the Church is not dead in this “traditionalism” but is a living organism[43] in which people devote themselves to God. Schmemann ultimately argued that the Orthodox Church stayed faithful to Jesus’ original teaching called the deposit of faith. [44]
Historian, Jaroslav Pelikan described the foundation of apostolic and Church authority in a more detailed historical context. The Church was consistent in both its practice and teachings, “the Church, possessing the sure tradition of the apostles, proclaimed the same doctrine in all times and in all places.”[45] The general consensus of the Church and heretics alike rejected relativism and accepted only one truth.[46]
With only a few latitudinarian exceptions, both heretics and the orthodox… were agreed throughout the controversies from 100 to 600 that there was only one true doctrine, which each party claimed to possess. The truth was one, and there could be no pluralism in its confession; one’s opponents were not merely espousing a different form of Christian obedience, they were teaching false doctrine.[47]
The Church fathers knew they had a responsibility to continue teaching the one unchanging faith.[48] They preserved the faith through their homilies and writings, and people heard it in the Divine Liturgy that they participated in every Sunday in their own language.[49] The Byzantine Empire did not struggle as the West did through a medieval period with illiteracy and the like – the average Christian was well acquainted with the tradition and beliefs of the Church.
Father John Meyendorff, in Byzantine Theology, emphasized the theological distinction in Church authority. It was, he argued, the Holy Spirit that made apostolic and Church authority authentic.[50]
‘New creation’ implies mission to the world; hence the Church is always ‘apostolic,’ i.e., not only founded on the faith of those who saw the risen Lord, but assuming their function of ‘being sent’ to announce and establish the Kingdom of God. And this mission receives its authenticity from the Spirit.[51]
He focused on the role of the Holy Spirit in leading the Church into all the truth.[52] He also brought tradition into the practical life of a Christian, explaining that Church authority and tradition are not tyrannical, or meant to remove freedom from the life of Christians.[53] But in the gradual separation of Eastern and Western Churches, uncondemned heretics rejected authority, tradition, and correct teaching as a whole undividable Christian concept.
Among the five apostolic sees of the Church, Rome was first among equals, and even before the schism, the Bishop of Rome developed this primacy into supremacy over all the other sees. Historian Hans Küng, in The Catholic Church, promoted the centrality of the Bishop as a result of historical development which was not “directly willed or given by Christ.”[54] The succession of Bishops from the Apostle Peter is the claim that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority. However, “Catholic theologians concede that there is no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in charge of the Church of Rome as Supreme head or bishop.”[55] Bishop Ignatius in 110 CE formally established three offices in the Church with specific duties and roles, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon.[56] However, Saint Augustine (354-430 CE), the most influential Western Church father, did not believe in Papal primacy. He retained that Christ was the foundation of the Church, rather than the Apostle Peter. The Pope, therefore, was not the supreme authority of the entire Church. Augustine held that Ecumenical Councils were authoritative and that “all bishops were fundamentally equal.”[57] Therefore, the Roman Bishop had no authority to claim primacy over all other Patriarchs or to insert the filioque into the Nicene Creed.
Catholic Historian Thomas Bokenkotter gave further reasons why Rome was in a position of authority in the early Church. Different from Kung or the Orthodox Church, he argued that apostolic succession from Saints Peter and Paul was an important facet of primacy. The Church had “pure apostolic doctrine.”[58] It was also the capital of the Empire, and being a wealthy Church, it was able to give assistance. But he agreed that the primacy of Rome developed because of political factors. In all practicality it was the capital of the Roman Empire and the world revolved around Rome. The primary responsibility of the Roman Bishop was to “convoke synods and to preside over the debates.”[59] That responsibility became supreme authority later, according to Bokenkotter. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, Constantinople became second in primacy after Rome because Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the empire.[60] Rome rejected this decision, and the tension between East and West grew.
Although this tension existed between the East and West, the schism occurred because of essentially two reasons. The Western Church adopted the filioque by officially adding it to the Nicene Creed in 1000 CE.[61] The only way to change the Creed was by an Ecumenical Council, which the Roman Pope ignored. To the Eastern Church, it meant that the Pope was claiming supreme authority over Ecumenical Councils.[62] The Eastern Church deemed this unacceptable. In a dialogue between the Bishop of Rome and Bishop of Constantinople, the Pope attempted to explain the excommunication of the Eastern Church.
Besides refusing the title of Patriarch to Cerularius both personally and as a bishop of Constantinople, the bull accused the Greeks of simony (the major vice of the Western Church at the time as [Cardinal] Humbert[63] knew better than anyone), of rebaptizing Latins (untrue), of allowing priests to marry (incorrect), of baptizing women in labor, of jettisoning Mosaic Law, of refusing communion to men who had shaven their beards (untrue), and finally, of omitting a clause in the Creed(!).[64]
Publicly, Roman representatives placed a papal bull of excommunication for Patriarch Cerularius and Emperor Michael Constantine and their followers on the altar of the Church of Hagia Sophia on Saturday July 16, 1054 CE.[65]
In spite of the wealth of time and development that East and West spent apart, Küng argued that Papal primacy is the “only serious obstacle” to reunion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.[66] The thought that the Roman Bishop was the spokesman of the Church and head of all other Churches under other jurisdictions came from a distortion of this verse: “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”[67] Throughout the history of the Church numerous holy fathers have had different beliefs about it, but the Eastern consensus, as set forth by Father John Meyendorff is that “Peter’s succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual.”[68] However, even if it was a charge to Peter alone, still, all bishops and those who share in his confession succeed with him in it. It is “ one holy Apostolic and Catholic Church” after all. In spite of this, Roman Bishops from 266-461 CE used this Matthew 16:18-19 to develop their claim to supreme authority. Apostles Peter and Paul both established the Church in Rome and in Antioch. Nevertheless, Pope Leo the Great (440-61 CE) supported the claim of the primacy of Peter as a “spokesman of the disciples”[69] and applied the secular Roman law of inheritance to the office of Pope. For example, if a Pope believed unorthodox doctrine it would be unlawful to remove him from office or remove his authority, in other words, the office of Pope is unconditional.[70] The consequence of an unorthodox Pope causes problems and abuses in the church, especially if such a Pope has infallibility.[71] In the excommunication of the Eastern and Western Churches, authentic apostolic succession remained with the Church that followed the Nicene Creed, the Orthodox Church.
Past the Schism of 1054 CE, nothing else in Christianity with the exception of the Orthodox Church is consistent within Christ’s teachings. Therefore, even though Protestants try to reclaim the original faith of the New Testament, coming out of the Roman Catholic Church still keeps them in the same framework. The Christian tradition teaches that there is one truth. Versions of the truth or differences in expression of the same faith confess relativism within the teachings of Christ. Saint Paul said in his letter to the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”[72] After the ascension of Christ, still in the days of the Apostles, the Holy Fathers gave the truth to the Church with the expectation of its preservation. The knowledge and practice of the truth had a firm apostolic foundation in the Church, it was not lost.
The first source of authority on truth that many people point to is the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the Apostles, most often being called the “Word of God,” but Christ himself the “Word” and the authority. “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”[73] The Holy Scriptures merely testify to the fact that Christ had authority and that he bestowed his authority upon the Apostles. Christians have the charge to be faithful to what Christ taught. Saint Paul stressed the community of believers, the Church, needed to “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.”[74] Paul instructed the Church using both written and verbal words. The Church bases its teaching on the truth of Jesus Christ both oral and transcribed. Written and verbal teaching are on the same level according to Paul, after all, they came from the same source, Jesus Christ.
For those who do not like tradition, the New Testament presented the word tradition in two contexts. The first mention of tradition is what Jews practice, according to the law. Christ scolds the Pharisees for traditions that “making the word of God of none effect.”[75] The traditions that Jews practiced were not necessarily bad, but the hearts of the Pharisees did not recognize it on more than an outward level. It was not because they believed the promises of God. Jesus said, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”[76] Christ focused the importance of purity and righteousness inward. The ceremonial cleanliness was only foreshadowing the cleanliness of the heart as the goal. The law pointed to Christ. The law was about being clean outwardly. Christ internalized it. The second context of the word tradition Paul writes is the tradition of God.
The tradition of God is the proper conduit through which to interpret Scripture. The Church serves as both the protector of tradition and Scripture. “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”[77] The Apostles, to whom Christ gave authority, proclaimed the authority of the Church, tradition and Scripture. If a person did not submit to the authority of the Church, they did not submit to Christ. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”[78] Those who reject that tradition do not, according to the Apostles or the holy fathers, commune in the body of Christ.
The writings of the Church fathers supported the truth of the Orthodox Church by explaining that those who opposed Christ and his truth were heretics. To refute heresies, it is essential to discern truth and error, “Of then the practical effects are false doctrines called in Greek heresies, a word used in the sense of that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them (to others) or takes up with them (for himself).”[79] Hippolytus, bishop of Rome (d. 235 CE), said that heretics can not claim succession from saints, but “their doctrines have derived their origin from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers.”[80] He presented countless Greek philosophers and astrologers and explained their flaws and how people have integrated their error into Christianity, making heresies. In turn he presented the point that the Church preserved Christ’s teaching, having the discernment to judge heretics and their doctrine.
The truth is that authority is from Christ, “In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ.”[81] Tertullian, a 2nd to 3rd century theologian – the first to write in Latin, taught that Christ sent the Apostles with his authority to preach the truth. Heretics claimed to have that authority, but the Church did not give them opportunity to propagate heresy. Heretics said that the Church strayed from the truth and preached their own ideas. In agreement with the community of believers, Tertullian argued that the Holy Spirit led the Church, and opposed the heretics claim that they had the apostolic doctrine.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth… that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles, – is it likely that so many churches should have gone astray into one and the same faith?[82]
The answer to that question is a resounding “no.” Tertullian even called on those who proclaimed a new doctrine to “produce the original records of their churches, let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first bishop] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some of the apostles or of apostolic men.”[83] The early church constantly combated heresies. Only the Church could authoritatively teach the truth.
Tertullian admitted that conflicting Scriptural interpretations are one source of heresy. Heretics destroy truth as much by adding or subtracting to Scripture as interpreting it wrongly.[84] “Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing.”[85] At the end of his Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian uses sarcasm to show the hilarity of heretical claims by using a hypothetical monologue from God to heretics:
I plainly forewarned you that there should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as that of prophets and apostles also; and to my own disciples did I give a charge, that they should preach the same things to you. But as for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed that you would believe me! I once gave the gospel and doctrine of the said rule (of life and faith) to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure to make considerable changes in it! I had promised a resurrection, even of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me that I might not be able to keep my promise! I had shown myself to have been born of a virgin; but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable thing. I had said that He was my Father, who is the Maker of the sun and the showers; but another and better father has adopted me! I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such (blasphemies), it is possible, do enter the minds of those who go out of the right path and do not defend the truth from the danger which besets it.[86]
The false teaching that confronted the Apostles and leaders in the original Church was obvious. The Church fathers defined the truth by opposing heresy, writing many treatises and attending the Councils of the Church. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 caused distress and a split among the Church with regard to Papal primacy. It is good that the Church had tradition in that erroneous interpretations of the apostolic writings would not come to fruition.
Saint Irenaeus, in his second century work, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, explained Christian history and the truth in light of Christ’s incarnation.[87] “This, beloved, is the preaching of the truth, and this is the manner of our redemption, and this is the way of life, which the prophets proclaimed, and Christ established, and the apostles delivered, and the Church in all the world hands on to her children.”[88] He presented the Apostles instruction in the faith, not only by living and experiencing Christ, but in Christ’s teaching recorded and unrecorded in Scripture.[89] “The apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world… and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established Churches.”[90] The teaching of the Apostles and the Church was from Christ and the Holy Spirit.[91] It is essential to keep the traditions that the Church received from them.
Saint Vincent of Lerins, a fifth century father who lived in the West, wrote that there are three tests to determine the truth and the Church. The first one is universality that the entirety of the Church believes uniformly; second, antiquity, the Church preserves the same faith our ancestors did; thirdly, consent, essentially all the leaders and laity of the Church agree.[92] “Moreover in the Catholic[93] Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”[94] The cry of the Orthodox Church is that “it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and in the Apostle’s words once and again repeated, to anathematize everyone who preaches any other doctrine that that which has been received [Gal. 1:9].”[95] St. Vincent declared that “novelties” in the faith are the most abhorrent ideas that heretics use against Christianity’s tradition. In proclaiming the faith by Ecumenical Conciliar decree, the Bishops always strived to destroy novelties so that they could encourage the faith of Christians. They “used all possible care to hand down nothing to posterity but what they had themselves received from their Fathers.”[96] This tradition is the teaching of Christ through the Apostles preserved and handed down to the Church.
Saint Cyprian, 3rd century theologian and bishop, was famous for saying in his treatise, On the Unity of the Church, “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”[97] In that heretics reject the Church, they will not find the way of salvation, “for we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently… they have forsaken the Head and Source of truth.”[98] He agreed with St. Vincent in that heretics are “false interpreters of the Gospel” and therefore separate themselves from Christ and the Church.[99] “The Holy Spirit forewarns and says by the apostle, “It is needful also that there should be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Thus the faithful are approved, thus the perfidious are detected.”[100] The apostles had the authority to teach and preserve the faith that they received from Christ and the Holy Spirit, and to separate the heretics from the faithful. This power still lies within the Orthodox Church, and by it they preserve the church and its teaching.
Saint Ignatius of Antioch (35-107 CE) wrote to Churches about the place of the bishop in preserving the truth of Christ. In the hierarchy of the Church, the Bishop is the “image of the Father” and the Presbyters[101] are the “council of God and the band of the apostles” and without these the Church does not exist.[102] Bishops share the mind of Christ, and Ignatius calls the Christian to be of the same mind of the Bishop so that they would know God.[103] Ignatius told the Church in Ephesus that they “are clearly obliged to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself,” as they are his representatives.[104] Ignatius said to the Philadelphians, “the Spirit was preaching, saying: “Do nothing apart from the bishop; keep your flesh as the Temple of God; love unity; flee divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ as he is of his Father.”[105] He reiterated this principle in all of his epistles. The foremost point of Ignatius was to keep Christians united and in submission to the Bishop as he represents Christ.
Clement, dates bishop of Rome 88-99 CE, wrote a letter calling Saints Peter and Paul “righteous pillars of the Church.”[106] They established several sees of the Church together, including Antioch and Rome. He explained the importance of the order of Church leaders, ministry and worship being pleasing to God by obeying his commands.[107]
And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”[108]
The Orthodox Church and the fathers claim that the faith that they teach and practice is not new. It is from Christ, and it does not change. Christians are taught to follow their Bishop. Even in the Didache, the teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the author adjured the readers to honor the Bishop and the presbyter who speaks the Word of the Lord.[109] The office of the Bishop, deacons, and presbyters is not for the light-hearted: those in office have many qualifications, duties and services they must fulfill.[110]
Saint John Chrysostom, 349-407 CE, in his Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood said, “For the priestly office is indeed discharged on earth, but it ranks amongst heavenly ordinances; and very naturally so: for… the Paraclete Himself [Christ], instituted this vocation.”[111] He claimed Matthew 18:18, “They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens, and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants.”[112] St. John Chrysostom stressed the real authority that Christ gave the apostles and their successors.[113] In addition to the individual consensus of the fathers concerning the ecclesiology of the Church, Ecumenical Councils organized the hierarchy of the Church by canons.
The Ecumenical Canons are decrees concerning the priestly offices. The Council in Trullo declared in the Ancient Epitome of Canon I, “No innovation upon the faith of the Apostles is to be allowed. The faith of the Nicene fathers is perfect.”[114] In the third council, Canon VII, to write a creed contrary to the faith at Nicaea is unlawful.[115] The unity of the Church is paramount, “if any presbyter, inflated against his bishop, makes a schism, let him be anathema.”[116] Concerning the actions of heretics, “if anyone shall hold private assemblies outside of the Church, and, despising the canons, shall presume to perform ecclesiastical acts, the presbyter with the consent of the bishop refusing his permission, let him be anathema.”[117] The succession from the apostles is the source of the authority of the Church hierarchy. It is from Bishop to Bishop. If a Bishop starts to teach unorthodox doctrine, his orders are no longer valid. A perfect example is the Bishop of Rome in inserting the filioque into the Nicene Creed. The truth is preserved through this system of checks and balances. Not only was the Christian faith written down, but the way in which it needs to be preserved.
By concession, the Roman Catholic Church’s situation is more complex. The people of the Western Roman Empire had no one else to follow than the Bishop after the collapse of the empire. With the falling economy and the invasion of the barbarians, Rome was a source of stability to the people. With the prevailing lack of literacy during the medieval period in the West, the likelihood of the laity rejecting the decision of the Pope is not high.[118] But to the East,
“Consensus of bishops, and not the authority of one particular bishop, was for them the highest possible sign of truth. Hence their constant insistence on the authority of the councils and their inability to understand the Roman concept of the papcy. It is not, however, that the very idea of primacy was foreign to the Byzantines, but they generally understood it as a matter for conciliar legislation, not as a God-given function of a particular church.”[119]
From all the evidence, the Church, throughout history, is Conciliar. There are no facts in Church history that would suggest otherwise. Even though the Western circumstances are difficult, it could still be possible that a Pope would go back to believing the primacy of the See and reject the supremacy of it. This would start a reunification dialog between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Reunification is what Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians would like to have.
History shows that the Church began as one unified body, zealously keeping the commands of Jesus Christ, and preserving his teachings. Through human error and political circumstances, the Church split in half, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, and from the Roman Catholics, Protestants. The Church was not corrupt as it preserved the faith of Christ. The holy fathers of the Church passed down what they received from Christ and the Apostles down through the line of Church government, so that the Orthodox Church is apostolic, following the standard of Christ’s teachings. Through the ecumenical councils the undivided and original Church defined the faith and saved it from heretics. Through the Conciliar authority of the Church, both in events and the body of Christ laying claim to what Christ taught, they protect the faith. The Holy Spirit is faithful to the Church. The Orthodox Church is the manifestation of the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”[120]
[1] The definition of truth in this essay is that truth does not change and is not relative.
[2] Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity: The First Five Centuries, vol. 1. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1937), 240.
[3] Matt. 28.19-20a ESV (English Standard Version).
[4] The Church Fathers did not set out to define the faith in set rules and creeds. They always focused their answers against those who did not keep the tradition that Jesus Christ set forth.
[5] The Judaizers are Jewish Christians who believed that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to become Christians. A large part of the New Testament is set aside for explaining the fact that Jesus fulfilled the law. Acts 15 records the first council of the Church dealing with this issue; this is the precedent for the later ecumenical councils.
[6] Ebionism was a sect within Essinian Judaism.
[7]Justo L González, A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon , vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 122-5.
[8] See Romans 1:16. The disciples first went to preach in the synagogue and then went to the Gentiles.
[9] Latourette, 45-7.
[10]Alexander Schmemann, The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963), 9-11.
[11] Gnosticism is a broad term for many ideas contrary to what the Church taught. It mostly stems from people trying to apply the dualism of Greek philosophy to Christianity.
[12] González, 127-30.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] See Hebrews 2:17-18.
[16] González, 146.
[17] The word ecumenical applies to these councils because the Church universally accepted them.
[18] González, 139-40
[19] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin books, 1963), 25-6.
[20] Ibid., 29.
[21] Gonzalez, 144-5, Ware, 22.
[22] The Coptic Orthodox Churches are heretical as they do not accept the Council.
[23] Ware, 24-5.
[24] Ibid., 30-1.
[25] Jude 3 ESV (English Standard Version). Both the clergy and the laity have the charge to keep the faith as Christ taught.
[26] Ware, 44. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son.”
[27] The Nicene Creed: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen.”
[28] Arians are people who believe that Christ was not fully divine? Evidently making the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son made him divine.
[29] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), 92.
[30] Ware, 49.
[31] Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 139. In the 1960s the Roman Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople lifted the anathemas of 1054, but the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not commune together, essentially still holding to the practical effects of excommunication.
[32] Ibid., 140-1.
[33] Latin for scripture alone, faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, and glory to God alone.
[34] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 71.
[35] Ibid., 78.
[36] Ibid., 111-4.
[37] Philip Melancthon, a disciple of Luther, did correspond with the Patriarch of Constantinople but nothing materialized.
[38] The Western mindset is more juridical, while the Eastern mindset is more philosophical. It is just the difference between the culture of the Romans and the culture of the Greeks. The lack of union between the Orthodox and the Protestants is from both the culture and the resemblance of Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Some Protestants go so far as to deny any truth in Catholicism, and anything that resembles it must be wrong.
[39] Jude 3 (English Standard Version).
[40] The modern notion is that Christianity lost the truth right after writing the New Testament.
[41] Schmemann, 15.
[42] Ibid., 13.
[43] Ibid., 43.
[44] Ibid., 23.
[45] Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 118.
[46] Religious pluralism in which there is more than one truth was unheard of in the early centuries of the Church.
[47] Pelikan, 69.
[48] Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 14.
[49] Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 29-30. Rome instituted the Mass in Latin after the Great Schism.
[50] Meyendorff, 175-6.
[51] Ibid., 175.
[52] John 16.13 (English Standard Version).
[53] Meyendorff, “Historical Relativism and Authority in Christian Dogma.” In The New Man: An Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue, ed. John Meyendorff and Joseph McLelland, 77-91 (New Brunswick, NJ: Agora Books, 1973), 88.
[54]Hans Küng, The Catholic Church: A Short History, Translated by John Bowden (New York: Modern Library, 2001), 19.
[55] Ibid., 11.
[56] Ibid., 22.
[57] Ibid., 52-3.
[58] Bokenkotter, 35-6.
[59] Ibid., 35.
[60] Ibid., 134.
[61] Ibid., 135-6. The “tradition” of saying the filioque in the creed started in Spain and geographically spread.
[62] Ibid., 136.
[63] Cardinal Humbert was the Roman Pope’s ambassador to the Eastern Bishops and spoke on his behalf. The Pope died 6 months before Humbert gave the bull of excommunication to the Patriarch, hence, he did not have the authority to do so, but the succeeding Pope did not remove the anathema.
[64] Bokenkotter, 138.
[65] Ibid., 138.
[66] Kung, 82.
[67] Matthew 16.18-19 KJV (King James Version)
[68] Meyendorff, 98.
[69] Kung, 10.
[70] Ibid., 57-8.
[71] A belief formally established in the nineteenth century.
[72] Eph. 4.4-6 KJV (King James Version)
[73] Matt. 28.18-20 KJV
[74] 2 Thess. 2.15 KJV
[75] Mark 7.13 KJV
[76] Matt. 15.7-9 KJV
[77] 1 Tim 3.15 KJV
[78] 2 Thess. 3.6 KJV
[79] Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics.” Translated by Rev. Peter Holmes, In The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 3, Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. Ed., Rev. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, 243-267. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 245.
[80] Hippolytus, “The Refutation of all Heresies.” Translated by Rev. J. H. MacMahon, In The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5, Fathers of the third century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 9-162. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 10.
[81] Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics,” 246.
[82] Ibid., 256.
[83] Ibid., 258.
[84] Ibid., 251.
[85] Ibid., 261.
[86] Ibid., 265.
[87] Latin for embodied in flesh.
[88] St. Irenaeus, “The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching,” Online (July 2007), 98.
[89] Ibid., 83.
[90] Ibid., 41.
[91] Ibid., 86.
[92] St. Vincent of Lerins. “The Commonitory,” Translated by C.A. Heurtley. Online (July 2007), ch. 2, pt. 6
[93] whole, complete, or universal
[94] Vincent, “The Commonitory,” ch 2. pt. 6
[95] Ibid., ch. 24, pt. 63.
[96] Ibid., book 2, ch. 31, pt. 82.
[97] St. Cyprian, “Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church,” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 5, Fathers of the third century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 421-429. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 423.
[98] Ibid., 425.
[99] Ibid., 425-7.
[100] Ibid., 424.
[101] Priests.
[102] St. Ignatius In The Apostolic Fathers: I Clement, II Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Trans. and Ed. By Bart D. Ehrman. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 259.
[103] Ibid., 223.
[104] Ibid., 225.
[105] Ibid., 291.
[106] St. Clement, “Clement I,” Online. (July 2007), ch. 5
[107] Ibid., ch. 42.
[108] Ibid., ch. 42.
[109] “Didache,” Translated by Roberts-Donaldson. Online. (July 2007), Ch. 4
[110] Ibid., ch. 15.
[111] St. John Chrysostom, “Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood,” Translated by Rev. W.R.W. Stephens. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. First series, Vol. 9, Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues, 33-83. Ed, Philip Schaff. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers 1994), 46.
[112] Ibid., 47.
[113] Ibid., 48.
[114] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second series, vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1994), 360.
[115] Ibid., 231.
[116] Ibid., 447.
[117] Ibid., 94.
[118] In the Orthodox world, there are councils that are rejected by the laity of the Church as not the faith that the fathers have taught, and are therefore disregarded.
[119] Meyendorff, 99.
[120] Jude 3 KJV
