Was the primitive Church ruled by a Pope or by the Councils...

Was the primitive Church ruled by a Pope or by the Councils? As far as I know there were times were the Councils would prevail and other times when the Bishop of Rome would impose is will over other bishops(even though that is not canonical).

The early church was not ruled by either. Various bishops had more power than others over disputes but bishops mostly decided themselves what the limits of Orthodoxy were,

It was only once it became legal that they started having large gathering and arguing, before that they just wrote letters and stuff

The early church was mostly regional. There were local groups of presbyters or individual presbyters (I'm not entirely convinced the monarchical view of presbyters or bishops characterized the primitive Church), but councils weren't really common, and certainly not catholic, in the earliest days. The ecclesiastical structure of the primitive Church was, as far as I can tell, not really settled, though the principle of elders and deacons are as old as the church itself.

In the Nicene Church, each of the Five Patriarchs, including the Pope, were essentially equal. The Pope ostensibly gained primacy because he was descended from Peter, but that wasn't absolute.

The Pope gained prominence in the West, because he was the closest Patriarch to the Western Regions

in the beginning the church had Peter as head of the apostles and the bishops they ordained during the apostolic era. eventually three patriarchal sees were formed Rome, antioch, and alexandria which had autonomous rule over the churches in the area but all recognized the primacy of the bishop of rome. evetually jerusalem and constantinople were also raised to patriarchal sees. there were instances where the pope would intervene on matters of church discipline like the Easter controversy in the 2nd century with the asia minor churches.

>Was the primitive Church ruled by a Pope or by the Councils?
Neither pham. It was ruled by scripture

I personally think the Church of Rome added that bit about Peter in order to Jew the Church of Jerusalem out of the Primacy.

I mean, James was Jesus' brother, afterall. Think about it, why else would the Pope be so keen on making Mary a perpetual virgin, if not to render James a (((cousin))).

This is the true Jewry

no the orthodox and oriental orthodox also accept that peter was the leader of the apostles.

When the church was adopted by the Romans as the state religion, the Emperor was appointed as the authority of the church over the bishops, creating a system of Caesaropapism, with the 5 predominant patriarchs owing loyalty to the emperor.

This continued on until 754, when the Bishop of Rome was given the city to make into his own Duchy, as the Byzantines were unable to defend the city at that point and didn't want it falling into Lombard hands. The Pope in Rome began exercising more authority before breaking with the Emperor completely and crowing Charlemagne as the King of the Romans. This back and fourth of the Pope exercising his own authority as opposed to the Roman emperor continued until the official Schism in 1054, where the Emperor no longer had any control over the Bishop of the Rome, but retained power over the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Jew runs deep, and Paul was integral to this. Paul hated James, but since he wasn't an apostle, he could never put himself at the head of the Church. He chose Peter, because Peter was weak willed.

James is the true successor to Christ

The division of presbyters and bishop seems to have arisen in the beginning of the second century. How wide spread it was before that and when is hard to say, though to claim its always been in place since the time of the apostles is close to absurd

Like you said there: to talk about a unified church before the major councils is an abstraction, since there was no council do decide what was heretical there was only a consensus which often broke down between regions.

the NT makes mention of presbyters, episcopos/overseers(bishops), and deacons. the book of titus makes mention that a bishop has the power to ordain presbyters and to govern a Church in a certain area.

ignatius 110 AD
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2).

Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. And at least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediævals were only too right in taking nolo efiscopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop.

From Latin nolo episcopari (“I do not want to be bishop”).

Of course not.

Also you can post historical sources from II and III century. XVII century are irrelevant.

James the Judaizer, the head of Christianity.

Here's my nominee.

Jesus.

>Also you can post historical sources from II and III century
what did you have in mind?

>t. Judaizer heretic

Head of the Church is Jesus.

James, the brother of Jesus, never believed in Jesus until after the resurrection. He was not an apostle. He was not chosen by Jesus. And he was a Judaizer. He was teaching in the Temple, with no problems with the Jews who had just killed his brother.

Because he was teaching people to take a mikvah and follow the Law of Moses. And get circumcised.

I don't know anything about, say, running a CNC machine.

I do not go to CNC machine forums and tell them how to run CNC machines.

To me, that's just common sense.

>He was not an apostle
Correction: he was not one of the 12. He was an apostle of the 70

Proofs that acredited the primitive Church was ruled by Scripture

110 Ad

Like I said second century. Its not that the term was not used before but as an officer universally separate and above presbyter ( the three tier priesthood) There is no evidence it was universal before the late 1st and early second century.

We can conclude this because in documents that survive at the time the titles seem to be used almost interchangeably, It is very likely that separating the two roles was an innovation necessary for the growing organization

Jesus was a Judaizer

>Because he was teaching people to take a mikvah and follow the Law of Moses. And get circumcised.

>Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

What did he mean by this

>Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

What if I told you the hellenizers were the heretics until they outnumbered the Jews and changed the narrative?

i.e. what pretty much every professional historian thinks

>I personally think the Church of Rome added that bit about Peter in order to Jew the Church of Jerusalem out of the Primacy.

If you're referring to the verse in Chapter 16 of Matthew, I've yet to see any evidence that it was added later. It's right there in Matthew's Gospel.

Not the same user, but I agree that Peter was the chosen head of the 12. I would argue that the transition of apostolic authority from peter to the later bishops of Rome is a lie crafted to legitimize Roman rule over the church.

Matthew's gospel is a spook. Mark and John are the only acceptable versions of the Life of Christ