P
Petergee
Guest
Excuse my lack of charity. But you have to admit my prophecy has proven to be spot on.
- Status
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Several things.
There are many churches who use the name Catholic and all of them claim apostolic succession. When I use the term I use, I am making sure that you understand you claim to be the church that kept apostolic succession and are the church Christ established etc but so do they. I am not Catholic. I do not believe that anyone church owns the name.
ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html
As far as it being offensive, I have read that on here. I also have to deal with the fact that four blocks from where I sit, the parish that has over I suspect a thousand people come to Mass on Saturday night/Sunday has that very name on their sign next to a major highway that possibly tens of thousands of people drive by every day. So, it appears it is not offensive to them but it is on this forum.
My main elder was not an offshot of an offshot as I was not as well.
I believe that there is no verse in the Bible that describes the procedures for starting a church. If there is, lets look at it. As such, why would I agree with the premise that an earthly authority calls one to do such. I believe the Great Commission is for all believers. I do not differentiate things only said to the 12 as not being applicable to the extent they can be applicable for us today.
I do not recognize that you have authority for a number of reasons. It is true that the church has a history and spread in different directions over the last 2000 years. It is also true that in order for me to believe that you have that authority I would have to believe that you follow biblical teachings and have displayed the fruits. It is by there fruits that we evaluate.
Finally, I also believe that the appointment and validity to be part of the three fold ministry is dependent upon their character.
Oh one more thing, I do not believe it was the Pope or bishops that determined that it was inspired. I do not want to detract from the thread too much but in order to accept your premise, I would have to believe that the early church had a Pope and that the distinction in the three fold ministry was in existence in the church early enough for that to be the case. Based upon Peter’s statement in 2nd Peter as well as the earliest existing documents, I cannot agree with that premise.
Okay, last thing maybe. Once again, the mail elder never had the Gospel shared by a member of the Catholic Church. I never had that occur either. How does one assert authority in a situation that they never personally were involved in? People share the Gospel and they do not bring an encyclopedia of churches or denominatons to evaluate everyone’s claim to be that first church. So lets be a little practical in that as well.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The thread is quite charitable but any stretch of the term.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
George I could give someone the authority to interpret the Bible for as well. That is not an impressive point. I am sure you spent a lot of time evaluating the Catholic Church to determine they should be able to do so. Yes, it can and has been interpreted a thousand ways; we agree.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
After I became a Christian less than ten years ago, I read it straight through as I do four times a year usually (listening on CD as well). It was not just one day. It was after a long time spent mocking, arguing, belittling, and attempting to talk people out of their beliefs in a lie. Polemics were my game. As far as hermeneutics, I think quite a few of my existing presuppositions carried forth in liteary analysis but certainly I have read considerably on that as well.
J
JRKH
Guest
No problem -
I have seen these types of questions receive responses from multiple catholics before any non-catholics are able to respond.
Just wanted us all to “lay back” a bit and give a non-catholic, “bible only” person a chance to post before the thread got too far.
Rightlydivide -
You are right. The thread has been quite charitable. And quite productive so far since I see you and Petergee working at trying to understand each other’s use of terms etc.
This is so often the problem in discusion. Trying to come to terms with terms.
I am enjoying the discussion so far.
Peace
James
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Question: Who did Jesus die for?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The whole concept of tracing their roots back keeps coming up and I am going to say something I have already said maybe a little clearer.
If I accept the linear laying on of hands to the 3rd and 4th and up to the 1000th generation of people as being absolutely essential and one of the key determiners of the “true church” then I would have to evaluate as much as possible every group (within reason) that claims this.
Does anyone disagree with that?
How would I evaluate them (rhetorical question that I will answer)?
Fruits. Doctrine. Those are the two that jump out to me.
Edit.
Once again, I believe we need to find a specific verse in the Bible that mentions starting a church and go from there. Do not scripture bomb or throw 10 verses out.
If I accept the linear laying on of hands to the 3rd and 4th and up to the 1000th generation of people as being absolutely essential and one of the key determiners of the “true church” then I would have to evaluate as much as possible every group (within reason) that claims this.
Does anyone disagree with that?
How would I evaluate them (rhetorical question that I will answer)?
Fruits. Doctrine. Those are the two that jump out to me.
Edit.
Once again, I believe we need to find a specific verse in the Bible that mentions starting a church and go from there. Do not scripture bomb or throw 10 verses out.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
no one can hijack St Augustine from the CC…
St. Augustine tells us this:
“The Church is hidden from no one for it is the Catholic Church itself which is therefore called universal in Greek because it is spread throughout the entire world. It is not allowed to anyone not to know this Church for which reason, according to the word of Jesus Christ, it is not possible that it be hidden. There are many other things which keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church – the unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here, her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests from the very seat of the Apostle Peter up to the present episcopate keeps me here and last, the very name of Catholic, which not without reason belongs to this Church alone in the face of so many heretics, so much so that although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where a Catholic Church meets, not one of the heretics would dare point out his own basilica or meeting place. The name of the Catholic Church is peculiar to the true Church.”
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html
L
lna419
Guest
I’m sorry rightly, but it seems that you forgot to answer my questions and supplemented it with blank words.
The only thing I undestood from what you replied was, you read and/or listen via CD the bible 4times a year in its entirety. You also like to argue in opposition of others just for fun. As far as hermeneutics, what you wrote makes no sense. I guess what your trying to say is that you are your own authority.
Let me ask my questions again.
Rightly, don’t forget to ask questions as your thinking of your responses. You say “they would hold the same beliefs and practices of the Bible”. How can you determine what those beliefs and practices are?
By what process do you go by to determine an explanation of the bible? Did you pick up the bible one day and decided that what you read means A,B,or C? How do you come up with your conclusions? Where do you go for your final authority of interpretation?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Every reference to the word “church” in the NT is to PEOPLE.
Thus, the church is PEOPLE.
It is one and holy and catholic, and it is the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers - all of whom are people.
.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Yes, I dropped some adjectives and adverbs along the way.
I really do not think that there are many hermeneutical principles that a Catholic and someone else would differ. There is a possibility that some allegorical interpretations are more common with Catholics but I do not want to overgeneralize.
The general principles are that we should look at context, history, and the grammar in determing meaning.
Along those lines, I believe in the innerancy of scripture, a literal reading when possible and that my final authority for scripture is the application of previous texts and principles by the scriptures themselves.
In reality, I do the same thing a lot of people who chose Catholicism did…so it would seem when they made their decisions.
J
JRKH
Guest
And so when Christ in Matthew 18: 15-18 says this:
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
What is he meaning by "The Church?
I agree that the term “Church”, or Ecclesia in Greek means a group or assembly, or “people” as you say, but if this is what Jesus meant here, so then “Taking it to the Church” would be completed in step two where “Two or three witnesses” are called upon and no third step would be required. But Christ did establish a third step, telling His disciples to submit such obstinate disputes to “The Church’ for resolution and that they must accept The Church’s judgment as final.
Furthermore we can recognize in Acts 15 an example of The Church coming together to determine an issue in an authoritative manner that effected, not just the congregations in Antioch and Jerusalem, but all of the congregations universally.
So - While the term Church does indeed mean a group fo people, it does not preclude that group having heirarchy, leaders, and authority excersized through those leaders. In fact such power as Christ gave in Mt 18 as well as in Mt 16 to “bind and Loose” can only be properly and consistantly excersized through an organized, visible and authoritative “Church”.
Peace
James
M
Madaglan
Guest
The Church is both visible and invisible.
P
Petergee
Guest
St Augustine and many other ancient Fathers of the Church strongly disagree.
The site you linked
ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html
also has many denominations with “Anglican” in their names. So do you, on the same logical basis, refuse to speak of “the Anglican church” as it describes itself but call it something like “the Canterburyan Anglican church”?
You are correct that some Catholics in the US have adopted the pejorative term as a result of their underdog status in an historically overwhelming protestant power establishment, or in an attempt to “claim” theinsulting term and render it into something positive. But the term is completely unknown in non-English speaking countries, and they manage quite well to differentiate the Catholic Church from protestant sects which have appropriated the word “Catholic” as part of their name for themselves.
Only pretty much the whole of the New Testament! But you apparently mean, correctly, there is no verse in the Bible that describes the procedures for starting a new church other than the one our Saviour started. So why did you and your mates start one?OK, your manner of speaking is a bit confusing so let’s see if I can summarise what you’re saying in simple statements, and tell me if I’ve got anything wrong before we proceed.
You assert that:
*1. The Church our Saviour founded has alwatys been visible, and there is nothing in Holy Scripture suggesting an invisible church, rather the contrary. (Agreed).
2. Your church is visible and was founded by your “main elder”, apparently a man now living and in charge of your church.
3. Your main elder decides ( no doubt after consultation with you and other members) what will be the doctrines and religious and moral practices required of members of your church, based on his interpretation of the Bible.
4. Neither the Bible, doctrines, moral rules or practices of your church came to it either directly or indirectly from the Catholic Church.
5. Authority over our Saviour’s church is not passed down from man to man through the ages.
6. Our Saviour did not intend His followers to consitute a single visible Church, nor that all His followers believe the same doctrines and come under the same earthly ecclesial authority.
7.The Bible gives authority to any person whatsoever at any time and place to invent his own church, though it does not tell him how he is to do it.
8. Your church teaches the truths taught by our Saviour and its practices are in accordance with His wishes for His followers.
9. All of the other 30,000+ denominations and churches whose doctrines and practices differ in one or more respects from those of your church, are mistaken and need to study the Bible more to see that you are right and they are wrong (or perhaps their churches/denominations were set up by the Devil to lead Christians astray?).
10. Your main elder/founder/leader and his followers had not been members of any other church or denomination before founding/joining your denomination.
Is that a fair summation?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I used the term to differentiate the particular groups. I even said why I used it. There is no refusal here. The vast majority of times I use the term the Catholic Church. However, it is important for people to understand many groups use the word.
okay.
No. What are the procedures for the house churches started in Romans for example. Do you know?
OK, your manner of speaking is a bit confusing so let’s see if I can summarise what you’re saying in simple statements, and tell me if I’ve got anything wrong before we proceed.
He is not in charge of the church. He would be viewed as influential because of the merit of his character, knowledge, and other things. He is most certainly not in charge. It is elder(s) rule plural with some components like education, business, evangelism, discipleship and other areas assigned to different people because they are paid staff in that area. However, the councils lend an element of congregational polity to each of these areas.
Absolutely not.
The Bible came through many groups including the Way, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Anglican Church, and other groups in terms of transmission, copying and so forth.
Correct.
No. I have no doubt that He desires for all of His followers to have the correct doctrine and polity. But they were never doctrinally united. If that was the case, the Apostle John would not have mentioned the churches (valid churches to be sure) that had incorrect doctrines while he was still alive.
Invent a church indicates a negative connotation. You would agree? I do believe the Great Commission is applicable to all Christians. I do believe that we are the church and as such when we come together we constitute the church. Yes, that is absolutely what happened.
Lord have mercy. I hope so.
I have not studied the 30,000 plus other groups or the thousands of other groups claming apostolic succession. But essentially yes. Every group, including Catholics who convert for example, study the Bible, history, and other things to make their conclusion that the church they go to follows the Bible. Or perhaps follows the Bible, tradition, and some other element of authority. Anyone who seriously believes that their group is following one or more of these things comes to the same conclusion. Absolutely. The big difference is that my group does not attempt to claim otherwise but on the other hand we are not going to claim these other groups are simply…ecclesial communities for example.
Correct. And no Catholic person, lay or ordained, shared the Gospel or made a claim that their church was the church started by Christ. If there is a rejection of authority based upon attempting to evangelize him or me, the only three groups that ever attempted to do so are LDS, Jehovah Witness (both of us at different times) and Independent Baptists (him, not me).
Those are the only three groups that ever personally shared the Gospel or attempted to convert us. So if one has to assert authority in order for it to be rejected, then those three groups could I suppose.
- Status