The 70 disciples

[billcu1]

Do we call this group the “70 or 72 disciples” while the Eastern rite calls them 70 apostles? One of the disciples was the one that prayed for Paul. There was an apostle that traveled with Paul that was or became one of the Galatians first Bishops. Am I getting this right? The only problem we have with the Eastern rite is that they’re not in communion isn’t it? Or is there more?

 

[Hatikvah]

Do we call this group the “70 or 72 disciples” while the Eastern rite calls them 70 apostles?

I just looked that up (Luke 10:1) and it varies by translation. NIV, NLT, etc, have “seventy-two” while NCV, WEB, KJV, etc, have “seventy,” and so on.

One of the disciples was the one that prayed for Paul. There was an apostle that traveled with Paul that was or became one of the Galatians first Bishops. Am I getting this right?

There is a fellow named Crescens who appears in the New Testament. Apostolic Constitutions (375-380 AD), VII 46, lists him as a Bishop of Galatia, so you’re right.

The only problem we have with the Eastern rite is that they’re not in communion isn’t it? Or is there more?

There is a difference between the Eastern Catholic rites (like the Byzantine, Marionite, etc) and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome, while the Eastern Orthodox are not.

Yes, there are differences, the most important probably being that they deny papal primacy as Catholics know it. While us Western Christians often downplay it, the filioque is often cited as a large issue. Original sin vs ancestral sin. Energies vs essence (are they the same?). The intermediate state (Purgatory or something else?).There is more (read here), but the point is that both Orthodox and Catholic Christians are part of a wider Christianity.

 

[billcu1]

I just looked that up (Luke 10:1) and it varies by translation. NIV, NLT, etc, have “seventy-two” while NCV, WEB, KJV, etc, have “seventy,” and so on.

There is a fellow named Crescens who appears in the New Testament. Apostolic Constitutions (375-380 AD), VII 46, lists him as a Bishop of Galatia, so you’re right.

There is a difference between the Eastern Catholic rites (like the Byzantine, Marionite, etc) and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Catholics are in communion with Rome, while the Eastern Orthodox are not.

Yes, there are differences, the most important probably being that they deny papal primacy as Catholics know it. While us Western Christians often downplay it, the filioque is often cited as a large issue. Original sin vs ancestral sin. Energies vs essence (are they the same?). The intermediate state (Purgatory or something else?).There is more (read here), but the point is that both Orthodox and Catholic Christians are part of a wider Christianity.

I see Eastern rite and Eastern Orthodoxy is different. Thanks for that clarification. Now do we accept Eastern orthodoxy which we were united until the schism in baptism. I guess Catholics accept certain Christians as Christians under Baptism. And of course the Copts we accept don’t we.

 

[Hatikvah]

Thanks for that clarification. Now do we accept Eastern orthodoxy which we were united until the schism in baptism. I guess Catholics accept certain Christians as Christians under Baptism. And of course the Copts we accept don’t we.

As for “accepting,” it depends on whether a group has valid apostolic succession. The exception to the rule is baptism (which any group can perform, so long as it meets the Trinitarian requirements). Apostolic succession determines whether a group has valid sacraments like the Eucharist. Catholics do recognize Oriental and Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession as valid (but not for groups like Lutherans, Methodists, etc).

I’ve seen that for a group to be considered “Christian,” it must perform Trinitarian baptisms. I think that groups must also accept the Trinity, because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided not to accept Mormon baptisms due to their differing beliefs about the Trinity.

 

[commenter]

I have also wondered about that group, the first formal evangelistic outreach. In Scripture and elsewhere we read about the apostles - and about the Christian population in general - but not about this group. Were they an “order” in the sense of deacons, and/or in the sense of a religious community (like the Essenes)? Were they apostles in training? Were some or all of them later made priests?

It seems odd that there is enormous attention to the creation of the diaconate in Acts: we even know the names of the earliest ones. (No offense to deacons, I worked alongside them and revere them). Just wonder what happened to these 70, or similar number, of identified “disciples”. The sense I have in the gospel is that this is a status below apostle, but above general laity.

I wonder if there is much in legend - for instance, the later lives and deaths of the apostles are traced in detail; or if there is discussion of Disciples as a distinct group in the ECF’s.

 

[jas84173]

I really wish the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches could reunite again, however it is most likely impossible as the Pope would have to just be a Patriarch of Rome, because I believe another big issue with the ease-west schism was Papal supremacy, if I am correct originally after Rome converted to Christianity, there were five equal bishops, in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. I think a problem which was building up for centuries was the eastern churches didn’t regard the Pope as any more than the other four, whereas the bishop of Rome had felt he was the successor of Peter (which Catholics do believe). However I believe even to this day even though the Eastern Orthodox have Patriarchs in nearly every country they are in, I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople is generally viewed as the “leader among equals”. Yes it is Istanbul now, then again that is just Turkish for Constantinople, but for traditional reasons they still refer to him as the Patriarch of Constantinople. Like I said though, I wish the two could reunite, I feel it would make us much stronger and united as Christ intended, and really we don’t have THAT many differences, in fact going to an Orthodox mass is much like going to a traditional Latin Catholic mass. But the differences we do have I assume do make it impossible, though John Paul II and Francis have made remarkable progress with the Patriarchs of the EO churches. I believe John Paul II was the first to actually go visit a Patriarch which hadn’t happened since the Schism. One thing I will give the Eastern Orthodox is the art, let me tell you, Catholic Churches are beautiful but Orthodox Church art is just so amazing and beautiful, and although it is similar, there is just something different than it is in Catholicism. I would highly recommend checking out an Orthodox Church.

 

[billcu1]

As for “accepting,” it depends on whether a group has valid apostolic succession. The exception to the rule is baptism (which any group can perform, so long as it meets the Trinitarian requirements). Apostolic succession determines whether a group has valid sacraments like the Eucharist. Catholics do recognize Oriental and Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession as valid (but not for groups like Lutherans, Methodists, etc).

I’ve seen that for a group to be considered “Christian,” it must perform Trinitarian baptisms. I think that groups must also accept the Trinity, because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided not to accept Mormon baptisms due to their differing beliefs about the Trinity.

So of the groups you mention, that we accept their baptism. Do we not accept valid Apostolic succession? You say yes. Exactly why may I ask? Martin Luther was a priest after separating with the church and being excommunicated were his absolutions valid?

 

[billcu1]

I have also wondered about that group, the first formal evangelistic outreach. In Scripture and elsewhere we read about the apostles - and about the Christian population in general - but not about this group. Were they an “order” in the sense of deacons, and/or in the sense of a religious community (like the Essenes)? Were they apostles in training? Were some or all of them later made priests?

It seems odd that there is enormous attention to the creation of the diaconate in Acts: we even know the names of the earliest ones. (No offense to deacons, I worked alongside them and revere them). Just wonder what happened to these 70, or similar number, of identified “disciples”. The sense I have in the gospel is that this is a status below apostle, but above general laity.

I wonder if there is much in legend - for instance, the later lives and deaths of the apostles are traced in detail; or if there is discussion of Disciples as a distinct group in the ECF’s.

I’m seeing the DR saying 72. The NAB and NABRE RSE-CE and KJV all seem to say 70. So what is the difference in the DR? What does the Vulgate say? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls if anyone knows. Something here is amiss

 

[Hatikvah]

So of the groups you mention, that we accept their baptism. Do we not accept valid Apostolic succession? You say yes. Exactly why may I ask? Martin Luther was a priest after separating with the church and being excommunicated were his absolutions valid?

Well, I’m actually not sure about apostolic succession. Does it survive schism? Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are declared to be schismatics by the Church, but they also have valid apostolic succession. Seeing how they don’t recognize Lutheran churches’ apostolic succession, I’m not sure. John Wesley’s apostolic succession isn’t recognized (and all Methodist priests have a lineage to those that he ordained), but he was consecrated by the Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of Arcadia.

Someone here knows more about this than both of us, I bet.

 

[1pppp]

Ken Johnson in the book what the ancient fathers taught the disciple’s, lists who the 70 disciples are, and their ranking.

 

[duhiephoa]

uppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

Áo sơ mi nam ;
Thời trang nữ ;
Áo sơ mi nữ ;