H
Hisalone
Guest
I will answer what eklessia is however you have shown yourself disingenous by not be upfront and truthfull.
- Status
H
Hisalone
Guest
The Meaning of Ekklesia
First, we’ll look at the meaning of what Christ’s ekklesia is, we’ll look at the real thing first, then we’ll compare the legal fiction that’s being created as the substitute for Christ’s ekklesia. The word ekklesia is the original Greek Word, it was used in the Septuagint. So, the seventy-two translators that translated the Septuagint around 280 B.C. were very much aware of that word ekklesia. They used it in the Septuagint as a replacement of the Hebrew for the “congregation of Israel.”
Now, if we go to the modern word studies on ekklesia, they’ll always point to the secular meaning of the Greek, that it was a group of citizens called together. They rarely go to the original meaning. The first time it’s spoken in the New Testament, by Christ, is at Matthew 16:18, “…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ekklesia…”
When you go to Tyndale’s bible, which was the first English Bible, he translated ekklesia as “assembly.” In the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek/English New Testament (it’s a literal translation of the Greek into English), which was written in the late 1800’s, he translated ekklesia as “assembly,” and you won’t find the word “church” anywhere in there. Christ only used the word ekklesia three times. It’s not recorded in the book of Mark, John, or Luke. Matthew is the only one who recorded it.
In Strong’s Greek Concordance, the word ekklesia (word #1577) is defined as “an assembly,” and it’s from the word “ek,” (word #1537) which means “out of”; and the word “klesis” (word #2821) which means “a calling.” So ekklesia means to be called out, and obviously Christ is the one that’s calling us out. But is that the first time we were ever called out?
The apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17). Now he’s quoting the Old Testament from Isaiah 52:11, so we were called out in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 52:11 reads, “Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.”
So, when you go to the original Greek in the Septuagint and find out what those verses mean, you find out what you’re being called out of. And that’s what His ekklesia is, it is those who are called out.
When Isaiah says, “go ye out from the midst of her,” what does that mean? Well, when you go to the original Greek, “out from the midst” means “out from the center.” And the word “her” is from the Greek autos which means “self.” So basically, what this verse is saying is to depart and separate yourself from your self will (those wants of the world) and touch not the impure. So what we’re called out of is our self! We’re called out of the self-will and all of those things that have to do with the flesh. And that is His ekklesia.
This goes along with: Matthew 10:38-39, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” The apostle Paul said, “I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:31). What this means is to do His Will, and crucify the deeds of the flesh, kill our old man.
So, there’s only one definition for ekklesia, and that’s “assembly” (or “congregation”). Now, how is it possible to take the word “church” (which means a physical structure) and insert it in there? Because the word “Church” does not mean “assembly” at all! It doesn’t even closely correlate.
ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
First, we’ll look at the meaning of what Christ’s ekklesia is, we’ll look at the real thing first, then we’ll compare the legal fiction that’s being created as the substitute for Christ’s ekklesia. The word ekklesia is the original Greek Word, it was used in the Septuagint. So, the seventy-two translators that translated the Septuagint around 280 B.C. were very much aware of that word ekklesia. They used it in the Septuagint as a replacement of the Hebrew for the “congregation of Israel.”
Now, if we go to the modern word studies on ekklesia, they’ll always point to the secular meaning of the Greek, that it was a group of citizens called together. They rarely go to the original meaning. The first time it’s spoken in the New Testament, by Christ, is at Matthew 16:18, “…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my ekklesia…”
When you go to Tyndale’s bible, which was the first English Bible, he translated ekklesia as “assembly.” In the George Ricker Berry Interlinear Greek/English New Testament (it’s a literal translation of the Greek into English), which was written in the late 1800’s, he translated ekklesia as “assembly,” and you won’t find the word “church” anywhere in there. Christ only used the word ekklesia three times. It’s not recorded in the book of Mark, John, or Luke. Matthew is the only one who recorded it.
In Strong’s Greek Concordance, the word ekklesia (word #1577) is defined as “an assembly,” and it’s from the word “ek,” (word #1537) which means “out of”; and the word “klesis” (word #2821) which means “a calling.” So ekklesia means to be called out, and obviously Christ is the one that’s calling us out. But is that the first time we were ever called out?
The apostle Paul wrote, “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:17). Now he’s quoting the Old Testament from Isaiah 52:11, so we were called out in the Old Testament. In the Septuagint, Isaiah 52:11 reads, “Depart ye, depart, go out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing; go ye out from the midst of her; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.”
So, when you go to the original Greek in the Septuagint and find out what those verses mean, you find out what you’re being called out of. And that’s what His ekklesia is, it is those who are called out.
When Isaiah says, “go ye out from the midst of her,” what does that mean? Well, when you go to the original Greek, “out from the midst” means “out from the center.” And the word “her” is from the Greek autos which means “self.” So basically, what this verse is saying is to depart and separate yourself from your self will (those wants of the world) and touch not the impure. So what we’re called out of is our self! We’re called out of the self-will and all of those things that have to do with the flesh. And that is His ekklesia.
This goes along with: Matthew 10:38-39, “And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” The apostle Paul said, “I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:31). What this means is to do His Will, and crucify the deeds of the flesh, kill our old man.
So, there’s only one definition for ekklesia, and that’s “assembly” (or “congregation”). Now, how is it possible to take the word “church” (which means a physical structure) and insert it in there? Because the word “Church” does not mean “assembly” at all! It doesn’t even closely correlate.
ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
H
Hisalone
Guest
We begin to discover the meaning of the secular Greek term
ekklesia when we turn to the Hebrew word or words which were
rendered ekklesia by the translators of the Septuagint.
According to tradition, seventy Jewish scholars based in
Alexandria, Egypt, translated the Hebrew Scriptures into
Greek in the third century BCE to enable the Hellenised Jews
in the diaspora to read the Scriptures in the lingua franca
of the Mediterranean Basin. These scholars used the Greek
word ekklesia to translate the Hebrew word qahal, which
means “congregation, assembly.” Qahal is a derivative of
qol, the word for voice. Ultimately, it refers to the
summoning of an assembly or to the act of assembling. This
term is generally used in Scripture to refer to the assembly
of the people of Israel, e.g. qahal Yisrael_assembly of
Israel, qahal YHWH_assembly of YHWH, and qahal Elohim_the
assembly of Elohim. The people of Yisrael are sometimes
referred to as the qehillah, from the same root. As said,
the word qahal is usually rendered ekklesia in the
Septuagint. The important point is that the exegesis of the
term ekklesia in the GNT should therefore be based on the
use of the term qahal in the Hebrew Scriptures. Failure to
do so, inevitably results in a perverse “splitting up” of
concepts, in the creation of a new pseudo-concept, in
creating a false dichotomy and discontinuity in
salvation-history.
In Scriptural language then, the “church” is the assembly of
all who respond to the call to enter into a covenant
relationship with Almighty YHWH. “Church” is not
exclusively a “New Testament” term, for the origin of the
term is found in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures, which the writers of the GNT used. The word
which the apostles used to express their corporate identity
was the same as that which had been used by the people of
Israel since the exodus from Egypt. This is why Stephanos
calls Israel “the church in the wilderness” in Acts 7:38 and
why Hebrews 2:12 quotes Psalm 22:22: “I will declare thy
name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will
I praise thee” as “I will declare thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”
This is also why Hebrews 12:23 uses “general assembly” and
“church of the firstborn” as virtually synonymous, in the
characteristic style of Hebrew parallelism, which rhymes
thoughts, not words.
The authors of the apostolic writings understood that the
word ekklesia translated the Hebrew qahal and meant the
assembly or congregation of YHWH. For Yahushua (Jesus) and the
sh’liachim (apostles) there was absolute continuity between
the congregation of the pre-Messianic past and the Messianic
future, the church of the Hebrew Scriptures and the church
of which we read in the apostolic writings. The qahal of
the Messianic age is an empowered qahal_empowered by the
Ruach HaQodesh. Yahushua called unto him whom He would,
trained twelve talmidim (students; apprentices under
discipline) to be the leaders of His empowered qahal. He
brought the qahal of YHWH to its intended state, a state of
partaking of the firstfruits of the New Covenant which was
sealed in His own shed sacrificial blood.
We conclude that Reformed theology is correct in tracing
“Church history” all the way back to the time of the exodus
from Egypt (or even before that). In contrast,
Dispensationalism misuses the term church. Their theology,
with its stark ChurchIsrael dichotomy, was developed from
English translations of Scripture, so that they fell into
the disastrous hermeneutical trap by assuming premises 1 to
3 detailed on page above.
hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/9901/9901_r.html
ekklesia when we turn to the Hebrew word or words which were
rendered ekklesia by the translators of the Septuagint.
According to tradition, seventy Jewish scholars based in
Alexandria, Egypt, translated the Hebrew Scriptures into
Greek in the third century BCE to enable the Hellenised Jews
in the diaspora to read the Scriptures in the lingua franca
of the Mediterranean Basin. These scholars used the Greek
word ekklesia to translate the Hebrew word qahal, which
means “congregation, assembly.” Qahal is a derivative of
qol, the word for voice. Ultimately, it refers to the
summoning of an assembly or to the act of assembling. This
term is generally used in Scripture to refer to the assembly
of the people of Israel, e.g. qahal Yisrael_assembly of
Israel, qahal YHWH_assembly of YHWH, and qahal Elohim_the
assembly of Elohim. The people of Yisrael are sometimes
referred to as the qehillah, from the same root. As said,
the word qahal is usually rendered ekklesia in the
Septuagint. The important point is that the exegesis of the
term ekklesia in the GNT should therefore be based on the
use of the term qahal in the Hebrew Scriptures. Failure to
do so, inevitably results in a perverse “splitting up” of
concepts, in the creation of a new pseudo-concept, in
creating a false dichotomy and discontinuity in
salvation-history.
In Scriptural language then, the “church” is the assembly of
all who respond to the call to enter into a covenant
relationship with Almighty YHWH. “Church” is not
exclusively a “New Testament” term, for the origin of the
term is found in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures, which the writers of the GNT used. The word
which the apostles used to express their corporate identity
was the same as that which had been used by the people of
Israel since the exodus from Egypt. This is why Stephanos
calls Israel “the church in the wilderness” in Acts 7:38 and
why Hebrews 2:12 quotes Psalm 22:22: “I will declare thy
name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will
I praise thee” as “I will declare thy name unto my brethren,
in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.”
This is also why Hebrews 12:23 uses “general assembly” and
“church of the firstborn” as virtually synonymous, in the
characteristic style of Hebrew parallelism, which rhymes
thoughts, not words.
The authors of the apostolic writings understood that the
word ekklesia translated the Hebrew qahal and meant the
assembly or congregation of YHWH. For Yahushua (Jesus) and the
sh’liachim (apostles) there was absolute continuity between
the congregation of the pre-Messianic past and the Messianic
future, the church of the Hebrew Scriptures and the church
of which we read in the apostolic writings. The qahal of
the Messianic age is an empowered qahal_empowered by the
Ruach HaQodesh. Yahushua called unto him whom He would,
trained twelve talmidim (students; apprentices under
discipline) to be the leaders of His empowered qahal. He
brought the qahal of YHWH to its intended state, a state of
partaking of the firstfruits of the New Covenant which was
sealed in His own shed sacrificial blood.
We conclude that Reformed theology is correct in tracing
“Church history” all the way back to the time of the exodus
from Egypt (or even before that). In contrast,
Dispensationalism misuses the term church. Their theology,
with its stark ChurchIsrael dichotomy, was developed from
English translations of Scripture, so that they fell into
the disastrous hermeneutical trap by assuming premises 1 to
3 detailed on page above.
hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/9901/9901_r.html
T
TOME
Guest
Hisalone,
I think you provide important points of interest by bringing to this discussion of the meaning of Church, however, I believe that turning to the origin of the words “Ekklesia” and “Qahal” can add to our understanding of Church, still, it falls short for a couple of reasons.
One is that both terms seem to be contradictory with each other.
In the term “Ekklesia” there is an exclusiveness not found in the nature of “Qahal”. An ekklesia was hierarchical and structured and exclusive. An ekklesia was an assembly of those citizen who were allow to vote,it was therefore exclusively for males, of certain age and wealth and social status. A qahal on the other hand was an assembly of the whole people of Israel. More importantly, innate to the qahal, essential to its nature, is the characteristic that the qahal’s reason for being is worship. However, the New Testament writes also understood the hierarchical nature of the Church which incorporates the aspect of the Church being the “People of God” (Worship) into or with the understood concept of a special assembly pointing to the Church being hierarchical but not just in a political sense. Here I turn to Saint Paul’s reminding the Corinthians that the Church is the “Body of Christ” and he goes on to explain, as I am sure you know better than I, that the body has different parts each with its distinct functions. Still, the Church as the Body of Christ is more, it is Christ’s sacramental presence on earth here and now.
In an earlier post I referred to Lumen Gentium and what I just wrote is taken, poorly I admit, from this Dogmatic Constitution (I emphasize “Dogmatic Constitution” more as a reminder for my fello Catholics than anything sent your way) which begins by describing the Church as she truly is - the Church is first and foremost a “Mystery”. But with in this fullness of this mystery we find the Church is both the “Body of Christ” and “People of God” and it describes the role of all of us within the Church.
But there is another important section, which as a protestant you may not fully agree with and I am going to venture to guess fully understand (I say this because too many of my fellow Catholics donot seem to understand this either) namely the role of Mary in the Church and how she points to and incarnates the role of the Church as both Bride of Christ and Mother of God (but, hopefully you will agree with me that this is a topic onto itself)
So, as I wrote earlier I think it is wrong, at least from the teachings of Vatican II, to equate “The Church” with the Catholic Church, however, the Church does subsists in the Catholic Church in that within the Catholic Church we find the fullness of the Church being One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic.
But I think we can all see the wisdom in Lumen Gentium of teaching that The Church is first and foremost: A Mystery.
I think you provide important points of interest by bringing to this discussion of the meaning of Church, however, I believe that turning to the origin of the words “Ekklesia” and “Qahal” can add to our understanding of Church, still, it falls short for a couple of reasons.
One is that both terms seem to be contradictory with each other.
In the term “Ekklesia” there is an exclusiveness not found in the nature of “Qahal”. An ekklesia was hierarchical and structured and exclusive. An ekklesia was an assembly of those citizen who were allow to vote,it was therefore exclusively for males, of certain age and wealth and social status. A qahal on the other hand was an assembly of the whole people of Israel. More importantly, innate to the qahal, essential to its nature, is the characteristic that the qahal’s reason for being is worship. However, the New Testament writes also understood the hierarchical nature of the Church which incorporates the aspect of the Church being the “People of God” (Worship) into or with the understood concept of a special assembly pointing to the Church being hierarchical but not just in a political sense. Here I turn to Saint Paul’s reminding the Corinthians that the Church is the “Body of Christ” and he goes on to explain, as I am sure you know better than I, that the body has different parts each with its distinct functions. Still, the Church as the Body of Christ is more, it is Christ’s sacramental presence on earth here and now.
In an earlier post I referred to Lumen Gentium and what I just wrote is taken, poorly I admit, from this Dogmatic Constitution (I emphasize “Dogmatic Constitution” more as a reminder for my fello Catholics than anything sent your way) which begins by describing the Church as she truly is - the Church is first and foremost a “Mystery”. But with in this fullness of this mystery we find the Church is both the “Body of Christ” and “People of God” and it describes the role of all of us within the Church.
But there is another important section, which as a protestant you may not fully agree with and I am going to venture to guess fully understand (I say this because too many of my fellow Catholics donot seem to understand this either) namely the role of Mary in the Church and how she points to and incarnates the role of the Church as both Bride of Christ and Mother of God (but, hopefully you will agree with me that this is a topic onto itself)
So, as I wrote earlier I think it is wrong, at least from the teachings of Vatican II, to equate “The Church” with the Catholic Church, however, the Church does subsists in the Catholic Church in that within the Catholic Church we find the fullness of the Church being One, Holy, Catholic,and Apostolic.
But I think we can all see the wisdom in Lumen Gentium of teaching that The Church is first and foremost: A Mystery.
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
I would call it hate (my opinion of course), when you will refuse to accept something so clear in history that only a die hard anti-Catholic would be willing to claim… So who canonizing the 27 books of the NT?
SD
H
Hisalone
Guest
Interesting post TOME albeit not true.
Ekklessia literally means “the called out ones”
Abraham was called out of Ur of Chaldea.
The Hebrew children were called out of Egypt.
Gods assembly was called out of the world to be light and salt and a witness to everyone.
Christians are to be called out of the world and into Gods assembly. His true ekklessia or qahal is to ber seperated from the world and world systems not wed to them.
It is Christs “church” ekkelssia qahal not Marys— Gods Assembly is the Bride of Christ, not Mary.
W
With_Questions
Guest
I hate to tell Catholics how to do apologetics.
But…
If I were Catholic and felt a calling on God to evangelize the poor, heretic Protestants to God’s one true church, I certainly wouldn’t do it the way that I have seen it done in this thread on others. To be honest, its pretty poor. Don’t get into this St. Peter is the first pope and we have our popes from there to Benedictus, therefore we are the one true church. This just doesn’t hold water.
Instead I would ask just a few simple questions.
(1) Did God establish one church or several?
Now us Protestants will agree with you He established one church. It is just that we disagree on what the one church is.
(2) How did God design this church, if in fact He did design it?
Here you can get into a nice little discussion on whether He designed a centrally organized church with one point of leadership, or a decentralized church with no hierarchy past the local church. You of course want to establish that he designed a centralized church. Now I am not sure that you can do that, but it would be an interesting discussion.
(3) How is this church to be unified?
Assuming that Jesus did design one church and He designed it to be unified. Should the church have one teaching? How is this to be done? How is the one teaching established?
(4) Is what we see today, numerous denominations (please don’t give bogus numbers like 32,000…bogus numbers weaken your credibility) with conflicting doctinre (in certain matters) compatible with how Jesus designed the Church.
Now, if you can lay this groundwork, you still have not established the fact that one of the denominations in my phone book or the next county to me is the one true church, much less that you are it. All you have really established is that what I see in my phone book is not what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.
But at least you have established something. And this would be a much more interesting and productive conversation than schtick like “St. Peter was the first pope…and we have our popes down to Benedictus”…therefore we are the one true church. Or…“Our church was founded by Jesus Christ…your church was founded by Luther…therefore we are the one true church”.
But far be it for me to tell you how to do apologetics. But if you continue with this tack, all you will be doing is this…:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
But…
If I were Catholic and felt a calling on God to evangelize the poor, heretic Protestants to God’s one true church, I certainly wouldn’t do it the way that I have seen it done in this thread on others. To be honest, its pretty poor. Don’t get into this St. Peter is the first pope and we have our popes from there to Benedictus, therefore we are the one true church. This just doesn’t hold water.
Instead I would ask just a few simple questions.
(1) Did God establish one church or several?
Now us Protestants will agree with you He established one church. It is just that we disagree on what the one church is.
(2) How did God design this church, if in fact He did design it?
Here you can get into a nice little discussion on whether He designed a centrally organized church with one point of leadership, or a decentralized church with no hierarchy past the local church. You of course want to establish that he designed a centralized church. Now I am not sure that you can do that, but it would be an interesting discussion.
(3) How is this church to be unified?
Assuming that Jesus did design one church and He designed it to be unified. Should the church have one teaching? How is this to be done? How is the one teaching established?
(4) Is what we see today, numerous denominations (please don’t give bogus numbers like 32,000…bogus numbers weaken your credibility) with conflicting doctinre (in certain matters) compatible with how Jesus designed the Church.
Now, if you can lay this groundwork, you still have not established the fact that one of the denominations in my phone book or the next county to me is the one true church, much less that you are it. All you have really established is that what I see in my phone book is not what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.
But at least you have established something. And this would be a much more interesting and productive conversation than schtick like “St. Peter was the first pope…and we have our popes down to Benedictus”…therefore we are the one true church. Or…“Our church was founded by Jesus Christ…your church was founded by Luther…therefore we are the one true church”.
But far be it for me to tell you how to do apologetics. But if you continue with this tack, all you will be doing is this…:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
T
TOME
Guest
Thank you for your response and I hope you see that my post was more of an introduction than a final word. One of the thoughts I was hoping to convey and further develop is the sense that when we look at the terms of ekklesia and qahal as found in the OT these, as the OT itself, provide us with a greater understanding of our own identity because they point to the fullness of their meaning which can only be fully realized in the Christ event and post Resurrectional Church.
Now I would be interested in your further comments on a couple points I presented but hope to see, as I wrote above, developed further.
But before that I would also add I think what I hope to discuss is in keeping with the original thought of this thread, namely, about what is the true Chuch founded by Christ and that The Church actually is something more than the "Cathoilc Chuch"although it subsists fully in the Catholic Church.
That said I would be interested in your thoughts, and all others, on what it means for the Church to be the “Body of Christ” (and with this the sacramental nature of the Church), “People of God”, along with the Church being both Bride and Mother.
By the way, just to clarify something, when I introduced The Blessed Mother into the conversation it was not meant to say Mary was the “Bride of Christ”, however, that isn’t how I wrote it - MY MISTAKE, and I apologize. I meant to introduce how Mary personifies the Church as Mother and Bride if, as for nothing else, as an example of what the Church is and should become from the human perspective of the Church’s nature.
It seems you prefer to emphasize the “Calling Out” characteristic of the term ekklesia, however, I hope you also address the hierarchical nature of this term.
I hope we will be able to further develop our thoughts and of coarse with the benefit of the insight of the many others involved in this discussion.
Now I would be interested in your further comments on a couple points I presented but hope to see, as I wrote above, developed further.
But before that I would also add I think what I hope to discuss is in keeping with the original thought of this thread, namely, about what is the true Chuch founded by Christ and that The Church actually is something more than the "Cathoilc Chuch"although it subsists fully in the Catholic Church.
That said I would be interested in your thoughts, and all others, on what it means for the Church to be the “Body of Christ” (and with this the sacramental nature of the Church), “People of God”, along with the Church being both Bride and Mother.
By the way, just to clarify something, when I introduced The Blessed Mother into the conversation it was not meant to say Mary was the “Bride of Christ”, however, that isn’t how I wrote it - MY MISTAKE, and I apologize. I meant to introduce how Mary personifies the Church as Mother and Bride if, as for nothing else, as an example of what the Church is and should become from the human perspective of the Church’s nature.
It seems you prefer to emphasize the “Calling Out” characteristic of the term ekklesia, however, I hope you also address the hierarchical nature of this term.
I hope we will be able to further develop our thoughts and of coarse with the benefit of the insight of the many others involved in this discussion.
T
TOME
Guest
With Questions,
I think you brought some worth-while insights and hopefully my last post, which coincidentally I must have been working on at the same time of your post (great minds thinking alike?) also addresses some of your questions.
But to answer your first question the answer is the is One and Only one Church. If the Church truly is the Body of Chirst then it must be one for Christ Body is One - again I refer to Staint Paul use of the human body to describe how we are many although one, however, here I believe Paul was writing about different ministeries within the Church.
But also, it must always be understood that the nature of the unity of the Church doesn’t lie in its structure and cannot come from a structure. The Oneness of the Church come from within its nature which in intrinsiclly unity to the Trinity (the Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
I think too often we have a tendency to see The Church as strictly an institution rather than as the living presence of Christ here and now, that is the Church is the “Body of Christ” (I am sure you know the scriptures far better than I do, but isn’t this the meaning of Christ’s proclamation to Saul that when Saul was persecuting the Church he was persecuting Christ Himself?).
I hope that this post will be the first of many where we can continue this pleasant conversation.
I think you brought some worth-while insights and hopefully my last post, which coincidentally I must have been working on at the same time of your post (great minds thinking alike?) also addresses some of your questions.
But to answer your first question the answer is the is One and Only one Church. If the Church truly is the Body of Chirst then it must be one for Christ Body is One - again I refer to Staint Paul use of the human body to describe how we are many although one, however, here I believe Paul was writing about different ministeries within the Church.
But also, it must always be understood that the nature of the unity of the Church doesn’t lie in its structure and cannot come from a structure. The Oneness of the Church come from within its nature which in intrinsiclly unity to the Trinity (the Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
I think too often we have a tendency to see The Church as strictly an institution rather than as the living presence of Christ here and now, that is the Church is the “Body of Christ” (I am sure you know the scriptures far better than I do, but isn’t this the meaning of Christ’s proclamation to Saul that when Saul was persecuting the Church he was persecuting Christ Himself?).
I hope that this post will be the first of many where we can continue this pleasant conversation.
U
ufamtobie
Guest
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Logically speaking, it has to be one or the other doesn’t it? I mean it’s possible both the RCC and EO are pretenders or that one of them is the real deal but isn’t it impossible for both the RCC and EO to be the church founded by Jesus?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Yes, it is impossible.
Given that the early eastern patriarchs acknowlegded the primacy of Peter and the papacy, it would be difficult to make the case for the EO.
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
I think if you looked at all the threads you would find that all your tactics have been used and used and used… but since this wasn’t a thread on everything I’m pretty sure you won’t find all those techniques used… even though they are quite well thought out
and used a lot in other threads where they apply.Personally, if I were a Protestant trusting my whole Christian life and soul to faith obtained from reading a book, I would certainly want to know where that book came from and how it was determined to be the right book and by who… after I discovered who determined those were the right books then I would try to figure out why those men thought those were the right ones… and since my wife could explain a biography written about my life much better than someone 2000 years from now, I would probably trust the thoughts of those men that decided on those books much better than my own… In other words I would try to understand the Scriptures through their teachings… but then again everybody responds differently to different information… what works for one just goes over the top of another… So if those are the questions you need to ask yourself than by all means focus on them for now, but remember that there will always be other questions that you didn’t think of. For me that’s the beauty of CAF… so many minds with so many interesting thoughts.
SD
T
TOME
Guest
To Hisalone and With Questions,
The answer to nsper7 “dare” is actually very simple. The Dogamatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) teaches that the Roman Cathoic Church (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is not the Church founded by Christ.
It seems the greater dare is for we Catholics to know and understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
The answer to nsper7 “dare” is actually very simple. The Dogamatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) teaches that the Roman Cathoic Church (and/or Eastern Orthodox) is not the Church founded by Christ.
8 of Lumen Gentium states: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society,SUBSISTS IN, the Catholic Church… although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
After serious and heated debates amoung the council fathers, the words, “Subsists In” were deliberately chosen over the word “IS”, that is the council fathers freely and willingly chose to say that the fullness of the church is found in the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church IS NOT the Church of Christ.It seems the greater dare is for we Catholics to know and understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I think it is clear that the early Christians at Antioch believed that the Church was centralized.
Why do you suppose they sent representatives to Jerusalem and Peter when they had a doctrinal dispute over circumcision?
Why not just decide on their own?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That means nothing. It reduces Rome to a tribal fetish. Fetishism is fit only for savages - it’s not Christian. 
Rome is nothing without God. Since the same is true of all other Churches, this rivalry is silly. Who cares ? It’s like seeing a couple of five-year olds squabbling over a toy. If the Church’s only concern is to be Top Religion or Top Church, it is doing a lot to unchurch itself, because in such a case it has its priorities back to front
Only someone ignorant of Protestantism would argue that they they were Protestants.
N
nsper7
Guest
You are correct to say that Rome without God is nothing, but that is not the argument. It is not so much Rome as the Bishop of Rome, the Successor to St. Peter. The Eastern Orthodox reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the Catholicism ascribes to said Bishop. That was all I was getting at. I meant to say they are a “tricky” group to address in this subject since they have the history as well and we even recognize their Holy Orders and Sacraments.That means nothing. It reduces Rome to a tribal fetish. Fetishism is fit only for savages - it’s not Christian.
It seems there is one Church that Christ founded? Historically speaking, it has to either be the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church (depending on which side of the argument you stand on and who you believe split from who). Any other “church” was either heretical to begin with (i.e. Arians, Gnostic Christans), schismed from the Catholic Church (i.e. Lutherans, Anglicans , etc.) or schismed from a schism. My understanding is this is historical fact, but I wanted others to examine it as well. After all, I do not claim to be an expert in Church history and I certainly want to make sure I am joining the historical One True Church.
Well, by the historical definition of Protestant (i.e. the group of Lutheran princes who ‘protested’ against the Diet of Speyr’s 1529 decision), there are no Protestants today, but by the colloquial definition of any group that stands against the Catholic Church and refuses to recognize its full authority, then wouldn’t the Old Catholics, sedevacantists, etc. fall under this category?
L
LutheranDK
Guest
First of all - sorry for the lateness of my reply
I am fully aware that charity is not = agreeing with everything your opponent says. I’ve had many valuable, and charitable, discussions with people I disagree fervently with
Just please keep in mind that I’m writing from a non-RC perspective, and therefore might not properly understand RC practise. In that case, please explain properly.
I don’t think I am eitherBy the way, you share a birthday with one of my seven sons… so you can’t be all that bad
Not valid reasoning, of course, regardless of who say it.
I, however, have also seen many RCs say something to that effect:
“You can’t be right, because that would mean that the gates of hell has overcome the Catholic church, and Jesus said that wouldn’t happen”, for instance.
I think this is the heart of the matter, to be honest.
1: Yes, it is true that Ignatius uses the word “katholikos”. The question is, however, if what Ignatius is referring to is the same as what is today known as the Roman-Catholic Church.
You say that it is, I say that it is not, and I would like to ask you why you say that it is? Because when I look at 2nd and 3rd century Christendom (there aren’t enough reliable sources to say much specifically about the post-Apostolic 1st century Christendom), I don’t see the present Roman-Catholic Church.
The image I get is much closer to the one in the Eastern Church, having a bishop as the leader of each congregation - or of a diocese (from about the early 3rd century I think…), but where no one bishop can claim “dominion” over the others. Yes, the Eastern Church does have archbishops and patriarchs, but they are, as far as I know, prima inter pares, and therefore not comparable to the Pope, who is above the other bishops according to RC understanding, I believe?
“Then why don’t you become Eastern Orthodox, then?”, you might ask, and the answer to that question leads me to proceed to:
2: Various doctrines.
2,1: Both the RC church, and the Eastern Church, has an, IMHO, unhealthy and unbiblical fixation on Mary. Ave Maria is the example most often used, but that isn’t the worst part, as it only asks Mary to pray for us.
One that I find really problematic is the Salve Regina, for several reasons:
2,1,1:
“Our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry…to thee do we send up our sighs”.
This is perhaps the most “offensive” part of this prayer. I will call no one else that God my “life”, my “sweetness” and my “hope”, and I will cry to no one else than Him for help, and send my sighs to no one else than Him. And although I’m trying to find a way, I’m having difficulties seeing this part as something other than blasphemy.
(continued)
L
LutheranDK
Guest
2,1,2:
“Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us”
Isn’t Jesus our Advocate with the Father? Isn’t it HIS eyes of mercy we need turned toward us? Even as far as I have understood RC teachings, Mary can do nothing at all but pray for us.
(I would then add that I think she, along with everyone else who have died, no longer exists, and will not exist again until the Ressurection of the dead, but that’s a different story )
2,1,3:
“Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.”
It appears here, that Mary’s prayers for us are neccessary for us being made worthy of salvation. I don’t even know where to begin describing how much I disagree here
If it is true that Mary’s function in RC teachings is only intercessory, then it would seem to follow that her prayers are not neccessary for salvation. If, on the other hand, her prayers are seen as neccessary for salvation, then it seems to me that Mary is put on a piedestal where she doesn’t belong. Can you follow my train of thought? (not neccessarily agree!)
2,2 - Papal supremacy
The primacy of the bishop of Rome is a late “invention” in the history of the Early Church, and was not universally accepted throughout the West until after the fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, it is interesting that the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, and its church, never accepted it, and doesn’t to this day, as well as it is quite interesting to note that Rome didn’t even have a bishop until about 130 AD.
2,3 - Good works
And no, this is IF we need to do good works. The matter is WHY do we need to do good works? Is it:
My point: Just because Ignatius used the word “katholikos”, and the RC church calls itself the Catholic church, does not mean it’s the same church both are talking about. It does not mean that it ISN’T, either, but asking me to prove that Ignatius and the RC church isn’t talking about the same seems to be reversing the burden of proof. I believe it should be those who claim that it is the case who need to argue their case.
Looking forward to your reply
“Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us”
Isn’t Jesus our Advocate with the Father? Isn’t it HIS eyes of mercy we need turned toward us? Even as far as I have understood RC teachings, Mary can do nothing at all but pray for us.
(I would then add that I think she, along with everyone else who have died, no longer exists, and will not exist again until the Ressurection of the dead, but that’s a different story
)2,1,3:
“Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.”
It appears here, that Mary’s prayers for us are neccessary for us being made worthy of salvation. I don’t even know where to begin describing how much I disagree here
If it is true that Mary’s function in RC teachings is only intercessory, then it would seem to follow that her prayers are not neccessary for salvation. If, on the other hand, her prayers are seen as neccessary for salvation, then it seems to me that Mary is put on a piedestal where she doesn’t belong. Can you follow my train of thought? (not neccessarily agree!)
2,2 - Papal supremacy
The primacy of the bishop of Rome is a late “invention” in the history of the Early Church, and was not universally accepted throughout the West until after the fall of the Western part of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, it is interesting that the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, and its church, never accepted it, and doesn’t to this day, as well as it is quite interesting to note that Rome didn’t even have a bishop until about 130 AD.
2,3 - Good works
And no, this is IF we need to do good works. The matter is WHY do we need to do good works? Is it:
- In order to be saved?
Or - BECAUSE we’re saved?
#2 is the one I can best reconcile with Scripture, even after adding James to the equation. The context James spoke into were people saying that if we’re saved by Faith, then it doesn’t matter how we live our lives. That’s what James is point out isn’t true. Because true faith HAS consequenses for the way we live our lives. If it doesn’t, it’s not true faith.
One might argue that this is splitting hairs, but I woud counter that the sequence is very important, indeed ESSENTIAL.
Are we saved by faith and good works (the RC view), or are we saved by faith, WHICH PRODUCES good works (the non-RC and EO view)? It makes a difference.
My point: Just because Ignatius used the word “katholikos”, and the RC church calls itself the Catholic church, does not mean it’s the same church both are talking about. It does not mean that it ISN’T, either, but asking me to prove that Ignatius and the RC church isn’t talking about the same seems to be reversing the burden of proof. I believe it should be those who claim that it is the case who need to argue their case.
Looking forward to your reply
W
With_Questions
Guest
Perhaps. I have not seen a reasonable discourse on these questions though. But I don’t read everything and haven’t been here that long.I think if you looked at all the threads you would find that all your tactics have been used and used and used… but since this wasn’t a thread on everything I’m pretty sure you won’t find all those techniques used… even though they are quite well thought out
But my faith was not obtained solely from reading a book. Time does not allow me to mention all of the people who God used to bring me to Christ.
Not to mention the ministry of the Holy Spirit in bringing me to faith.
You know, how the Bible came to be seems to be brought up a lot here. And I just don’t get the significance of why this is so darned important.I would certainly want to know where that book came from and how it was determined to be the right book and by who… after I discovered who determined those were the right books then I would try to figure out why those men thought those were the right ones… and since my wife could explain a biography written about my life much better than someone 2000 years from now, I would probably trust the thoughts of those men that decided on those books much better than my own… In other words I would try to understand the Scriptures through their teachings… but then again everybody responds differently to different information… what works for one just goes over the top of another… So if those are the questions you need to ask yourself than by all means focus on them for now, but remember that there will always be other questions that you didn’t think of. For me that’s the beauty of CAF… so many minds with so many interesting thoughts.
SD
It is enough for me to know that God involved humans in the process of (1) writing Scripture (2) compiling Scripture together. And it is enough for me to trust God to believe that because this was His work, that He made sure that the humans involved in both parts of this process got the matter correct.
On your second point (the early church fathers), I don’t have any issues with reading them as long as their writing are not put quite to the authority level of Scripture. I do agree with the principle that I would like my Christian beliefs to be well grounded in history as opposed to a nice, creative idea from the Bible that somebody gets 2000 years after the fact.
- Status