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.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock."
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
There is no “Authority to authoritatively establish the Word of God in writing.”
The ancient scriptures were assembled based on the proven truthfulness of the prophets, long after those prophets had been murdered for obeying Yehova.
Only those that were handed down in Hebrew are “scripture.”
These scriptures were affirmed by Yeshua himself. Nothing written after his death has such assurance, and the selection thereof is arbitrary, and has changed from time to time.
There is no “Church” authority on Earth, but the Holy Spirit.
.
I do not agree — for if it is writing God's word, then the writer is merely a scribe, but if the writer writes of his own accord the words are not God's and therefore lack any [divine] authority.
In short, to assemble the books in the Bible.
Again, see the above.
This is what the early Church fathers did using the sacred oral tradition, contemporary sources, and ritual.
Really? I don't like how you elevate tradition and ritual above the word of God, because to do so means that they are of more authority than the Word of God.
Jesus summed up my feelings on this succinctly: Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.
This deposit of authority was not to be spread around to every Tom, Dick and Harry who picks up the Bible and goes on a gallop of his own on how to interpret Scripture.
Really?
It seems to me that you are now denying the Holy Spirit:
(John 16:13)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
This was to be done by virtue of Petrine authority. “Whatsoever, thou shall bind on earth….” You get the picture.
Again, you equate God-given authority with divine roles — in fact, not all authority which is God-given is the same.
Samuel and Saul were both appointed to their positions, respectively priest and king, by God — yet the transgression for which God took the kingdom from Saul was when Saul offered sacrifices (which properly belonged to the role of the priest). Thus we see that God giving authority in one area does not mean that authority is given in another.
Well said OWS!
.
I agree.
There is no “Authority to authoritatively establish the Word of God in writing.”
I think I agree with your intent, but the exact wording here I have issue wit — of course there is authority given to establish God's word in writing; we see this explicitly in Revelation where John is told to write unto the seven churches which are in Asia
.
The ancient scriptures were assembled based on the proven truthfulness of the prophets, long after those prophets had been murdered for obeying Yehova.
True.
Only those that were handed down in Hebrew are “scripture.”
Not strictly true; largish portions [chapters] of Daniel and Ezra were in Aramaic.
These scriptures were affirmed by Yeshua himself. Nothing written after his death has such assurance, and the selection thereof is arbitrary, and has changed from time to time.
Again citing Revelation above, I'd hesitate to make this claim.
You ar4e wrong.
Thank you.
There’s lots of good stuff in the Old Testament.
Oh?
Please prove how the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, is not the foundation of Christianity.
Right on bro!
“This is wrong.”
Nope. Even many Protestant scholars don’t agree with you.
D. A. Carson:
... on the basis of the distinction between “petros” and “petra,” many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere “stone,” it is alleged, but Jesus himself is the “rock,” as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:5-8). Others adopt some other distinction: e.g. “upon this rock of revealed truth- this truth you have just confessed- I will build my church.” Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to mean anything but Peter.
... Had Matthew wanted to say no more than Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been “lithos” (”stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun- and that is just the point!
Oscar Cullman:
... the parallelism of “thou art rock” and “upon this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be referring to the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter ... to be the foundation of his “ecclesia.” To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.
“23 official denominations of Catholic”
Only Protestants have denominations. Catholics have Churches.
“millions of individual denominations of Catholic”
Catholic means universal. It is not possible logically impossible for someone to be Catholic and be an individual denomination.
If such is true, then it is evident that the Church is without foundation as Peter is dead.
To assert otherwise is to assert that this rock
can [and does] change, that is what the apostolic succession means in functional terms.
Unless the words are being usurped/commandeered from their original meaning like the statists have done with progressive
and liberal
.
“If such is true, then it is evident that the Church is without foundation as Peter is dead.”
That’s an illogical conclusion. Peter was the foundation. He served his purpose. The Church continues even though Peter no longer is here.
“To assert otherwise is to assert that this rock can [and does] change, that is what the apostolic succession means in functional terms.”
No. It is not change, but continuity. All the popes espouse the same faith in their official capacity as pope. Thus, continuity. There is no change in the faith. Apostolic Succession does not mean change. The term itself - succession - implies continuity. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1FLDB_enUS531US531&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=succession
“Unless the words are being usurped/commandeered from their original meaning like the statists have done with progressive and liberal.”
That is not what has happened.
and if you are going by the definition of “catholic”, which means “universal”,as in the church universal, ie one, there is one church universal, made up of all believers.
Well no...That would be Peter and his 11 co-apostles...You DO read the bible don't you???
Peter was sent to the Jews...The circumcision...Are you a Jew??? It was the apostle Paul who was sent to build the Gentile church...
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Rom 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Where's Peter??? What happened to Peter??? Peter may (or may not) have been the preeminent apostle for the Jews but it was Paul and his successors who was the preeminent apostles to the Gentile church...
Isn't it odd that your religion fails to mention this...
This is how the early Church fathers understood this. This was the same authority they used to put together the books in the Bible. They did not fall from the skies. They were sorted out after years of study, discussion, debate, and then by final authority of the successor to Peter as the “Word of God.”
Hey, you remember all those 'heretics' who your religion tortured and murdered and burned their bibles??? Those Christians who died for refusing to bow down to the Roman religion??? Could be they as well had a lot of written documents that were destroyed by the Roman Empire...Perhaps it was some of those guys who were the 'real' church fathers...
And talking about denying Christ three times, I know I have done it many more times than that.
And you aren't the head of the church either...
You apparently have never been part of an architectural endeavor: removing the foundation of a structure will destroy the structure.
>> “To assert otherwise is to assert that this rock can [and does] change, that is what the apostolic succession means in functional terms.”
>
> No. It is not change, but continuity. All the popes espouse the same faith in their official capacity as pope.
And what faith is that? That they are the pope, the foundation of the Church?
Behold the power of wishy thinking!
Thus, continuity.
Peter and Adam are dead, thus continuity!
Really, that's ridiculous — but it's your assertion: that the church is founded on a man who is dead.
My assertion is that it is founded on the Jesus, God in human flesh, who died to pay for my sins and now lives.
Which do you think would be the recipe for a living church? To be founded on a dead man who could not save himself, or to be founded on the Living God who saved many?
There is no change in the faith. Apostolic Succession does not mean change.
By definition, it does: Apostolic succession is the method whereby the ministry of the Christian Church is held to be derived from the apostles by a continuous succession, which has usually been associated with a claim that the succession is through a series of bishops.
If they were not different they could not be successors.
Whatever you say Vlad!
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.