Ray Franz develops his analysis (extending it to Ignatius and early Church Fathers) in In Search of Christian Freedom. Unfortunately imo, his uncritical approach of the late NT writings (especially Acts and the Pastorals which are already very close to Ignatius) prevents him to get a real picture of the actual diversity of "early Christianity" earlier in the 1st century.
Governing Body in the early Church???
by greendawn 13 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Spectrum
Amazing,
" In 2003, Rome sent a full apology letter to Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox Church for the schism in 1054 "
Does that mean that the Catholics accept that doctrinaly the Orthodox are closer to the truth? -
metatron
I believe that Fred Franz himself tore apart the concept of a Governing Body in 1978(?) , during one of his famous Gilead
Graduation lectures. He was not enthused about giving up a 'system' ( the WTS President and him) that worked. He quoted
passages about Paul being appointed directly by Jesus and acting with authority that was not immediately referenced to the
older men in Jerusalem.
The strongest practical point against the idea of a "Governing Body" is the sheer impossibility of maintaining such authority.
If anybody can speak in tongues or perform miracles, it's going to be damn near impossible to convince them that they
need to listen to anybody else and do what they say. Take note of the problems the Apostle John ( and Paul) recorded in which
they were ignored, criticized, and disregarded in various congregations by individuals who claimed to have holy spirit.
The Governing Body idea just doesn't hold water.
metatron
-
Amazing1914
Honesty,
Sorry, but this was not true until after the first century. ... During the first century the churches were autonomous.
No, they were not. They functioned much as the Orthodox do today - independantly, but not autonomous. Each "Holy See" was established by an Apostle. As such, each functioned independantly within their own regions. During the first century, while the Apostles were still alive, they wrote the letters (epistles) that were circulated to maintain unity. The Holy See style had no central Governing Body, or Authority in a Pope, but met as equals to agree on Church doctrine. The first major Ecumenical Council of 325 AD is one example. The regional Bishop in a Holy See wrote letters to maintain unity as did the Apostles.
Sounds catholic to me and since they put their trust in a pope instead of Jesus I don't consider them a whole lot different than the WT cult.
The Roman Catholic Pope was not declared "infallible" until 1870. prior to that he was merely the Bishop of Rome. However, in 1054, the Pope (or Patriarch of the Western Church) sought to establish his authority over all of the churches in the East instead of being the First among Equals. Thus the great Schism.
It is not a matter of putting trust in a Pope over Jesus. This is typical fundamentalists-Watchtowerism flawed theology in an attmept to downplay historical facts about the Catholic religion. It is both the Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic that decided on the books of the New Testament. All non-catholic Christians today use what was given to them by the original church. I am not promoting a particular religion, but just noting historical facts.
Spectrum: Rome and Constantinople have agreed in principle that they should reunite. The primary issue is the role of the Papacy. They both agree that each "Holy See" has the right to establish the operating rules within its own domain. For example: In the Roman Church Priests will not marry, whereas in the Orthodox, Priests do, and will continue to be married if they wish.
Jim W.