The historicity of the Church

[benhur]

No. I think we can work it out.

Also I am not ignoring you, in fact I think I have responded to all of your posts.

Wow. Seems like they are really on you frustratingly but I agree with your explanations.

 

[benhur]

**
When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?**

The church that Christ founded has not disappeared. Now what is the Church? Is it the same as the Body of Christ ? is it the same as the Bride ? Are you thinking strictly of the operational structure as apart from “membership” ? Seems to me most would say “membership” crosses denominational lines (even according to CC). It also seems all have some visible “structure”’. Structure has also evolved so that resemblance to the first church is varied across denominational lines, and some bare more resemblance than others. So much so that we are all in the same evolving boat and the claims to superiority of one passenger over the other are problematic yet discernable.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The church that Christ founded has not disappeared. Now what is the Church? Is it the same as the Body of Christ ? is it the same as the Bride ? Are you thinking strictly of the operational structure as apart from “membership” ? Seems to me most would say “membership” crosses denominational lines (even according to CC). It also seems all have some visible “structure”’. Structure has also evolved so that resemblance to the first church is varied across denominational lines, and some bare more resemblance than others. So much so that we are all in the same evolving boat and the claims to superiority of one passenger over the other are problematic.

Good questions.

Now, when you say “the Church that Christ founded has not disappeared”. Do you then understand that the Church has been continuously present through the centuries?

Also, I’d like to know if you believe in a spiritual Church and a physical Church?

When I talk about the Church, I am thinking about Her in these lines from Dominus Iesus:

*17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67*

Please read the rest of the document, it is long but worth the read.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Rock on Jose! Great posts!

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

Continued from Post #119

Those are just some examples of heresies that the Catholic Church fought. You won’t find them in Scriptures. That was my Church fighting those heretics.

Do you deny that the Church Jesus founded fought these heresies?

Do you think the Church died with the death of the last Apostle?

You still have not addressed the main question from the OP:

Keeping in mind:

[bibledrb]Matthew 28:20[/bibledrb]

Matthew 16:17 “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,but my Father which is in heaven”
(18). “and upon this rock will I build my church ;and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (KJV)

To your own quote ; also found in Matthew,I would like to add the above .

No doubt we differ in our opinion of what " rock" Jesus is referring to; but I think we both will agree that it is Jesus who is here ,( and to the very end ,as seen in Matthew 28:20) through the Fathers revelation of " the Christ the Son of the living God"( Matt16:16) to do the building,himself being chief cornerstone.

As you point out Jose ,many more antichrists did arise ,but in essence they are all a denial of that truth " once delivered" to the saints in the beginning.
1John 2:22 " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ?He is antichrist,that denieth the Father and the Son"

Since the gates of hell never have and never will ( till the last) relinquish its hold,there no doubt has been many a battle royal,against that truth ,( or Gospel) Jesus was to use in cementing and causing to be "the whole building " " fitly framed together "(Eph2:21).

In my opinion however ,what is seen especially in the ministry of the apostle to the Gentiles, and in particular the bewitching of the believers at Galatia ,was a complete fall in that original building,and with the trying to bring the believer back under the Law ,in some form or another ,is identifiable in every other departure from the good news and free gift of the Spirit: through “the hearing of Faith”(Gal3::2) .

In no way do I think ,upon the close of scripture ,that the " church " died ,for your verse also shows Jesus present ( in his people) to the very end; " and they that are alive “at the time of his coming " will be caught up together” “and so shall we ever be with the Lord”

Again it is my opinion that every defeat that the “gates of hell” hath suffered ,in history and to that last day, was through the sword of the Spirit: the Word of God.

 

[benhur]

Good questions.
Now, when you say “the Church that Christ founded has not disappeared”. Do you then understand that the Church has been continuously present through the centuries?

Yes, that is what is understood.

Also, I’d like to know if you believe in a spiritual Church and a physical Church?

Not sure what you mean by a spiritual church ? Can you dichotomize spirit from body besides in death ? I would think the church has a type of spirit, as she so does (e.g.- is she generous, loving ,evangelical, what gifts of the spirit does she show etc). God is a spirit and so is His kingdom, only embodied in flesh thru the Incarnation and us, when we are born of His spirit and move accordingly. Satan is the prince of this earth for now and has his kingdoms here, which must be both spiritual and physical (visible). We are His kingdom here on earth,(proclaiming against Satan’s rule),again which must also be spiritual and physical.

Please read the rest of the document, it is long but worth the read.

Thank you. See it as one denomination in boat saying they are better than others, which may be, due to beginnings, foundation or longevity or present day correctness. All can be critiqued in much the same fashion as the holder of the churches did in Revelations and the seven churches. Again, problematic yet discernable.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not sure what you mean by a spiritual church ? Can you dichotomize spirit from body besides in death ? I would think the church has a type of spirit, as she so does (e.g.- is she generous, loving ,evangelical, what gifts of the spirit does she show etc). God is a spirit and so is His kingdom, only embodied in flesh thru the Incarnation and us, when we are born of His spirit and move accordingly. Satan is the prince of this earth for now and has his kingdoms here, which must be both spiritual and physical (visible). We are His kingdom here on earth,(proclaiming against Satan’s rule),again which must also be spiritual and physical.

Well, some protestants I’ve talked to believe in the invisible (spiritual) Church only. They don’t think that there is one physical Church present on earth because no Church can claim to be the one and/or it’s impossible to determine which one. Kind of like an agnostic Christian… if there is such a thing.

Thank you. See it as one denomination in boat saying they are better than others, which may be, due to beginnings, foundation or longevity or present day correctness. All can be critiqued in much the same fashion as the holder of the churches did in Revelations and the seven churches. Again, problematic yet discernable.

You are welcome!

It’s only problematic if one fails to look at the totality of the history of the Christian Church. But I am glad to see that you believe it is something that can be discerned.

It’s not only beginning, foundation, longevity or present day correctness. It has to do with the facts that Christ came, lived, died, resurrected, and before He ascended He left a Church. And that this Church has been present since that time defending the Faith. The Church can be historically traced without interruption - the good and the bad.

I’ll concede that some people in the Church and outside the Church have done everything humanly possible to destroy the Church. But it doesn’t make it to not be the Church.

I understand and respect the difficulties one can have by trying to discern a path, more so when we, the Historical Church, are sadly divided. I have been there myself. But one of the most important parts of my reversion was to closely study the historicity of the Church. And it is something that was grossly taken for granted in most of the denominations I globe-trotted during my Protestant years.

As you may have been able to see on these very forums, there are several Non-Catholics (Protestants and other religions - not to include our Orthodox brothers in the same manner because that is a thread on its own) that are under the belief that the Church is not the same or that it stopped to exist or that it was absent for a period of time. The whole purpose of this thread was to take it step by step and debunk this misconception. That’s why I don’t want to get into the rabbit trails this thread might create that deal with theological subjects. As such dealing with the facts straight on.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Rock on Jose! Great posts!

Gracias! And you as well, brother!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Matthew 16:17 “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,but my Father which is in heaven”
(18). “and upon this rock will I build my church ;and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (KJV)

To your own quote ; also found in Matthew,I would like to add the above .

No doubt we differ in our opinion of what " rock" Jesus is referring to; but I think we both will agree that it is Jesus who is here ,( and to the very end ,as seen in Matthew 28:20) through the Fathers revelation of " the Christ the Son of the living God"( Matt16:16) to do the building,himself being chief cornerstone.

As you point out Jose ,many more antichrists did arise ,but in essence they are all a denial of that truth " once delivered" to the saints in the beginning.
1John 2:22 " Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ ?He is antichrist,that denieth the Father and the Son"

Since the gates of hell never have and never will ( till the last) relinquish its hold,there no doubt has been many a battle royal,against that truth ,( or Gospel) Jesus was to use in cementing and causing to be "the whole building " " fitly framed together "(Eph2:21).

In my opinion however ,what is seen especially in the ministry of the apostle to the Gentiles, and in particular the bewitching of the believers at Galatia ,was a complete fall in that original building,and with the trying to bring the believer back under the Law ,in some form or another ,is identifiable in every other departure from the good news and free gift of the Spirit: through “the hearing of Faith”(Gal3::2) .

In no way do I think ,upon the close of scripture ,that the " church " died ,for your verse also shows Jesus present ( in his people) to the very end; " and they that are alive “at the time of his coming " will be caught up together” “and so shall we ever be with the Lord”

Again it is my opinion that every defeat that the “gates of hell” hath suffered ,in history and to that last day, was through the sword of the Spirit: the Word of God.

Bernard, brother, we know the Bible, my friend. It is in fact our Liturgical Book. We venerate the Scriptures. The whole Mass is Scriptural and we read and sing from them everyday, not just on Sundays.

I love the armor of God as well! Do you know where the armor is worn? On the body!

[bibledrb]Ephesians 4:4-6[/bibledrb]

So… I take it you have found no evidence against the historicity of the Church?

 

[benhur]

that are under the belief that the Church is not the same or that it stopped to exist or that it was absent for a period of time.

Those are three distinct scenarios. I have certainly alluded that as as her structure (perhaps even some practice and dogma) she has evolved. Don’t see why the CC is exempt from doing what even other denominations have done (evolve, make changes), even with a shorter histories. I would also add that there are scenarios where a denomination can cease to exist as a “christian sect”, even as Jesus warns in Revelations of losing its particular lampstand. That is not to say that fruits or salvation can not come to some of her adherents ( much in line with Dominus lesis).

 

[adrift]

People knew them as this and that; but it seems as if the earliest Christians considered themselves, “Christian.” However, they also considered their Church One and Universal; I don’t think this has changed, as we are still in the same Universal Church, going by the strict meaning of the word.

First was at Antioch: Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Paul on trial Acts 26:28And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”29And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”

And Peter in his letter 1 Peter 4:6"Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

So the Disciples were “Christians” first, likewise Paul and Peter proves this as well. Interestingly enough, the Acts says they were “called Christians.”

Tacitus 116ish

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

We were labeled as Christians by the Apostles and Disciples, and were called so by others.

Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22 They identified themselves first as the Way latter as Christians which stuck.

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture is always the final authority.

Chapter and verse please.

 

[Nicea325]

All Christian churches agree on the NT canon, except the Catholic Church included Laodiceans in the canon for the NT in some editions of the Vulgate, it was finally removed to bring the Catholic Church into agreement with the rest of the Christian churches.

But I am referring to the now. Is their a church with 28,30, or 35 NT canon?

Your history is off. It IS the Catholic/Orthodox Churches codified the canon, not the “rest” of the churches. You act as though the CC had no part.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
No. I am simply doing what Gregory of Nyssa advised, making scripture the rule and norm of every doctrine.

False and historically incorrect. Tell me something?

If scripture was and is the rule and norm of every doctrine, tell me what NT scripture did Peter use to defend the Hypostatic Union in the year 35 AD?

Evidently scripture is the rule and norm or absolute criteria to define and support a doctrine.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Those are three distinct scenarios.

Indeed! All of them approachable with history. Although I’ll admit that “the same” should probably be approached fully on a thread on its own .

I have certainly alluded that as as her structure (perhaps even some practice and dogma) she has evolved. Don’t see why the CC is exempt from doing what even other denominations have done (evolve, make changes), even with a shorter histories. I would also add that there are scenarios where a denomination can cease to exist as a “christian sect”, even as Jesus warns in Revelations of losing its particular lampstand. That is not to say that fruits or salvation can not come to some of her adherents ( much in line with Dominus lesis).

Well, it has developed certainly. But, I mean, we have to be conscious that the deposit of Faith was given to the Apostles and their disciples and has been carried onward since. And another 2,000 years may pass and we still have not been able to fully understand and interpret half of that deposit!

While Dominus Iesus honorably treats the salvific mystery of Christ, it does send an invitation to unity and to the fullness of faith found in the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by House Harkonnen
James and all the apostles at the council used scripture to norm their doctrine. They were using Sola Scriptura.

Really? Tell me specifically which books were contained in the Bible they used at the council? 66 books? 73? 78? 85? 100?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Really? Tell me specifically which books were contained in the Bible they used at the council? 66 books? 73? 78? 85? 100?

They used the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically the book of Amos, IIRC.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

False and historically incorrect. Tell me something?

If scripture was and is the rule and norm of every doctrine, tell me what NT scripture did Peter use to defend the Hypostatic Union in the year 35 AD?

Evidently scripture is the rule and norm or absolute criteria to define and support a doctrine.

I don’t know what scripture he used because your asking about a made up event.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Double post.

 

[Nicea325]

They used the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically the book of Amos, IIRC.

Which ones? Please provide the codified/canonized books at the time? If SS was used, tell me which NT books were included?