Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I also like to add it is the only in the Catholic Church that Oriental Churches reunited with the Holy See.

There are 22 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches some of which reunited with Rome in the later years. Such as the Coptic Catholic Church which use to be Eastern Orthodox, and others.
 
In 1596, the first successful reunion occurred between the Ruthenian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church in Poland with the Union of Brest. Other reunifications then followed. The most recent reunion involved the Church of Malankar, which traces its origins to St. Thomas the Apostle; in 1930, Bishop Ivanios, two other bishops, a priest, a deacon, and a laymen reunited with the Catholic Church and the Malankar Rite of the Catholic Church was born. These reunited Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, except the Maronite Rite, all have counterparts remaining in the Orthodox Churches.

Vatican Council II recognized in its “Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches,” "The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government. They combine into different groups, which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites. Between those churches there is such a wonderful bond of union that this variety in the Universal Church, so far from diminishing its unity, rather serves to emphasize it. For the Catholic Church wishes the traditions of each particular Church or Rite to remain whole and entire, and it likewise wishes to adapt its own way of life to the needs of different times and places" (No. 2). Although these Eastern Rites differ from the Western or Latin Rite in “rite” and liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline and Canon Law and spiritual traditions, they are fully part of the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership and pastoral care of the pope, the successor of St. Peter.

Today, the various Eastern Rites are organized under the four eastern patriarchates. (The following information was gleaned from the Catholic Almanac.)
 
The Alexandrian Rite is officially called the Liturgy of St. Mark. (St. Mark is traditionally considered the first bishop of Alexandria.) Their present liturgy contains elements of the Byzantine Rite of St. Basil and the liturgies of Sts. Mark, Cyril, and Gregory Nazianzen. This parent rite includes the Coptic Rite and the Ge’ez Rite. The Coptic Rite, which is situated primarily in Egypt, reunited with Rome in 1741 and uses the Coptic and Arabic languages in its liturgies. The Ge’ez Rite, based primarily in Ethiopia, Jerusalem, and Somalia, reunited with Rome in 1846 and uses the Ge’ez language in their liturgies.

The** Antiochene Rite is the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem**. This parent rite includes the following rites: The Malankar Rite is located in India, reunited with Rome in 1930, and uses the Syriac and Malayalam languages in its liturgies.

The Maronite Rite, located primarily in Lebanon, Cyrpus, Egypt, and Syria but with large populations of the faithful also in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, and Canada, has remained united with Rome since the time of its founder St. Maron, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in its liturgies.

The Syrian Rite is located primarily in Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Syria, with healthy communities in Asia, Africa, Australia, and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1781, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in its liturgies.

The Armenian Rite, technically a distinct rite, derived from the Antiochene Rite and is an older form of the Byzantine Rite. Although it uses a different language, this rite is technically called the Greek Liturgy of St. Basil. This rite has jurisdictions primarily in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, France, Greece, Romania, Armenia, Argentina and the United States. The Armenians reunited with Rome during the Crusades, and the ritual liturgical language is Classical Armenian.
 
The Chaldean Rite, also technically a distinct rite, also originated from the Antiochene Rite. This rite is also divided into two rites: The Chaldean Rite, located primarily in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey and the United States, reunited with Rome in 1692, and uses the Syriac and Arabic languages in the liturgy. The Syro-Malabar Rite, located in India, claims to have originated with St. Thomas the Apostle, and uses the Syriac and Malayalam languages in the liturgy. Although the Syro-Malabar Rite was never in formal schism, for centuries no communication occurred between them and Rome until the time of the missionaries in the 1500s.
 
The Byzantine Rite, the largest Eastern Rite, is based on the Rite of St. James of Jerusalem with the later reforms of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. These rites employ the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This parent rite comprises many rites, which are themselves highly ethnic oriented. The Albanian Rite, centered in Albania, reunited with Rome in 1628 and uses Albanian as its liturgical language. The Belarussian (formerly titled Byelorussian) Rite, centered in Belarussia with large populations in Europe, North and South America, and Australia, reunited with Rome in the 1600s and uses Old Slavonic as their liturgical language. The Bulgarian Rite, centered in Bulgaria, reunited with Rome in 1861 and uses the Old Slavonic language in the liturgy. The Croatian Rite, based primarily in Croatia with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1611 and employs Old Slavonic as a liturgical language. The Greek Rite, which is centered in Greece and Turkey with congregations also in Asia Minor and Europe, reunited with Rome in 1829 and uses the Greek language in the liturgy. The Hungarian Rite, situated in Hungary with significant populations throughout Europe and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1646 and uses Greek, Hungarian, and English in their liturgies. The Italo-Albanian Rite, mainly in Italy with congregations in North and South America, never separated from Rome and uses the Greek and Italo-Albanian languages in the liturgy. The Romanian Rite, centered in Romania with a significant population in the United States, reunited with Rome in 1697 and use Modern Romanian in their liturgy; in 1948, they were forced to join the Romanian Orthodox Church in Romania, but since the fall of communism, the Catholic Romanian Rite has regained independence. The Russian Rite, located mainly in Russia and China with congregations in Europe, Australia, and North and South America, reunited with Rome in 1905 and use Old Slavonic as a liturgical language. The Georgian Rite, based in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, reunited with Rome in 1329, severed ties in 1507, then in 1917 broke with the Russian Orthodox Church and again reunited with Rome as the Georgian Byzantine Rite, and has struggled for survival ever since, especially during Communist oppression; the Georgian language is used in their liturgy. The Slovak Rite is based in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Canada, and uses Old Slavonic in its liturgy.

The three largest of the Byzantine Rites are the Melkite, Ruthenian and Ukrainian. The Melkite Rite has strong congregations in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, United States, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. The Melkites reunited with Rome during the Crusades but due to impediments caused by the Moslem occupations more officially reunited in the early 1700s and use Greek, Arabic, English, Portuguese, and Spanish in the liturgy.

The Ruthenian or Carpatho-Russian Rite is based in the Ukraine and the United States with strong congregations in Ukraine, United States, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Australia, and North and South America. The Ruthenians reunited with Rome in the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 and the Union of Uzhorod in 1646. They employ Old Slavonic and English in the liturgy.

Finally, the Ukrainian Rite has large populations in the Ukraine, Poland, the United States, Canada, England, Australia, Germany, France, Brazil and Argentina. The Ukrainians reunited with Rome about 1595. However, Stalin forced the Ukrainian Rite Catholics to enter the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, but since the independence of the Ukraine, they have reunited with Rome. This rite uses Old Slavonic and Ukrainian.

In the Diocese of Arlington, we have three Eastern Rite Catholic Churches: Epiphany of our Lord Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite in Annandale under the jurisdiction of the Eparchy of Passaic, N.J.; Holy Transfiguration Melkite Rite in McLean of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton, Mass.; and Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Byzantine Ukrainian Rite in Manassas of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia, Pa. Also, at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, the Byzantine Rite communities in the United States funded a chapel which is adorned with beautiful icons. All Roman Catholics are welcome to attend the Divine Liturgy at these Eastern Rite Churches (which does indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation) and may receive Holy Communion. Particulars of Canon Law, however, do regulate marriages between a Latin Rite and an Eastern Rite Catholic. In all, these rites remind us of the universality of our Roman Catholic Church and the rich liturgical traditions we share as Catholics.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html
 
There are no other Churches that had other local Churches headed by the Bishop re-united with Pope in Rome. These are communities of Churches rejoining Rome. This is truly the working of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus prayed that his Church is to be One. Just as the Father and He is One.

The Catholic Church is the only one who remain One single Body of Church that teaches One faith.
 
Great info Mannyfit75:thumbsup: The Church of Christ is One! Only the Catholic Church fits that description. . . .
 
Great info Mannyfit75:thumbsup:
Welcome. RD may point out those Catholics who differ in belief, but they themselves have no authority to declare the Second Vatican II null and void. We have seen that the Church held councils in union bishop and popes.

I think there was only one bishop, Marcel-François Lefebvre, who form the SPPX. I don’t think he had any authority over the Council. To me he is no different than Patriarch Arianius of Constantinople, who taught the belief asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time. Arianism of course was condemned as a heresy in Council of Nicea.
 
God has guided his church. It is no coincidence that people started dropping Catholicism when they actually got to read his word. God’s timing is not ours.
Since you claim everything needed is found in Scripture I really would like to know which translation Has the right answers. you categorically rejected the King james Version (in rather harsh terms IIRC) so which transaltion do you find definitive?
 
Since you claim everything needed is found in Scripture I really would like to know which translation Has the right answers. you categorically rejected the King james Version (in rather harsh terms IIRC) so which transaltion do you find definitive?
The King James Bible didn’t exist in the time of the Apostle.
 
Since you claim everything needed is found in Scripture I really would like to know which translation Has the right answers. you categorically rejected the King james Version (in rather harsh terms IIRC) so which transaltion do you find definitive?
I did not reject the KJV. Please show me where that occured.
 
Welcome. RD may point out those Catholics who differ in belief, but they themselves have no authority to declare the Second Vatican II null and void. We have seen that the Church held councils in union bishop and popes.

I think there was only one bishop, Marcel-François Lefebvre, who form the SPPX. I don’t think he had any authority over the Council. To me he is no different than Patriarch Arianius of Constantinople, who taught the belief asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time. Arianism of course was condemned as a heresy in Council of Nicea.
I think the SPPX and the Holy See of becoming One again. I went to the SPPX and they actually accept Pope Benedict XVI.

From their website:

*The Society of St. Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.

The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.- Society of Pope Pius X (USA)*

Source: sspx.org/
 
The King James Bible didn’t exist in the time of the Apostle.
How can you expect a serious conversation when you make statments like this?
If you wish to have a conversation about the superiority of the Received Text, we can but not if you are going to say things like this.
 
How can you expect a serious conversation when you make statments like this?
If you wish to have a conversation about the superiority of the Received Text, we can but not if you are going to say things like this.
I made the statement because you believe the KJ Bible to be inspired right? Who claim it was authoritative? You also assert that Early Church believe in Bible Alone, a belief not proven in historical Christianity.

The Early Church shows the Church has authority, not the Bible alone. Definitive Councils were often gathered to combat heresy of Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Donatism, and others.

I have read you believe the quotes of the ECF as forgery. Some were forgeries, and some were proven to be authentic like those writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Of the 13 Letters he wrote, only 7 were consider authentic.
 
I’m still waiting for Rightlydivide to refute our most recent comments.

If you believe the ECF writings are forgeries than you really do not have knowledge of History. Some were and some were not. The Early Church were not “Bible alone” and no Early Church Father believe this doctrine; it was a invention of Martin Luther. . . .
 
I made the statement because you believe the KJ Bible to be inspired right? Who claim it was authoritative? You also assert that Early Church believe in Bible Alone, a belief not proven in historical Christianity.

I am beginning to wonder if you have read the same conversation I have. This is just odd.
I believe the original manuscripts to be inspired. I believe the Recieved Text has been preserved.
I did not say the early Church believed in the Bible alone. I believe that everything a Christian needs to believe is now contained in the Bible.
If you are saying that in 55 AD a Christian believed in the Bible alone, I would say you are nuts.
If you say that I trust that God preserved his word, I would say you are right on.
I have read enough of the ECF to know they are all over the place. Early on, I have no beef. But later, they were going off the deep end left and right.
I have read you believe the quotes of the ECF as forgery. Some were forgeries, and some were proven to be authentic like those writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Of the 13 Letters he wrote, only 7 were consider authentic.
 
I’m still waiting for Rightlydivide to refute our most recent comments.

Excuse me for having a life…
If you believe the ECF writings are forgeries than you really do not have knowledge of History. Some were and some were not. The Early Church were not “Bible alone” and no Early Church Father believe this doctrine; it was a invention of Martin Luther. . .
 
I did not reject the KJV. Please show me where that occured.
You posted a incorrect translation of 1John 5. I posted the Kings james Transaltion. You replied:
Obviously seem devious scribes attempted to subtract from Gods word
If you accept the King James version then you must accept that the Trinity is not sciptural. you cant have it both ways.
 
You posted a incorrect translation of 1John 5. I posted the Kings james Transaltion. You replied:

If you accept the King James version then you must accept that the Trinity is not sciptural. you cant have it both ways.
Post 18 , that I posted, on number 18 IS from the KJV, go back and read it. I do not think you have followed this conversation and I will respond to people who can follow it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top