The historicity of the Church

[Nicea325]

Do the other Catholic organizations figure into this scenario?

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church

If they are one of the 21 rites of the Catholic Church,there is no conflict. They are all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

But He only established ONE organization in NT times. And He only promised ONE organization that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

And He only related so closely with ONE organization that He claimed that persecution of it was persecution of Him.

Why are you fighting against that ONE organization?

Because it goes against the current tradition he or she follows. A tradition which popped up much later.

 

[josie_L]

Do the other Catholic organizations figure into this scenario?

Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church

And they are not organizations, they are sui iuris churches who are all in communion with Rome!

 

[benhur]

If they are one of the 21 rites of the Catholic Church,there is no conflict. They are all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Is that like saying if there 30,000 denominations there is no conflict for they are in union with each other in being non-papal ?
.

 

[benhur]

The historicity of the Church is something that has fascinated me for years. As an educator and man of Faith, I’ve always been interested in the history of the Church coming from both academic primary resources, as well as our Good Word. An educated evaluation of evidence calls for never ending folly down the rabbit hole.

honest. thank you and welcome. are you a Jesuit? I agree. I recall Augustine said something of the limitations of the human mind. One of our greatest gifts, our mind or intellect does it’s best when it humbly yields to your stated vanity, to let God illumine His evidences. Faith is evidence of things not seen ( by flesh) or " flesh and blood has not revealed it to us but the Father who is in heaven".

 

[Nicea325]

Is that like saying if there 30,000 denominations there is no conflict for they are in union with each other in being non-papal ?
.

Nope! Not even close and not even comparable. Protestants tend to use that tactic as a means of defending the scores of denominations. Those rites are not individual denominations, moreover, they adhere to the same doctrine and authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[benhur]

Nope! Not even close and not even comparable. Protestants tend to use that tactic as a means of defending the scores of denominations. Those rites are not individual denominations, moreover, they adhere to the same doctrine and authority of the Bishop of Rome.

You are right, tough to defend division that has come about but…tough to defend the church culture that eventually led to that divide(s).(O’s and P’s).

 

[nmgauss]

Nope! Not even close and not even comparable. Protestants tend to use that tactic as a means of defending the scores of denominations. Those rites are not individual denominations, moreover, they adhere to the same doctrine and authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Do all Roman Catholic priests conduct the Mass in the identical way prescribed by the Vatican? If not, then they are not unanimous. If they are not unanimous, then differences can arise that might even lead to schisms.

The Sui Iuris Catholic organizations have different rites but show allegiance to the Pope. Some have their own Patriarchs. Others are Archiepiscopal. A third type has Metropolitans. Then there are the churches which are neither patriarchal nor major archiepiscopal nor Metropolitan, but are entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it in accordance with the norm of common law and the particular law established by the Roman Pontiff"

It seems to me that these independent Catholic organizations exist with the permission of the Pope. They don’t answer to him, but are allowed to exist through the auspices of the Pope.

 

[josie_L]

Do all Roman Catholic priests conduct the Mass in the identical way prescribed by the Vatican? If not, then they are not unanimous. If they are not unanimous, then differences can arise that might even lead to schisms.

All Roman Catholic priests conduct the mass the way in which it is allowable by Church law/Tradition, i.e., it’s not a free for all.

The Sui Iuris Catholic organizations have different rites but show allegiance to the Pope. Some have their own Patriarchs. Others are Archiepiscopal. A third type has Metropolitans. Then there are the churches which are neither patriarchal nor major archiepiscopal nor Metropolitan, but are entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it in accordance with the norm of common law and the particular law established by the Roman Pontiff"

Again, they are not organizations, but churches, and the word “allegiance” is inappropriate, i.e., they are in communion with Rome.

It seems to me that these independent Catholic organizations exist with the permission of the Pope. They don’t answer to him, but are allowed to exist through the auspices of the Pope.

They are autonomous not autocephalous:

The term “autocephalous,” as used in Eastern Orthodoxy, has come to signify complete independence, recognizing no higher authority. When an Eastern Orthodox Church becomes autocephalous, it no longer answers to anyone.

In the Catholic communion of Churches, individual Churches are “sui iurus,” which roughly translates as “self-governing” or “autonomous.” But this autonomy always recognizes the right of the Pope to intervene when necessary, as he could throughout the first millenium of Christianity. “Autocephaly,” on the other hand, means that no one from outside that Church has the right to intervene.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=386361&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

And no, it is not that they EXIST because of the pope’s benevolence or auspices, i.e., they exist because they are authentically Catholic, i.e., it is a testament of the universality of the Church, which is a mark of the true Church.

 

[marywarfield]

Do all Roman Catholic priests conduct the Mass in the identical way prescribed by the Vatican? If not, then they are not unanimous. If they are not unanimous, then differences can arise that might even lead to schisms.

The Sui Iuris Catholic organizations have different rites but show allegiance to the Pope. Some have their own Patriarchs. Others are Archiepiscopal. A third type has Metropolitans. Then there are the churches which are neither patriarchal nor major archiepiscopal nor Metropolitan, but are entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it in accordance with the norm of common law and the particular law established by the Roman Pontiff"

It seems to me that these independent Catholic organizations exist with the permission of the Pope. They don’t answer to him, but are allowed to exist through the auspices of the Pope.

The are all Catholic Churches. The Mass itself never changes.
Certain man made disciplines do: language, kneeling,
standing, reception on a spoon, in hand etc and even the name
as in the west it is the Mass and the East it is Divine
Liturgy.
The Mass/Liturgy itself though is the same in all Catholic Churches around
the world.

 

[Nicea325]

You are right, tough to defend division that has come about but…tough to defend the church culture that eventually led to that divide(s).(O’s and P’s).

Unfortunately a sad state of reality.

 

[Nicea325]

Do all Roman Catholic priests conduct the Mass in the identical way prescribed by the Vatican?

Unless you have concrete proof by a legitimate source proving a priest or priests NOT consecrating the host? If you are referring to petty details like music not being sung or not is not considered “unanimous” by church standards.

If not, then they are not unanimous.

According to who?

If they are not unanimous, then differences can arise that might even lead to schisms.

And yet 21 rites continue to exist all in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The Sui Iuris Catholic organizations have different rites but show allegiance to the Pope

.

Your terminology is in error. They are NOT organizations,but rites.

Some have their own Patriarchs. Others are Archiepiscopal. A third type has Metropolitans. Then there are the churches which are neither patriarchal nor major archiepiscopal nor Metropolitan, but are entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it in accordance with the norm of common law and the particular law established by the Roman Pontiff"

And nonetheless, there continues to be 21 rites in communion with Rome.

It seems to me that these independent Catholic organizations exist with the permission of the Pope. They don’t answer to him, but are allowed to exist through the auspices of the Pope.

They do not answer to him? Then why on earth would they be in communion with him?

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point out in mho that first of all in the Four Gospels Peter is ranked first among all the Apostles, there must be a reason for this or why would the Gospel writers include it in their Gospel accounts? In Matthew 16: 13-20 Jesus tells peter that he is the rock that He (Jesus) will build His Church on. he does not say to all of the Apostles that he will build His Church on them but only on Peter. Now why would Matthew write this? What was the reason as to why Matthew includes this passage on his Gospel account if not to imply that Peter is to be the head of the Church Jesus is building though them (the Apostles). Why not just say that Jesus wanted all of the Apostles to be the rock that he would build His Church on? It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His Church is to be built on Peter, that peter is the rock which implies that peter is solid and Jesus’ Church will be built on this solid foundation that is Peter, which also implies that it is to Peter to govern the Church with the rest of the Apostles supporting Peter.
It seems to me that Matthew's Gospel account in 16 is saying that Jesus is saying that Peter is to be the head of the Church. Jesus is not saying that all of the Apostles are to be head of the Church or to start separate Churches but what Jesus is saying is that Peter is to be the head, that is authority over all of the Apostles and the Churches that are founded by them. Not to have an head is to bring chaos disunity.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to point out in mho that first of all in the Four Gospels Peter is ranked first among all the Apostles, there must be a reason for this or why would the Gospel writers include it in their Gospel accounts? In Matthew 16: 13-20 Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock that He (Jesus) will build His Church on. He does not say to all of the Apostles that He will build His Church on them but only on Peter. Now why would Matthew write this? What was the reason as to why Matthew includes this passage on his Gospel account if not to imply that Peter is to be the head of the Church Jesus is building though them (the Apostles). Why not just say that Jesus wanted all of the Apostles to be the rock that He would build His Church on? It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His Church is to be built on Peter, that Peter is the rock which implies that Peter is solid and Jesus’ Church will be built on this solid foundation that is Peter, which also implies that it is to Peter to govern the Church with the rest of the Apostles supporting Peter.
It seems to me that Matthew's Gospel account in 16 is saying that Jesus is saying that Peter is to be the head of the Church. Jesus is not saying that all of the Apostles are to be head of the Church or to start separate Churches but what Jesus is saying is that Peter is to be the head, that is authority over all of the Apostles and the Churches that are founded by them. Not to have an head is to bring chaos disunity.

 

[mackbrislawn]

History tells us that the first Christians were called the baptizers from whence came the Baptist

The term ‘history’ implies writings from outside scripture. Another term for history is tradition.

Who was the historian who wrote the above?

 

[spina1953]

Sacred Scripture does in fact have history as a way of teaching God’s commands. History is a recording of events from one time period to another. So Scripture does it too but for different reasons then from the secular understanding.

The first Christians were not in fact called baptizers they were first called The Way then the Nazarerians before being called Chisto’s in Antioch So the notion of the first Christians being called baptizers is incorrect.

 

[Nicea325]

Sacred Scripture does in fact have history as a way of teaching God’s commands. History is a recording of events from one time period to another. So Scripture does it too but for different reasons then from the secular understanding.

The first Christians were not in fact called baptizers they were first called The Way then the Nazarerians before being called Chisto’s in Antioch So the notion of the first Christians being called baptizers is incorrect.

Exactly!

 

[joe371]

Is that like saying if there 30,000 denominations there is no conflict for they are in union with each other in being non-papal ?
.

LOL…

 

[joe371]

You are right, tough to defend division that has come about but…tough to defend the church culture that eventually led to that divide(s).(O’s and P’s).

Doctrinal truth never changed, as per the promise of Jesus, and that is the most important thing to remember.

 

[benhur]

Doctrinal truth never changed, as per the promise of Jesus, and that is the most important thing to remember.

One must qualify that from a particular time, to understand why no one can just use the apostles creed anymore for differentiation. To say everything Catholic is apostolic (unchanged) is as problematic as Protestants saying everything is Holy Spirit led.