Posted on 11/09/2014 3:09:29 PM PST by NYer
If someone were to ask you how many Catholic Churches there are in the world, what would be your response? Not small ‘c’ churches referring to church buildings, but rather, Church with a capital ‘C’, indicating the grouping of believers who call themselves Catholic. You may very well respond to the question that there is one Catholic Church and to a large extent you would be correct. One can look to the Scriptures to see that the Lord deliberately founded a living Church built on his Apostles in order that his teachings and sacraments would continue down through time. Indeed the word Church comes out of the Greek verb ‘to gather together’, so the Church at its heart is a gathering of people.
While there is one Catholic Church though, that Church is made present in 23 Churches. Yes, that is correct, there are 23 Catholic Churches, and only one of those Churches is the Western, or Latin Church. The other 22 Churches are collectively termed the Eastern Catholic Churches but they are by no means all the same. Some of the Eastern Churches include the Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian and Coptic Churches. Nor are these Eastern Churches mere annexes of the Latin Church. Each of the 22 Eastern Churches are autonomous and self-governing with their own Patriarch, Major Archbishop or Bishop. While these Churches were born in places such as the Middle East, India and Eastern Europe, they are not primarily cultural groups in the same way as one might be a French Catholic or an Indonesian Catholic (both of whom are still members of the Latin Church). Each of the 22 Eastern Churches preserve unique liturgical, devotional and theological traditions that demonstrate the authentic universality of the Catholic Church. For the most part, the Eastern Catholic Churches choose their own Bishops yet they remain Catholic because they are in full communion with the successor of Peter.
But how did the Eastern Catholic Churches come about? First the obvious. Jesus was not a citizen of Rome and he did not speak Latin (or English). He lived and ministered in the Middle East which was in his time under the Rule of the Roman Empire. For close to 300 years after Jesus, the new Christian religion suffered heavy persecution at the hands of that Empire. It was the baptism of the Emperor Constantine in 313AD and the eventual declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire which saw the Christian faith injected into the Western world in a way that shaped deeply the Europe we know today. However, while the structure of the Roman Empire shaped the way that Western Christianity would pray and think, Eastern Christianity continued to grow and take shape in its own place, understanding itself differently yet preaching the same Christ. Unfortunately these differences in tradition and mindset were not always understood by the other, and in 1054 the Christian Church was split by the tragic misunderstanding of the great schism where the West excommunicated the East, and the East excommunicated the West, giving rise to the division known today of Catholic and Orthodox. While the Orthodox Churches have a valid priesthood and sacramental system, the fundamental difference is that the Orthodox do not recognise the Bishop of Rome as having the kind of teaching and governing authority which the Catholic Church claims.
For almost four hundred years after the schism the divisions continued without any real healing or attempt at understanding, but slowly some groups within the various Orthodox Churches felt it important to restore communion with the Catholic Church. The reunification of individual Eastern Churches began in the 16th century with the latest reunification as recently as 1930. The restorations of unity have not always been understood by the hierarchy of the Western Church with numerous examples of Eastern Catholic Churches forced to take on Western Church liturgical and devotional practices. The Second Vatican Council though spoke strongly about the need for the Catholic Churches of the East to maintain their identity. Some decades later, Pope John Paul II famously wrote about the Catholic Church needing to breathe again with both lungs, East and West.
The Eastern Catholic Churches continue to struggle. In their homelands many are persecuted severely and in their new lands of migration these Churches are often still misunderstood and cast to one side, being thought of as multicultural Latin Catholics. All people would do well to better understand the breadth of the 23 Catholic Churches and see in them a living demonstration to the full richness of the Church of Jesus Christ.
You are referencing 1 Cor 1:12. This is a letter addressed by Paul to the Corinthians.
Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
And Paul nor anyone else mentions Peter in Rome...And supposedly he was the head of the Roman Catholic church...
Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years.
There is sufficient historical and scientific evidence that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
There is strong evidence that Hebrew was the original pre-babel language. Prophecy has the world “returning” to the use of Hebrew in the millennial reign; how can we ‘return’ to it unless it was the original language?
.
Zephaniah 3:9
[9] For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
.
It just says that the language will be pure, it doesn't say a particular language.
Moreover, what of all the descriptions of Heaven being filled with people of every nation, tribe, and tongue?
(See Revelation 13:7, Revelation 5:9-10, Revelation 7:9)
We have read it, countless times...The difference is, we believe it...
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
And the foundation of the apostles is what??? Peter??? The apostles??? Don't kid yourself (and your religion)...
1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the foundation, NOT the apostles...NOT Peter...The church was not built on Peter...It was built on Jesus Christ...End of Story...
Nonsense...Jesus is the foundation...The church was built on Jesus...He's the entire foundation...The apostles including Peter are referred to as pillars setting on the foundation...And Peter isn't even mentioned first...
Gal_2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
And then, Paul didn't appear to completely buy THAT story since he did not say they were pillars...He said they 'seemed' to be pillars...
You guys do alright until you get the word of God involved in your theology...
Until you start reading the 'new covenant'...Then it entirely another story...
Catholics are wonderful, sincere people, and if they are hungry for G-d, he will bring them out, just as he brought our fathers out of Egypt by the hand of Moshe Rabbeinu,Moses our Teacher.
The scriptures do not say that Peter was on Apollo 11 either...I wonder...........
There is sufficient historical and scientific evidence that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
Beg your pardon!!! There are tons of scholars who have looked at the so-called historical and scientific evidence objectively and disagree with your relgion's theory...
Fortunately truth does no rely on someone's logic and reason...
With one consent.
The Masoretic is clearer on this, English translators left most of the meaning behind.
Er, what? Consent doesn't require a particular language — merely an understanding to which both agree.
(And the agreed upon understanding? Jesus is worthy.)
The Masoretic is clearer on this, English translators left most of the meaning behind.
But that still doesn't indicate a single language.
You are wrong.
The New Covenant is made with the House of Israel, and it is explicitly laid out in Jeremiah 31:31. The “New” in the New Covenant is the condition of the heart. Jeremiah promises that G-d will write the Torah on our hearts, and then we will keep it. The result of this obedience is intimacy with G-d. This is the work of the Spirit. That is why the Ruach was poured out on Shavuot (Pentecost) which celebrates the giving of the Torah at Sinai. For the promise is for you and your children after you. Torah in the heart. Come and get it.
The pure language is the sole language that is capable of expressing the word of Yehova.
And why should that be a single language? — Why Hebrew? What quality does Hebrew have that [all] other human languages do not?
That's making assumptions that are, IMO, unsubstantiated.
The answer is in John, Acts, Hebrews, James, John's epistles, Revelation, and Paul's letters.
(See John ch 4.)
Yes, the word ‘one’ clearly indicates a single language, the pure language.
Hebrew is the language that God chose to reveal his Torah, the gospel of his eternal kingdom.
Hebrew is the language in which he communicates with his elect.
Does all this really blow by you?
The word one
there is associated with the word consent
, not language
.
And you have yet to explain the vision of John, where he clearly describes people of every nation, tribe, and language.
The pure language
phrase seems not indicative of what mouth-noises are made, but of the heart that utters them.
(Matt 15:11 — What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them
)
Moreover, if Hebrew is the only language by which men may call upon the name of the Lord and be saved, why did early Christians, from virtually the very beginning, go out into the other nations and tell them in their own language about Jesus? Why is it that early Christianity didn't, like Islam today, require that prayer, scriptures, etc be done in the holy tongue? — Why was it that Pentecost people heard in their native tongue instead of suddenly knowing Hebrew? (Acts 2:5-8 — Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?
)
And God can raise up from the stones sons of Abraham.
Hebrew is the language in which he communicates with his elect.
Wrong.
(Acts 2:1-8,41)Unless you are willing to deny the three thousand converts on the Day of Pentecost are of God's elect. It clearly says that they heard in their own native tongue.)
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? [&hellip] So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.
Does all this really blow by you?
Really?
It is clear to me that God transcends mere human language, even Hebrew, by the signs on Pentecost… or do you wish to constrain God to some series of mouth-noises?
(Rom 8:26 — And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don't know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.