Let’s see what we can agree upon.
How about a gathering of those called out. Ekklesia.
Yes
The church does not exist independent of believers. It is not an “institution” with a separate existence.
I’d have several caveats with this. Paul said it was OK for there to be differences, even in seemingly faith-based issues such as what is appropriate to eat or drink, or what days are held holy, etc. If you simply mean, “one in doctrine” on the basics, or salvation issues, then I’d ask you to define the basics.
This is vague enough to mean just about anything.
Yes
Depends on what you mean here. It has never reached all men in all times. It took 1500 years just to reach the New World. I’d revise this to say that its purpose is to become catholic and reach all men (The Great Commission).
I’d actually add a few statements from scripture, in addition to defining the word as Sambos has done, as well as providing some prophecies regarding the church.
Ok
Ok, if you mean that if there were no people, there is no Church. I would say that you are incorrect if you are saying that there should be no heirarchy or visible church on earth.
Can’t do it. There are no minor issues or basics. If there were, no one would ever leave.
Sorry. I used terms without defining them. It would mean that there is an episcopal system in place and that you had an unbroken line to the apostles.
ok
I would not argue against that.
Ok, but what does that mean?
It depends. If you are looking for what makes us part of the church, that is one thing. If you are looking for signs that you belong to the church as founded by CHrist that is another.
Not to quibble, but I believe it’s closer to 98%.
Interesting … that’s kind of how I view the history of the Episcopal Church (USA).
Here’s a website where the Church Fathers call the Catholic Church by its official title “Catholic Church”:
You are correct. If the Church founded by Jesus goofed up and no longer exists then you must find a new one that Jesus did not found.
There’s no need. There’s around 30,000 to choose from.
And who says? What did it evolve from?
Read Scripture. Jesus founded the Church upon himself giving the Apostles the power to bind and loose which is illustrated well in the Acts of the Apostles. Nowhere does Jesus ever imply that his Church would be one descriminating and condescending institution which calls utter fabrications and actions to suit its wrongdoing leaders Oral Tradition and makes it and it’s leaders equal in authority to the Word of God. The proof is right there if you are willing to accept it.
No it didn’t, but the point here is about what exactly binding and loosing is. By the way, how are you doing? I haven’t talked with you in a while my friend.
Sorry. But you are obviously the one that needs to read Scripture a bit more closely.
No… The Roman Catholic Church was, as you say, invented by man… But which men? Actually the term was invented by the Anglican, as you should know. It was used in a derogatory remark. The actual way to identify what you are referring to as the “Roman Catholic Church” is most likely the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. The official name is not really official but it is known mostly as the Church of Christ or the Catholic Church. The word “Roman” really identifies all Catholics that are in union with the Bishop of Rome. You should already know this. I’ve gone through great lengths to learn this and have verified it over and over. As a former Catholic SIA you should already know this but maybe you’ve been gone too long. Thinking about swimming the Tiber back soon?
The bile, the anger, the hate !!! Holy Macaroni !!!