In this short series, we will endeavour to chronicle the history of some of the more significant traditions within Christianity, beginning with the rise of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
We know from the Bible that local churches had multiple elders (or overseers) in the days of the apostles (Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:5). However, it was not long before a more hierarchical system developed, leading to a single man becoming the recognised overseer or “bishop” of the church in any particular city. For example, Polycarp (AD 69-155), who had been acquainted with the Apostle John, was recognised as the bishop of Smyrna.
Constantine the Great came to the imperial throne in AD 306 and a few years later gave Christianity legal status within the Empire. Furthermore, the Christian faith began to enjoy the favour of the emperor. Whilst this meant relief for believers who had been so severely persecuted, it led to the blurring of boundaries between church and state. Ultimately, Constantine’s reign paved the way for Christianity to be adopted as the state religion in AD 380 under the emperor Theodosius. Two important developments resulting from this were the greatly enhanced authority of bishops and the convening of ecumenical councils throughout the empire to establish important aspects of doctrine.
Even before the time of Constantine, certain cities had become influential centres of Christianity. Jerusalem had been the most important of these centres in the apostolic age, but the church was forced to temporarily flee Jerusalem following its destruction in AD70. Although the Christians would return to the city, this calamity and the later destruction following the Bar Kokhba revolt around sixty years later led to the influence of the Jerusalem church being greatly diminished. In its place, Antioch in Syria, Alexandria in Egypt, and Rome became the leading centres of Christian authority. Following Constantine’s rise to the position of emperor, Constantinople became his new capital, and it also rose to prominence within the Christian world.
However, Rome’s claim to be the first among equals was strengthened by the fact that the Apostles Peter and Paul had both resided there prior to their deaths. Peter, it was claimed, was the first bishop of Rome and, based on a very questionable interpretation of Matthew 16:17-19, was declared to be the “rock” upon which Jesus had built the church. Interestingly, the term “pope” (from the Latin pappas, meaning “father”) was applied to all respected bishops in the early days of Christianity, but was later solely used with reference to the bishop of Rome as his authority and position grew in prominence.
As their name implies, the ecumenical councils, which began at Nicea in AD 325, saw deputations from every part of the Christian world. The second council, convened in Constantinople in AD 381, saw the host city become recognised as the second most important centre of Christianity behind Rome. Nevertheless, despite the emerging hierarchy, a fierce rivalry developed between each of the competing cities.
It was perhaps in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) that Rome’s case for supremacy – and with it the bishop of Rome’s claim to be the leader of the Christian world – gained its most significant boost. The dominant theme at each council had been the discussions surrounding the Person of Christ. Initially at Nicea, the scriptural truth of Christ’s deity had been established as the orthodox position for the church. However, there were numerous theories as to how Jesus of Nazareth could be simultaneously God and man. Various ideas, put forward by different teachers such as Nestorius and Eutyches, were rejected at Chalcedon – Nestorius for asserting that Christ was actually two separate persons, and Eutyches for implying that He was neither fully human nor fully divine.
Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople were all condemned for having supported heretical views about the Lord Jesus. By contrast, Pope Leo I of Rome, who affirmed in his Tome[1] that Christ possesses two natures in one Person, emerged from the Council of Chalcedon with great credit. Rome had won the day and continued to grow stronger and stronger even after the destruction of the western half of the Roman Empire around AD 480.
Disagreements within the church between the Roman West and Greek East were a recurring feature throughout much of the first millennium of Christian history. However, historians generally recognise AD 1054 as the date of a decisive split that gave rise to what we now know as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. A crucial factor was the argument surrounding the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other members of the Trinity. At Constantinople in AD 381 a creed was agreed upon, which stated that the Spirit proceeded eternally from the Father. However, in the West, a clause was later added, amending the text to read that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (Latin: filioque). This so-called Filioque Clause was firmly rejected in the East but upheld by the papacy. At stake was not only the issue of doctrinal orthodoxy, but also the question of whether ecumenical creeds could be altered. It proved to be the final blow to preserving unity between Rome and Constantinople.
Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have evolved considerably over the centuries. One reason for this is that, unlike many Protestant Churches, they do not regard the Bible as the only revelation from God, but place church tradition alongside the Scriptures as being authoritative for both doctrine and practice. Both Churches have developed elaborate liturgical worship services and both have their own sacramental system that extends far beyond the scriptural emphasis upon baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Ultimately, it is the Pope who holds the highest position of authority within Catholicism, while the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognised as the spiritual leader of the Orthodox communion. Of the two, the Pope holds far greater influence over his flock than does the Patriarch over his. Papal bulls[2] can be issued from the Vatican and are binding upon the entire Catholic Church. By contrast, matters of doctrine are decided through a synod in the Eastern Orthodox Church – albeit these synods can only be called by the Patriarch.
There are of course some points of agreement between these two ancient traditions and the simpler, more biblical faith of evangelicals. In particular, we all hold steadfastly to a Trinitarian position to explain the Godhead. Additionally, the Bible’s authority is upheld by all, although the Catholic and Orthodox Churches recognise certain additional books, known collectively as the Apocrypha, that are not found in the Protestant Bible.
Among the many points of divergence between evangelicals and the liturgical churches is the understanding of the crucial doctrine of salvation. Heirs of the Reformation rightly stress the sole requirement of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Conversely, Catholics and Orthodox alike, whilst claiming to uphold faith, point their adherents towards the manifold sacraments that they have devised as being the pathway to eternal life. Even so, down through the centuries many godly people have emerged from these two traditions and doubtless today there are many within their communions who truly know the Lord.
“Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are His’” (2 Timothy 2:19a).
[1] Leo’s Tome, written in AD 449, was a letter articulating the official Roman position on the Person of Christ, stressing that He had two natures, divine and human. This position would be affirmed by the ecumenical council at Chalcedon two years later.
[2] Papal bulls are written by the pope and used when the Roman Catholics wish to pass an official edict.
