Another question on Inv. Church

[Montie_Claunch]

I was talking to my aunt earlier this morning and she sides with the “Invisable Church” groups. I could use some help with her objections please.

She says that 1 Tim. 3:15 is sometimes translated congregation and that you don’t take it to some all powerful church but to a group of fellow beleivers.

She says that in Matthew 16:18 it was Peters faith saying that there has never been one church but, many diffrent (the Judizer, the Gentlitles, albagenians) and that there were diffrences of doctrinal ideas scince the beggening (Paul rebuking Peter, those who would becomse the Eastern Orthadox).

She also says that there is no one church because miricles happen out side the “Roman Church” and that makes the other churches true churches as well.

She also says “What a person can’t pray over bible readings and the Holy Spirit will lead them?” feeling that the Holy Spirit could lead a person to where ever he feels like, even if that is away from rome.

Could someone help me with this?

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Liberian]

Montie,

Your aunt seems to be firing “buckshot all over the place.” Let me see what I can do with such a disparate group of questions.

(1) I will readily believe that I Timothy 3:15 is sometimes translated “congregation,” but the context there is “you know how to behave in church.” There’s nothing there about “take it to the church.” Matthew 18:17, on the other hand, does say “take it to the church,” and the Greek word used in both places is the same Greek word used in Matthew 16:18. Clearly (at least it’s clear to me!) in Matthew 16:18 Jesus was talking about more than just “a group of fellow believers.” The interpretation depends, I think, more on the interpreter’s biases than it does on the Greek text.

Your aunt’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to mean that “this rock” was Peter’s faith does violence to the Greek text and greater violence to the Aramaic in which Jesus actually said the words. When Jesus says to Simon bar-Jona “you are rock” and then immediately continues with “and on this rock,” the word “this” refers most obviously to the “rock” which He just mentioned. Anything else is a wrenching of the text. Again, it is more a matter of the interpreter’s bias than it is anything in the text.

For what it’s worth, Protestants are not unified on what Jesus did mean by “this rock.” Some say it was Peter’s confession; some say it was Peter’s faith (this is closely related to the confession, but is not identical); some say Jesus meant Himself. The only thing they agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Incidentally, half a century ago Peter’s bones were discovered in the basement of St. Peter’s Basilica, directly underneath the central altar. It appears that God has a sense of humor.

There has always been one true Church. People within the Church have always disagreed over things, but they have always been baptized and have always recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome. There have also always been splinter groups that have left the Church to form their own churches. Is your aunt suggesting that when Jesus said He would build His Church He meant that he would build multiple churches? If He meant this, why didn’t He use the plural “churches” instead of “church”?

I don’t know how you can get from “miracles happen outside the Catholic Church” to “these other churches are also true churches.” Certainly the members of those churches worship God and receive His grace, but that does not make their churches “the One True Church.” I also invite her to point to any events on the scale of Fatima that happened outside the Catholic Church.

I would also like to ask your aunt whether the Holy Spirit will lead two different people into contradictory versions of the truth. The divergence of interpretations of “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 came from people who had all “followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

About thirty years ago, Larry Flynt (the publisher of Hustler magazine) had a very public conversion to the Southern Baptist Church. He announced a few weeks later that the Holy Spirit had told him to keep publishing his magazine. How does your aunt know that this was not true?

I hope these help. I will stay tuned, I guess, for the next round of “buckshot all over the place” from your aunt. It seems that she is looking for something, anything, that she can catch the Catholic Church out on. One more thing to ask her is what is her underlying reason for not wanting to join the Catholic Church.

• Liberian

 

[puzzleannie]

I was talking to my aunt earlier this morning and she sides with the “Invisable Church” groups. I could use some help with her objections please.
.

I have no idea what your aunt is talking about but I do have experience with invisible church groups:

if 130 children celebrated first communion in this parish 10 years ago, we should have 130 youth preparing for Confirmation this year. The 80 kids missing are one invisible group, that’s for sure.

Over 50 people sign up for an adult Bible study on an interest survey we do every year, and this year we had our biggest turnout ever–6 people. So that is 44 people in another invisible church group.

120 2nd graders celebrated 1st communion last year. We only have 24 third graders in CCD this year, and some of them have not yet received first communion. Another invisible group.

Every year this parish baptizes between 240 and 300 infants, yet 5 years down the road, fewer than 100 show up for CCD and sacramental preparation. Another invisible church group.

dah dah dah

 

[Mystophilus]

When Jesus says to Simon bar-Jona “you are rock” and then immediately continues with “and on this rock,” the word “this” refers most obviously to the “rock” which He just mentioned.

“this” is a demonstrative adjective. In Greek, nouns are gendered, and an adjective must take the gender of the noun which it describes. ταυτηι (‘this’) is feminine: it refers only to πετραι, which is also feminine, and is grammatically incapable of referring to πετρος, which is masculine. This is a textual note, so do not jump to the conclusion that I am saying that there is a disjunction between the two halves of the sentence.

For what it’s worth, Protestants are not unified on what Jesus did mean by “this rock.” Some say it was Peter’s confession; some say it was Peter’s faith (this is closely related to the confession, but is not identical); some say Jesus meant Himself. The only thing they agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Some Protestants have a political reason to read πετρος and πετρα as being utterly different. This is a poor reading. Some Catholics have a political reason to read πετρος and πετρα as being identical. This is also a poor reading, and for the same reason: both allow ideology to prejudice the reading of the actual text.

Lacking such sectarian politics, many of the early Church Fathers read the reference in Matthew 16:18 to Jesus saying that he would build his Church on Peter’s confession, on all Christians, on himself, on the faith, and on Peter. Origen, for example, read it in two different ways in two succeeding paragraphs (Commentary on Matthew, XII. ). They saw no necessity in the claim that it must be only one of these things, and it is a shame that Catholic apologists, have been so driven by a desire to counter anti-Catholic arguments as to zealously compile lists of only one of those readings. Such are the fruits of sectarian arguments .

Simply put, it works like this: πετρος and πετρα are two different words. Jesus says, “You are [that], and I shall build my Church upon [this]”. Thus far, the anti-Catholics seem correct, but that is only because they have only considered half of the linguistic situation.

The other half is that πετρα and πετρος are intimately-related words. As is readily obvious, they share the πετρ- root. There is also an overlap in meaning: both can be used to refer to a massive boulder. The reason for this overlap is that πετρα refers to stone which is massive, and, therefore, such a huge rock as to be suitable for the foundation of a building, while πετρος refers to a stone which is separate, e.g., the kind which you commonly threw at people in wars. However, where does the πετρος come from? Well, it comes from the πετρα. What is the substance of the πετρος? It is identical to the substance of the πετρα, because it comes from there. This is where the Catholic apologists seem correct, and it is useful for them not to forget that initial point about the difference.

In other words, Jesus actually said to Simon, “You are [this thing], and I shall build my Church upon [you and the ones like you].” It is an impressively artistic conjunction of terms, which sectarian arguments miss in their partisan haste, dishonouring the artist who produced it. The πετρα is Peter and other Christians and Christ and the faith and the confession, all at the same time, with no exclusion of any of them merely because any other was included.

(Really, why do people learn Latin but not Greek? Greek is much more sensible.)

 

[geezerbob]

This thread seems to be going off on a tangent.

I think Montie is asking about the claim some make that the Church fell into apostasy shortly after the crucifixion and that a small band of true believers stayed in hiding until the reformation or thereabouts. I’ve heard this claim from LDS, JW’s and some Baptists. I’ll leave it up to you guys to provide the rebuttal.

 

[Mystophilus]

She says that 1 Tim. 3:15 is sometimes translated congregation and that you don’t take it to some all powerful church but to a group of fellow beleivers.

I am presuming that it is εκκλησια which is so translated. The word most closely resembles ‘assembly’, and was used to refer to the voting assemblies in democratic Athens. It is derived from a verb (εκκαλεω) which means ‘call out’, or ‘summon’. It could be used to describe a local congregation, or a universal church.

Looking at the use in that verse, Paul is talking about behaviour εν οικωι θεου, ‘in the house of God’, and then describing that house in the rest of the verse. Looking at the earlier verses in the chapter, it is quite apparent that he is describind propriety of worship in any church, i.e., any meeting-house for Christians, anywhere.

She says that in Matthew 16:18 it was Peter’s faith

This was one of the readings of the early Fathers. The mistake that a lot of modern readers make is in assuming that only one reading is correct, when the linguistic construction of that verse calls for multiple simultaneous readings: yes, it is Peter’s faith, and his confession, and Christ, and every other believer, and it is also Peter himself, all at the same time. For more on this, see my response to the good Liberian.

saying that there has never been one church but, many diffrent (the Judizer, the Gentlitles, albagenians) and that there were diffrences of doctrinal ideas scince the beggening (Paul rebuking Peter, those who would becomse the Eastern Orthadox).

There have been differences among Christians since the beginning. A lot of them are referred to very directly in the letters in the NT, and they were written in the decades following Christ’s ministry. Dissension sets in fast.

Early Church unity depended upon an idea of ‘catholicity’, or ‘universality’: if you believed what the whole Church believed, then were καθολικος, ‘catholic’. If you did not, you were a heretic. This unity persisted until the ninth century, at which point the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople blew the unity apart. The Church limped on for another few hundred years, but never properly recovered, and eventually separated into the western, Latin-speaking branch, and the eastern, Greek-speaking branch.

You could think of it as being like a family. The first generation was the early Church, which had two daughters: Latin and Greek. They got on well until Latin did something which upset Greek, Greek demanded that Latin stop it, and they argued, split, and stopped talking to each other. Later, Latin had a child called Protestant, who went off on her own way because she disagreed with her mother. Along the way, there were various other children, who moved into and out of the family home at different times. The family still exist, but they are not all living together, and not all on talking terms.

She also says that there is no one church because miricles happen out side the “Roman Church” and that makes the other churches true churches as well.

That is an interesting one. Of course, the Muslims and Buddhists also have plenty of records of miracles…

She also says “What a person can’t pray over bible readings and the Holy Spirit will lead them?” feeling that the Holy Spirit could lead a person to where ever he feels like, even if that is away from Rome.

The Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit guards the Magesterium from error in their interpretations of God’s will. The dominant Protestant position is that the Holy Spirit guards the individual from error in his/her interpretations of God’s will. Both sides lack a means of actually proving that they have the correct interpretation, because God has idiosyncratically refused to come out in favour of either party.

I think that the reason for that refusal is probably pretty obvious.

 

[neophyte]

I was talking to my aunt earlier this morning and she sides with the “Invisable Church” groups. I could use some help with her objections please…

1. The church is a divine institution: the Bride and Body of Christ. ( Eph. 1:22-23; Song of Songs; Isaiah 62; Jeremiah 2:1-3; Jeremiah 3:1-5, 3:19-20, 5:7)
2. The church is the foundation and pillar of truth, perfect and holy. (1 Tim. 3:15)
3. The Church is forever visible, not hidden. (John 1:3-5; Matt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16,11:33)
4. The Church will proclaim the true gospel continuously, forever. (Isaiah 59:21; Matt. 16:18b; 1 Pet 1:25)
5. The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles.( Ephesians 2:17-22; Ephesians 3:4-5)
6. Jesus will always be with the Apostles, and they will never teach erroneous doctrine. (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:12-13, 17:17-19.)
7. The Apostles speak with the authority of God. (Matthew 10:20, Luke 10:16)
8. The Apostles will remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26, Luke 21:33)
9. The Apostles will be one in the doctrine they teach. (John 17:20-23)
10. The Apostles have to power to forgive sin. (John 20:21-23)
11. God will give the Apostles whatever they ask for in Christ’s name, and the fruit they bear will remain. (John 15:16, 16:23; Romans 1:13)

Jesus promised that the fruit that the Apostles would bear would remain, and it most certainly did. Did Jesus not say that the Apostles would speak with the authority of God? That they wouldn’t forget His teaching, and that that teaching would never pass away? That they had the power to forgive sin? That whatever they asked for in His name would be given to them?

If He did say these things, and if they then taught that the Magesterial authority was an office to be handed on (as I find the historical record shows) and prayed for that authority to be handed on to the Bishops that they appointed - then what am I to conclude? Am I to believe that every one of the men that were hand-picked by the apostles, all across the ancient world, fell into the exact same heresies at the same time in the exact way that Jesus promised would not happen? Am I to believe that it would be possible for the mystical Bride of Christ, the beloved and spotless Spouse of the Most High God, to fall into apostasy? Or am I to believe that she would become an invisible remnant, hidden from view for 1500 years while some grotesque harlot impersonated her in full view of the Lord God of Hosts? That she would become a glorious City in a cave, a bright Lamp under a bushel basket, the spotless Bride of Christ with a bag stuck over her head so she could not be seen?

Rubbish.