The Church

[kleary]

SolaChristo:

Strong’s Number: 1577 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
ejkklhsiva from a compound of (1537) and a derivative of (2564)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ekklesia 3:501,394
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ek-klay-see’-ah Noun Feminine
Definition

1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
2. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
3. the assembly of the Israelites
4. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
5. in a Christian sense
6. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
7. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
8. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
9. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
10. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

See now how you make the word of God void by your Protestant tradition!

Ken

 

[TAB19]

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

Believers are in unity in Christ. We are didvided when you chose to fall back into your denomination.

I find this a bit confusing. We are divided when “we” chose to fall back into “our” denomination. This suggests what? Perhaps I missed something. Luther’s disagreements spawned The Lutheran Church. Wesley’s teaching Methodism. John Smith - Mormon Calvin - Presbyterian … Who is divided?

 

[SolaChristo]

kleary:

See now how you make the word of God void by your Protestant tradition!

Ken

Maybe Im a little dense, but what is it you are refering to?

 

[SolaChristo]

TAB19:

John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

Believers are in unity in Christ. We are didvided when you chose to fall back into your denomination.

I find this a bit confusing. We are divided when “we” chose to fall back into “our” denomination. This suggests what? Perhaps I missed something. Luther’s disagreements spawned The Lutheran Church. Wesley’s teaching Methodism. John Smith - Mormon Calvin - Presbyterian … Who is divided?

There was division before the reformation.
Catholics place all the blame of the division on Protestants.
Its as if an abusive husband/father blames the wife for moving out of the house after he beats her. Then citing scripture as how God hates divorce and family breakup.

 

[Mickey]

SolaChristo:

Please show how church was looked on by 1st century believers.

St Ignatius of Antioch, (disciple of the Apostle St John), explains it this way:

**CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. **

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS

 

[SolaChristo]

Mickey:

St Ignatius of Antioch, (disciple of the Apostle St John), explains it this way:

**CHAPTER VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP. **

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS

Lets see if I got this right, the bishop is to be the husband of only one wife?

 

[Della]

SolaChristo:

Lets see if I got this right, the bishop is to be the husband of only one wife?

Nice try at a side-step (yes, I get the humor), but you asked for 1st century proof of the Catholic Church and here it is. What about it? Or do you really want to deviate into arguments about the celibate priesthood when that is not the topic being discussed?

 

[kp1]

SolaChristo:

If this the church at Rome was infallible then they would never have been apostate.

Could you please define better. You see, I agree that their were some bad things going on before the time of the reformation, but the Church (now RC) never changed her dogmas to create heresy. We Catholics only believe the Pope is infalliable when making stamtents of Faith or Morals about the church under specific guidlines. Otherwise, the pope is still a man who is susseptible to sin. Is it right to throw the baby out with the bath water? Yes some clarification was needed at the time, but not a split of church and dogma/doctrines as in the case of the solases which was a new idea that had been created right before the reformation. So this split of the other denominations was due to a change in doctrine or dogma not to “fix” or “clarify” some abuses taking place in the church. Back to babies and bath water!

Well, as Jesus promised, “not even the jaws of death will prevail against my church”. The Catholic Dogmas have remainded the same, doctrines have remained truthful to the word of God. The other denominations were not promised this protection, and their standards are frankly not as tight has the RC. Because of these two things, we see the acceptance of Birth Control and voting to accept Gay Marriage which are against God’s Laws. The Lutheran Church nearly split (again)because of the gay marriage issue, which would cause a crumbling effect with in their church, this was noted by a Lutheran Minister not by me, even though I agree.

So even though the Church (RC again) did have some issues to clarify, it never changed it’s doctrines to accomidate those abusers. And Why, because Jesus is protecting his church and making her abide by his rules. This is not the abusive controlling husband, he does let you walk away from him, but he remains faithful to his post. His rules help us become better and “eyes fixed on the finish line” as Paul writes. Just as Jesus let some of the disciples leave when he said “this is my Body, this is my blood”. He let them go because they could not accept, he did not call after them or demand them to stay. He preserved free-will to chose his way or another!

I think you are trying to throw a red herring in by grouping some bad people as the entire church. Yes some were high ranking, but it still not the entire church. So, lets put the blame in the right place

 

[Ignatius]

I was thinking that the church is the body of all believer and the CC was the first church.

In reading 1Tim 3:15 ( But if I should be delayed, you should know how to
behave in the household of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.)

What church is this verse talking about,and how do you prove it either way.
Maybe some one can help me.

The Catholic Church was the only Christian Faith at that time, so that in itself is the proof.

 

[Mickey]

SolaChristo:

Lets see if I got this right, the bishop is to be the husband of only one wife?

What does that have to do with the price of oranges?
Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests can be married. Are there any other questions of Church history I can help you with?

 

[SolaChristo]

Della:

Nice try at a side-step (yes, I get the humor), but you asked for 1st century proof of the Catholic Church and here it is. What about it? Or do you really want to deviate into arguments about the celibate priesthood when that is not the topic being discussed?

I can see there is no room for light heartness here.

There was no “Catholic Church” as we know it today in the first century, there was the Christian Chuirch. What is now the Roman Catholic Church evolved over centuries to what we have today.
The huge orgainizational structure and ecclesastical structure was not there.
Its interesting that instead of going to the scriptures to look at what the first century church looked like. Why is it that scriptures are secondary? Why not look there first?

 

[Della]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
Nice try at a side-step (yes, I get the humor), but you asked for 1st century proof of the Catholic Church and here it is. What about it? Or do you really want to deviate into arguments about the celibate priesthood when that is not the topic being discussed?

I can see there is no room for light heartness here.

I’m sorry you think so, I thought I had indicated that I did see the humor, but I also thought you were evading the 1st century quote that shows there was a definite hierarchy within the early Church.

There was no “Catholic Church” as we know it today in the first century, there was the Christian Chuirch. What is now the Roman Catholic Church evolved over centuries to what we have today.
The huge orgainizational structure and ecclesastical structure was not there.

But it was, in kernel form. There was a definite hiearchy, clearly seen in the NT. And the word catholic merely means universal–iow, everyone in the world who was a Christian was a member of the Catholic Church–the Universal Church.

Its interesting that instead of going to the scriptures to look at what the first century church looked like. Why is it that scriptures are secondary? Why not look there first?

The Scriptures are in no way “secondary,” but YOU asked for 1st century proof that the Catholic Church existed apart from the Bible, and it was provided for you. That is the issue here, not how much we are quoting or not quoting Bible verses.

 

[SolaChristo]

kp1:

Could you please define better. You see, I agree that their were some bad things going on before the time of the reformation, but the Church (now RC) never changed her dogmas to create heresy. We Catholics only believe the Pope is infalliable when making stamtents of Faith or Morals about the church under specific guidlines. Otherwise, the pope is still a man who is susseptible to sin. Is it right to throw the baby out with the bath water? Yes some clarification was needed at the time, but not a split of church and dogma/doctrines as in the case of the solases which was a new idea that had been created right before the reformation. So this split of the other denominations was due to a change in doctrine or dogma not to “fix” or “clarify” some abuses taking place in the church. Back to babies and bath water!

I think you are trying to throw a red herring in by grouping some bad people as the entire church. Yes some were high ranking, but it still not the entire church. So, lets put the blame in the right place

kp1
There has always been a remenant within the RCC which had a pure heart seeking God.
John Kennedy once said that those that discourage peacefull revolution encourage a violent one.
For folks to day after day condemn the reformation and those who participated as heretics live their lives with their heads buried. Those were some terrible times. Protestants killing Catholics and Catholics killing Protestants over doctrinal disagreements. It honestly seems like there are some on this board that would like to go back to those days.I for one dont.
If what Catholics call “fullness of faith” is something to be envied I want no part of it.
To argue that the present day or the 16th centry RCC was what Christ envisioned, I cannot buy.
I ask again for those to look at the meaning of the word church. Is that the RCC?

 

[SolaChristo]

Della:

But it was, in kernel form. There was a definite hiearchy, clearly seen in the NT. And the word catholic merely means universal–iow, everyone in the world who was a Christian was a member of the Catholic Church–the Universal Church.

Yes much of it was in kernel form. The polemic would be that it grew beyound what was intended.

The Scriptures are in no way “secondary,” but YOU asked for 1st century proof that the Catholic Church existed apart from the Bible, and it was provided for you. That is the issue here, not how much we are quoting or not quoting Bible verses.

Do a word search on baptism in the NT. Does it appear that only bishops granted baptism?
James, the Lords brother (or blood relative not trying to start), was the first bishop of Jerusalem. yet many of the apostles were, including Peter, were still living in Jerusalem.The early chuches that Paul wrote to dont remind me of the present day “Catholic” church at all. yes catholic means universal that is why many protestants still confess on Catholic, apostolic church.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Sola:

SolaChristo:

To argue that the present day or the 16th centry RCC was what Christ envisioned, I cannot buy.
I ask again for those to look at the meaning of the word church. Is that the RCC?

Okay, what we can’t buy either is 35,000+ divisions among the separated bretheren. If I’m going to err, I will err on the church that has Jesus Christ as its physical founder.

Think about it, did Christ want the massive divisions that can’t even agree if contraception is wrong…or does he want a church that stays united through thick and thin? He even asked the Father: THAT THEY MAY BE ONE.

in XT.

 

[Della]

Originally Posted by Della

But it was, in kernel form. There was a definite hiearchy, clearly seen in the NT. And the word catholic merely means universal–iow, everyone in the world who was a Christian was a member of the Catholic Church–the Universal Church.

Yes much of it was in kernel form. The polemic would be that it grew beyound what was intended.

And who is to determine that? Dissenters? No, I think not. Jesus knew what he was doing when he established his Church. We have to trust him not second guess what the Church should or shouldn’t have become. Besides, I see nothing wrong with the organizational structure of the modern Church. I certainly live within it happy and free, as do millions of other people.

Della wrote: The Scriptures are in no way “secondary,” but YOU asked for 1st century proof that the Catholic Church existed apart from the Bible, and it was provided for you. That is the issue here, not how much we are quoting or not quoting Bible verses.

Do a word search on baptism in the NT. Does it appear that only bishops granted baptism?
James, the Lords brother (or blood relative not trying to start), was the first bishop of Jerusalem. yet many of the apostles were, including Peter, were still living in Jerusalem.The early chuches that Paul wrote to dont remind me of the present day “Catholic” church at all. yes catholic means universal that is why many protestants still confess on Catholic, apostolic church.

But the Church doesn’t teach that only bishops “granted baptism.” Anyone, even a non-Christian may baptize someone in an emergency. I don’t understand how you think this is relevant to our conversation.

Peter moved to Rome and was crucified in Rome. It’s all there in the history books. You know, the Apostles did many things not recorded in the NT. Do you think the NT was meant to tell us all about the structure of the early Church or to help existing churches (parishes really) how they were to behave and what they were to believe in order to remain faithful to a Church they already belonged to?

Protestants calling themselves “universal” is an oxymoron considering they only make up 1/4 of the world’s Christians. In fact, 3/4 of the world’s Christian believe much more of what the Catholic Church believes. Most Protestant churches are too limited in numbers and in scope to claim the title “universal.” And yes, I understand how they claim to be part of the “invisible” Church, but Jesus founded a very visible one–that he prayed would remain one. Who is doing as Jesus commanded in that regard do you think?

 

[kp1]

SolaChristo:

If what Catholics call “fullness of faith” is something to be envied I want no part of it.
To argue that the present day or the 16th centry RCC was what Christ envisioned, I cannot buy. QUOTE]

Actually it is called “fullness of truth”, an unaltered revelation of the apostles as to God’s will by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you do not want to be a part of it, you have that choice. You see, the RC accepts Baptism from most of the Protestant Denominations because they believe in the Holy Trinity, considered by most to be a core belief to be Christian. The RC does not let you come to share in our Eucharist, not becuse we are being the bullying Big Bother but because you do not understand its meaning. The RC (and the EO) teaches transubstanciation, and it must be sacramentally prepare by an officially ordained priest to be valid. Most other churches see it as a symbol, but Jesus knew what he was doing at the Last Supper. He knew some people could not accept this. This is why we say teh RC is the fullness of truth because we have not altered the gospels, or doctrines to make it easier for man to accept.

Now to say this is not what Christ envisioned, I am assuming you man the RC, would be to doubt God’s all knowing ability. Of course he knew, that is why he sent the Holy Spirit to keep us in line via the Pope. He warns us of those who will come after him to alter the truth or spread lies. To say that Jesus has abandoned his Church would be to say that Marriage is not sacred, Christ has one bride! He would not abandon her for something younger, prettier, or more comfortable. He sticks by her throught the hard times (Reformation) and keeps her strong.

As arrogant as satan is, he knows he can not destroy the RC, so he will take God’s children one at a time by luring them farther from the truth, by creating distractions so we question, by giving us fear so we lose hope. Now do not assume I am saying that all of the Christian sects other than the RC are satanic, they are still Christian. However, they do not have the protection granted by God from evil and their doctrines have been changing from day one. Even Luther realised what he had startd after his break from the RCC. Someone else could help me with numbers, but within his life time he saw how quickly the doctrines were being transformed and misinterpretated causing a land slide of splits.

Spreading the word of God, the message of Christ is wonderful! Our protestant siblings have profected the evangilizing. And there are some really great non-Catholic Christians that are/will be in Heaven, even some non-Christians too. I would never assume to know God’s judgment on my brothers and sisters. But to come into the fullness of truth, you have to look at the original church started by Christ, the RCC.

 

[kp1]

bump

 

[kevb]

SolaChristo:

There was no “Catholic Church” as we know it today in the first century, there was the Christian Chuirch. What is now the Roman Catholic Church evolved over centuries to what we have today.
The huge orgainizational structure and ecclesastical structure was not there.
Its interesting that instead of going to the scriptures to look at what the first century church looked like. Why is it that scriptures are secondary? Why not look there first?

Is organization bad? This is exactly what Christ wanted to happen to that early Church…to evolve and grow so that the sacraments would be available everywhere in the world! How could it spread with no structure or organization? The Church of Christ is not some ethereal and vague concept…it was always an organization of bishops, priests, and lay people. But that is just the exterior and can easily fool people into thinking it’s somehow legalistic. This is not the case even if the behavior of those who hold offices are unholy. Christ works through them regardless of their sinfulness. The spiritual richness is beyond comprehension and remains intact!
Christianity was against the law and therefore held in houses and secret places. Once it was legalized…the faithful were allowed to hold mass in public and were even given use of the Emporer Constantine’s basilica.
Yes a reform was required in the middle ages…but not a new separate church!